Jump to content

Football. Sweden then (probably) France, a Waterloo double?


Recommended Posts

Well that was shit.


Playing Eriksen, but really a combination of Eriksen, Bruno, and McTominay, as the false 9 really didn't work. We just clearly hadn't trained enough for the idea of a rotating cast up front like that, the players on the ball had no idea what their options would be.


Also making Fred the player who came off for Ronaldo was baffling. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Iskaral Pust said:

VAR also ignored a clear foul on Henderson that created the turnover for Fulham’s first goal yesterday.  It still has the problem that it tries to avoid making the ref look bad, instead of being embraced as a positive tool because no referee can expect to see everything perfectly.

Yeah, I disagree on that one actually. The Fulham player does stand on Henderson but I thought it was incidental contact rather than a deliberate foul.

2 minutes ago, Iskaral Pust said:

  Rugby does VAR much better.

I don't think it's perfect in rugby, they do tend to overuse it a bit, but I like that the process they're going through is clearly laid out for the viewer so you can understand why they're coming to the decision they do. I don't know why they hide it away in football, it just makes it more irritating when they come to a bizarre decision and I can't think of another sport which does that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In more depressing (or amusing) news, United's grand plan for a forward is 33 year old Arnautovic.

Can the season end already?

 

Nothing has changed at this fucking club. As much as I'd like to be proven wrong, all signs point to us just replacing one set of clowns with another. We are still chasing De Jong who doesn't want to come here while starting two donkeys in midfield who aren't good enough to start for more than half the teams in the league.

 

Edited by Consigliere
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

In not so surprising news. Haaland scored his first EPL goals, today. 

My Norwegian brother swearing in his post match interview was pretty funny. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Consigliere said:

In more depressing (or amusing) news, United's grand plan for a forward is 33 year old Arnautovic.

Can the season end already?

 

Nothing has changed at this fucking club. As much as I'd like to be proven wrong, all signs point to us just replacing one set of clowns with another. We are still chasing De Jong who doesn't want to come here while starting two donkeys in midfield who aren't good enough to start for more than half the teams in the league.

 

Not before you agreed to cover the 20m of de Jong's deterred wages out of sheer desperation.

As for Arnie. Well, the market is not exactly flooded with good CF right now. But, surely, you can do better...

Edited by A Horse Named Stranger
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, ljkeane said:

Yeah, I disagree on that one actually. The Fulham player does stand on Henderson but I thought it was incidental contact rather than a deliberate foul.

It doesn't have to be deliberate to be a foul, you know? That's why not every foul is a yellow or a red card.

16 hours ago, Consigliere said:

In more depressing (or amusing) news, United's grand plan for a forward is 33 year old Arnautovic.

It seems to me that Ten Hag still can't wrap his head around money not being as much of an issue as it was in Ajax. Either that, or he severely lacks imagination.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, baxus said:

It doesn't have to be deliberate to be a foul, you know? That's why not every foul is a yellow or a red card.

It pretty much does have to be deliberate. The player might not mean the consequence of a challenge so they can be yellow or red carded for being reckless but it has to be a deliberate challenge. Accidentally standing on someone isn't a foul.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, ljkeane said:

It pretty much does have to be deliberate. 

It definitely doesn't.

If a defender trips over his own feet, falls over in the box, and inadvertently wipes out a striker who is just about to take a shot, what happens next?

 

Edited by Spockydog
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Spockydog said:

It definitely doesn't.

If a defender trips over his own feet, falls over in the box, and inadvertently wipes out a striker who is just about to take a shot, what happens next?

 

Depends whether the ref thinks he's deliberately made a challenge or not. If he thinks he's genuinely just fallen over it should be play on.

ETA: Feel free to point to where in the rules it says otherwise if you think that's the case.

Edited by ljkeane
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, ljkeane said:

ETA: Feel free to point to where in the rules it says otherwise if you think that's the case.

They are laws, not rules. But okay then.

This is from the FA's own website.

A free kick is awarded if a player trips or attempts to trip an opponent. If an offence involves contact it is penalised by a direct free kick or penalty kick.

Not a word about whether it's accidental contact or not.

Edited by Spockydog
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, polishgenius said:

If it had to be a deliberate challenge then players wouldn't get sent off for high feet where they're clearly trying to control the ball but they do.

That's a deliberate attempt to control the ball which they are then determined to either be reckless or using excessive force in the process of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...