Orikoru
Tour Winner
Ballon D'or is a joke anyway. I guess they'll have to scrap it after Messi retires, otherwise they'd have to put 5 minutes thought into who wins.
to be honest, I'm not sure Onana is even the 2nd best keeper in his family
Beezerk
Money List Winner
A joke this year, it was essentially best player of the 2022 World Cup aka 7 games.
Orikoru
Tour Winner
Exactly. Almost an entire year ago now. Haaland wins three major trophies and scored about 44 goals in the calendar year of 2023 (if I've added that up right). Messi has gone to America and scored 1 league goal, (18 goals in 2023,) but wins it because of a competition Haaland had no hope of even qualifying for. Wouldn't be surprised if Messi wins it next year as well.
Swango1980
Well-known member
Always has been a joke. Is it not pretty much always given to a player who wins the big international tournament, meaning that it is worthless every 2 years? I suppose Messi and Ronaldo stopped that happening over the last 15-20 years as they were so unbelievably good compared to the rest. But that was in their prime, and that is not the case anymore.
Seriously, who would have ever thought the Ballon d'Or winner would play in the MLS!????
Swango1980
Well-known member
Looks like another winter world cup in 2034. Hosted by Saudi Arabia.
Precedent has been made I guess. Did Australia drop out due to costs? A shame, it would have been fun to see a world cup there.
SteveW86
Head Pro
Cost of the bribes needed to stand a chance of winning maybe
road2ruin
Q-School Graduate
Bit late to the party on this one however the penalty in the Manchester derby was a joke. If that's a penalty then I look forward to at least 5 penalties per game going forward given VAR is meant to be consistent. If you look at what players are up to in the box when there is a free kick or corner this type of thing is happening all over the shot and whilst, by the letter of the law, probably is a foul and so a penalty it just never gets given.
Whilst we're on consistency you only have to look as far as Dermot Gallager. Take the Hojlund incident again Arsenal earlier this season which was exactly the same as the weekend, Dermot Gallager.....
“You see this all the time and I’d be stunned if Anthony Taylor gave a penalty for it.”
Now, after the weekend he claims....
“I wonder if it would act as a deterrent rather than a punishment, at the moment defenders are prepared to take a chance.”
Absolutely no consistency.
Whilst we're on consistency you only have to look as far as Dermot Gallager. Take the Hojlund incident again Arsenal earlier this season which was exactly the same as the weekend, Dermot Gallager.....
“You see this all the time and I’d be stunned if Anthony Taylor gave a penalty for it.”
Now, after the weekend he claims....
“I wonder if it would act as a deterrent rather than a punishment, at the moment defenders are prepared to take a chance.”
Absolutely no consistency.
Orikoru
Tour Winner
It is a weird argument. I didn't see City v Utd but I heard Shearer say the same thing on a podcast - along the lines of "it's technically a foul but if you give that then you have to give a couple every game". Doesn't that mean it was the correct decision though? Just because the fouls are normally overlooked that doesn't make them not fouls? Maybe if some were given then players would stop making these fouls? I found it a slightly baffling point. Should be praising the ref for having the balls to actually give the foul, no? Either that or make it not a foul. Or else we accept the scenario where a foul isn't a foul because of some unwritten rule that they are 'never given'.
road2ruin
Q-School Graduate
The point is that it is a foul however it's never given and then suddenly is. I have no issues if it now results in them being given every week, it just means there will be hundreds of penalties across the leagues. The issue is that it won't, never weekend that foul will happen in the box and nothing will happen. It's all about consistency, that's the issue.
GB72
Money List Winner
Not sure how many times football is allowed to sell its soul but it looks like it has just taken another down payment on it
Steve Wilkes
Well-known member
This has nothing to do with whether it was a foul or not, this is another case of VAR checking club badges, There is no way Bournemouth, Brighton, Fulham, Sheffield etc.. get one of those against one of the premier league official's golden teams. Feel free to bring this post up when it happens, I won't hold my breath
clubchamp98
Journeyman Pro
Don’t need to wait until next week.
It happened in the same game and wasn’t given!
Swango1980
Well-known member
The difficulty with corners and those type of free kicks is that you've probably got about 18-19 players all congested together in the box. They are clearly fighting for space, they need to. Therefore, as they move about, it is also inevitable arms will be up, trying to make themselves bigger, make less room for opponents, etc. I can never see a time where all players will be standing together in the box, hands by their side.
You then get the situation where 99% of the time, the referees give nothing anyway. It is pretty much expected that there will be a bit of jostling in the box. Attackers have less risk in doing it. Goals are still less frequent than not scoring from that situation, so even if they get given a foul against them, it probably won't be a major incident. So, there is probably little incentive for attackers to not use hands when fighting for space, the benefit outweighing the risk. And if attackers are fighting hard for that space, then defenders are probably going to have to fight back just as hard, albeit the risk to them is much higher, as it potentially give away a penalty.
I think the penalty decision was a joke, compared to what the expectations are in what is given. An even bigger joke that VAR gave it, as they have to decide it was an obvious error. I'd say the Maguire incident was a much stronger case for a penalty for City. I didn't see it at time, but when I did he was basically hugging Haaland for an extended period.
Swango1980
Well-known member
Dermot Gallagher winds me right up. He is proof that many decisions referees make, including the same referee, are often very random and whatever mood the referee is in at the time. And they also change their views depending on what the last controversial incident was, and swing the other way the following week.
It is one of my pet hates with VAR. The onfield referee has to make a decision immediately. Yes, they don't always get it right, but they are there and often have a good instinct as to what is right and what is wrong. I think the VAR sometimes has too long to think about something. Sure, they will (should) spot obvious errors. At the same time, I think they look over "non-incidents" or trivial incidents, and after a minute or so have managed to convince themselves a reason to award a penalty / red card. It is almost like they've given themselves 5-10% of doubt on whether the original call was correct, and worried that they'll get accused of not acting, get the on field ref to review it. And when on-field ref reviews it, he'll often feel pressured to overturn, as the assumption is he was only called over as it was a likely error on his original call.
I just think top class referees are generally at their best when they are in the middle of the park, and referee the game as it happens. It is what they've trained for all their life. I'm not sure they are great sitting in a studio, and pretty much have to review another referees decisions and feel like they need to prove their value by maybe getting involved too readily, fear of being criticised if they do not. I think referees are also pretty poor pundits. What on earth does Mike Dean offer on Soccer Saturday? And Dermot Gallagher on ref watch often finds ways to bail out the refs decision by being pretty 100% on their call, yet when they do completely the opposite another week, he will often be pretty 100% behind them still.
Orikoru
Tour Winner
Well that's fine - you're saying that everyone takes liberties based on what they think they can get away with. And of course the benefit is with the attackers. But you can't at the same time complain when a penalty is given for it. They just happened to get caught that time. With VAR that's always more likely to happen so players need to take less risks.
GB72
Money List Winner
After Saudi get the 2034 World Cup, I wonder how much a couple of places in the Champions League will cost as I would put money on that being their next target.
Swango1980
Well-known member
But we've seen VAR barely ever takes action. We only take note on the very rare occasion that they finally decide to get involved.
I'm not saying players should take liberties. Wresting someone to the ground, or dragging them back by the shirt isn't something defenders or strikers should do, or get away with.
What I'm saying is that arms will be raised and by players sides, to give them more space and to restrict the space of opponents. There is always going to be contact between players arms and other players. It would just be nice to know that referees would be consistent on what they'll allow players to do, and what they won't allow. I doubt that will ever happen
Orikoru
Tour Winner
That's all fine and agreeable. My point is though, you're angry at the foul that was given (because it was against your team), when really you should be angry at all the fouls that aren't given.
