Premier League

[arbitro]

1 hour ago, alex l said:

Anyone remember Bucko's pathetic red card for bouncing the ball off the opposition player? No VAR intervention and he wasn't booked, wonder if there'll be a retrospective red? Probably not. 

 

https://x.com/ManCity/status/1837965092102852659

I thought exactly the same. Buckley was sent off for violent conduct which is categorised in law but Haaland threw the ball at Gabriel with a lot more force. If there is any consistency there should be a retrospective charge and a three match ban. Do I think there will be - no chance.

[NeilInBristol]

2 hours ago, arbitro said:

I thought exactly the same. Buckley was sent off for violent conduct which is categorised in law but Haaland threw the ball at Gabriel with a lot more force. If there is any consistency there should be a retrospective charge and a three match ban. Do I think there will be - no chance.

I wish they would retrospective review these decisions. Such inconsistency

[chaddyrovers]

Everton takeover done

 

 

 

 

[alex l]

Let's appeal Bucko's red card now, highlighting the inconsistency. Wasn't that Boro game the season we finished 7th on goal difference? Christ if that red card cost us a point/2 more....!

[GHR]

With their takeover, I fear Everton may now see a light at the end of the tunnel. Which is a damn shame, as their plight has been fucking hilarious.

Next 'big' team horribly elongated death spiral please.

[chaddyrovers]

Any fans with knowledge of Italian how have Friedkin group ran Roma since buying it? 

I only know Mourinho and De Rossi have been managing there

[simongarnerisgod]

33 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

Any fans with knowledge of Italian how have Friedkin group ran Roma since buying it? 

I only know Mourinho and De Rossi have been managing there

roma legend de rossi sacked last week and roma fans boycotted standing in the home end in last nights game against udinese,after a great season last year,key players have departed without replacements being bought

sounds like friedkin group want instant success without any knowledge about how to build a side,de rossi was absolute royalty to roma fans

[riverholmes]

On 22/09/2024 at 18:57, chaddyrovers said:

Very enjoyable game.

Raya had a great game. 

City deserved a point. Rodri changed the game for me

I made myself listen to Gary Neville review the City v Arsenal game with Jamie Carragher. Two notable points - they did not mention the Rodri injury (as far as I noticed) and left the red card incident until the end of the review - almost as an afterthought. They both agreed it was a red with only Neville raising some doubts about the apparent new and harsh approach.

To hear Carragher and Neville, and SkySports generally, to be hesitant to even address such a key refereeing issue does not surprise me. Carragher was adamant it was a red and had no sympathy for Trossard which is bizarre to hear considering the player Carragher was.

The two did a feature, last year, with the PGMOL (Professional Game Match Officials Limited) where they were invited by Howard Webb to have a go at VAR training. Whilst mutual understanding and insight is helpful, there is a clear risk that lobbying and schmoozing will result in media capture and threaten independence of thought. I think the signs are there and with tech corporations allying with the referees, their influence will only grow.

The Rodri one is more speculative (and I was sometimes half-listening, so maybe, they mentioned the injury and I missed it). It could just be poor analysis from the two to overlook a key moment in the match. Or, a fear from Sky and the pundits, whose personal interests rely on the mass production of football, to touch on the debate over excessive demands placed on players. Not sure which.

Edited Monday at 19:50 by riverholmes

[chaddyrovers]

2 hours ago, riverholmes said:

I made myself listen to Gary Neville review the City v Arsenal game with Jamie Carragher. Two notable points - they did not mention the Rodri injury (as far as I noticed) and left the red card incident until the end of the review - almost as an afterthought. They both agreed it was a red with only Neville raising some doubts about the apparent new and harsh approach.

To hear Carragher and Neville, and SkySports generally, to be hesitant to even address such a key refereeing issue does not surprise me. Carragher was adamant it was a red and had no sympathy for Trossard which is bizarre to hear considering the player Carragher was.

It was red card according to the rules 

2 hours ago, riverholmes said:

The two did a feature, last year, with the PGMOL (Professional Game Match Officials Limited) where they were invited by Howard Webb to have a go at VAR training. Whilst mutual understanding and insight is helpful, there is a clear risk that lobbying and schmoozing will result in media capture and threaten independence of thought. I think the signs are there and with tech corporations allying with the referees, their influence will only grow.

I think it was very good feature 

2 hours ago, riverholmes said:

The Rodri one is more speculative (and I was sometimes half-listening, so maybe, they mentioned the injury and I missed it). It could just be poor analysis from the two to overlook a key moment in the match. Or, a fear from Sky and the pundits, whose personal interests rely on the mass production of football, to touch on the debate over excessive demands placed on players. Not sure which.

It was my opinion on Rodri's injury changed the game. No idea what was discussed post game as I didn't watch it for once. 

[RoverDom]

The players complaining about playing too many games need to direct their anger at their managers rather than the calendar. 

Premier league clubs can easily field two starting 11s so there's no reason that a player has to play 50+ games a season. 

The only time I can see a justification is when they do pointless internationals after the end of the season. 

[wilsdenrover]

I thought here was a good a place as any to put this.

https://www.datocms-assets.com/43623/1711111364-ifab_goalkeeper-holding-the-ball-too-long_trial-information_en.pdf

Wouldn’t it just be simpler to instruct refs to enforce the current rule??

Regarding the part about giving the other team too much of an advantage - if only there was a simple way to avoid this!

 

Edited Tuesday at 13:52 by wilsdenrover

[rigger]

1 hour ago, wilsdenrover said:

I thought here was a good a place as any to put this.

https://www.datocms-assets.com/43623/1711111364-ifab_goalkeeper-holding-the-ball-too-long_trial-information_en.pdf

Wouldn’t it just be simpler to instruct refs to enforce the current rule??

Regarding the part about giving the other team too much of an advantage - if only there was a simple way to avoid this!

 

When you see the performances of some refs, I wonder if they can count to eight

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

Southgate is hanging back for the Man U job apparently. I hope he doesn’t have to wait too long. 

Edited yesterday at 08:47 by Tyrone Shoelaces

[riverholmes]

23 hours ago, wilsdenrover said:

I thought here was a good a place as any to put this.

https://www.datocms-assets.com/43623/1711111364-ifab_goalkeeper-holding-the-ball-too-long_trial-information_en.pdf

Wouldn’t it just be simpler to instruct refs to enforce the current rule??

Regarding the part about giving the other team too much of an advantage - if only there was a simple way to avoid this!

 

Again, the 6 second rule for goalkeepers is not one, as far as I know, that is a huge issue in football. I haven't heard much about it and yet, the technocrats want to solve the problem of goalies holding the ball for too long and referees not wanting to enforce it because apparently, short-range indirect free kicks are messy and also too harsh (from a quick read of the summary). Apparently, "(t)his behaviour often also leads to frustration for spectators."

This new corner or throw-in alternate penalty for goalies is only a trial in PL2, it seems, and might go nowhere but I think it's further sign that the technocrats' seek to mess around with the rules of the game to serve their own personal interests, distracting, perhaps, from the real problems in the game.
 

On 24/09/2024 at 09:20, RoverDom said:

The players complaining about playing too many games need to direct their anger at their managers rather than the calendar. 

Premier league clubs can easily field two starting 11s so there's no reason that a player has to play 50+ games a season. 

The only time I can see a justification is when they do pointless internationals after the end of the season. 

This debate about excessive games and demands on players will be used by the oligarchs of the game as an excuse to dispense with the domestic game and expand the most lucrative tournaments - Champions' League, off-season tournaments in the US and, perhaps, the World Club Championship.

We are already seeing changes/reductions to the League Cup this season with the Champions' League & Europa League clubs seeded to avoid facing each other early on and no extra time in games, I believe, until the semi-finals. The devaluing and diminishing will only continue and affect the FA Cup and, perhaps, league games too. Meanwhile, the Champions' League expands.

The players, clubs and fans have to act together to decide what the future football calendar will look like, which competitions to safeguard, otherwise the oligarchs - the super-rich multi-owners - will write out the rest of the pyramid even further. 

 

Edited yesterday at 13:25 by riverholmes

[arbitro]

23 hours ago, wilsdenrover said:

I thought here was a good a place as any to put this.

https://www.datocms-assets.com/43623/1711111364-ifab_goalkeeper-holding-the-ball-too-long_trial-information_en.pdf

Wouldn’t it just be simpler to instruct refs to enforce the current rule??

Regarding the part about giving the other team too much of an advantage - if only there was a simple way to avoid this!

 

I saw an under 21's match against Palace this season and noticed the referee with his fingers in the air and wondered what it was about. I knew the Delegate on the match and at half time I asked him what it was about and he explained although he didn't mention the option of a throw in or corner. I actually said to him (and he agreed) that this is already covered in Law but hasn't been rigidly enforced and as with most things in football it is only addressed when it goes to extremes. I can't see this trial become enshrined in Law.

[wilsdenrover]

3 hours ago, arbitro said:

I saw an under 21's match against Palace this season and noticed the referee with his fingers in the air and wondered what it was about. I knew the Delegate on the match and at half time I asked him what it was about and he explained although he didn't mention the option of a throw in or corner. I actually said to him (and he agreed) that this is already covered in Law but hasn't been rigidly enforced and as with most things in football it is only addressed when it goes to extremes. I can't see this trial become enshrined in Law.

I hope it doesn’t, the idea that an infringement of  a law would result in a throw in or corner seems ridiculous to me. 
 

[simongarnerisgod]

3 hours ago, riverholmes said:

Again, the 6 second rule for goalkeepers is not one, as far as I know, that is a huge issue in football. I haven't heard much about it and yet, the technocrats want to solve the problem of goalies holding the ball for too long and referees not wanting to enforce it because apparently, short-range indirect free kicks are messy and also too harsh (from a quick read of the summary). Apparently, "(t)his behaviour often also leads to frustration for spectators."

This new corner or throw-in alternate penalty for goalies is only a trial in PL2, it seems, and might go nowhere but I think it's further sign that the technocrats' seek to mess around with the rules of the game to serve their own personal interests, distracting, perhaps, from the real problems in the game.
 

This debate about excessive games and demands on players will be used by the oligarchs of the game as an excuse to dispense with the domestic game and expand the most lucrative tournaments - Champions' League, off-season tournaments in the US and, perhaps, the World Club Championship.

We are already seeing changes/reductions to the League Cup this season with the Champions' League & Europa League clubs seeded to avoid facing each other early on and no extra time in games, I believe, until the semi-finals. The devaluing and diminishing will only continue and affect the FA Cup and, perhaps, league games too. Meanwhile, the Champions' League expands.

The players, clubs and fans have to act together to decide what the future football calendar will look like, which competitions to safeguard, otherwise the oligarchs - the super-rich multi-owners - will write out the rest of the pyramid even further. 

 

i can see the future  when the premier league gets ringfenced and the top division of english football ends up like rugby league and union,utterly pointless competitions because there is no competition,only games worth watching are the heineken cup (or whatever it`s called now)

you end up with a insanely top heavy system where the money goes to the top division and the rest of the clubs either go out of business or part time,the end product results in meaningless games which mean nothing because only the top 3/4 sides can win the title and the rest ar`nt threatend with relegation,with the advent of more american owners,in the next 5 years it will happen

if anyone watches rugby league or union,you will know most of it is pointless,even the once great challenge has been rendered unimportant

[arbitro]

53 minutes ago, wilsdenrover said:

I hope it doesn’t, the idea that an infringement of  a law would result in a throw in or corner seems ridiculous to me. 
 

Agreed. The 'logic' behind this says that an IDFK in the penalty area is too severe a punishment so they settled on a corner or throw in. It's typical of some of these trials whereby they haven't been thought through. That said I was involved in the trial where dissent was punished by moving the ball ten yards further up field like they do in Rugby Union. I invoked it a few times and my feedback to the EFL was that it was more of a deterrent that a caution. They didn't take it any further!

[wilsdenrover]

1 hour ago, arbitro said:

Agreed. The 'logic' behind this says that an IDFK in the penalty area is too severe a punishment so they settled on a corner or throw in. It's typical of some of these trials whereby they haven't been thought through. That said I was involved in the trial where dissent was punished by moving the ball ten yards further up field like they do in Rugby Union. I invoked it a few times and my feedback to the EFL was that it was more of a deterrent that a caution. They didn't take it any further!

I just don’t understand the ‘too severe’ argument - if you don’t want the punishment don’t commit the offence.

[Upside Down]

2 hours ago, arbitro said:

Agreed. The 'logic' behind this says that an IDFK in the penalty area is too severe a punishment so they settled on a corner or throw in. It's typical of some of these trials whereby they haven't been thought through. That said I was involved in the trial where dissent was punished by moving the ball ten yards further up field like they do in Rugby Union. I invoked it a few times and my feedback to the EFL was that it was more of a deterrent that a caution. They didn't take it any further!

They don't do anything about these issues, especially diving or dissent, because the big wealthy clubs are the ones most guilty of it.

If diving was given a straight red and a five game ban it would be gone from the game within two weeks. If screaming in the official's faces was a straight red it would be gone by the end of the weekend.

They aren't going to start dishing out these punishments to the likes of city or united or Liverpool though, they haven't got the bollocks. They'd much rather sit back and let the game fall into even further disrepute all so they can line their own pockets.

All aboard the moneygoround!

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

2 hours ago, arbitro said:

Agreed. The 'logic' behind this says that an IDFK in the penalty area is too severe a punishment so they settled on a corner or throw in. It's typical of some of these trials whereby they haven't been thought through. That said I was involved in the trial where dissent was punished by moving the ball ten yards further up field like they do in Rugby Union. I invoked it a few times and my feedback to the EFL was that it was more of a deterrent that a caution. They didn't take it any further!

The latest wheeze in the lower tier of rugby league is that the winner of the really convoluted divisional playoff system gets to play the third bottom team of the division above in an away game for the right to be promoted. Not home and away, or a neutral ground, but one away game. The two bottom teams of the division above have been relegated automatically in a re-organising move.

I can see that sort of thing coming into football one day.

 

[GHR]

15 hours ago, Tyrone Shoelaces said:

The latest wheeze in the lower tier of rugby league is that the winner of the really convoluted divisional playoff system gets to play the third bottom team of the division above in an away game for the right to be promoted. Not home and away, or a neutral ground, but one away game. The two bottom teams of the division above have been relegated automatically in a re-organising move.

I can see that sort of thing coming into football one day.

 

Ah, the League 1 play off... where you can lose a game and still go up!

[chaddyrovers]

 

Vote delay suggests Man City legal victory over Premier League (thetimes.com)