The Footie Thread

[clubchamp98]

That’s interpretation, once VAR showed him the exact rule his hands were tied, he was wrong to award the goal and ignore the grabbing of shirts!

I agree but they ignore the pulling of shirts all the time and so do VAR.

“He didn’t have hold of it long enough for it to be a foul” is ignoring the rule.
Pulling of a shirt is a foul under the laws of the game!

 

[clubchamp98]

That’s interpretation

Once VAR showed him what happened he had only one choice

It’s ignoring the rules of shirt pulling.

 

[Arthur Wedge]

It’s ignoring the rules of shirt pulling.

It’s not because he blew the whistle for the foul

I really dont understand how it’s an issue

The ref was right to look at VAR and change his decision

 

[Tashyboy]

City are allowing non members to buy tickets for the Fulham game. £53 is the cheapest. Wow, just, wow. Add in £20 for the train. Say £20 for beers £10 for food. It's a lot just just one person!!! And they say golf is expensive!!!!!!

Saw a post the other day re City and empty seats. City have nine home games in January and February. Just after Xmas when everyone is supposed to be skint you somehow have to find money for nine games.

 

[Tashyboy]

Ffs I know but he does have a choice that’s all I answered Tashys post.

And answered it well.

 

[clubchamp98]

It’s not because he blew the whistle for the foul

I really dont understand how it’s an issue

The ref was right to look at VAR and change his decision

Stay out of it then Tash asked a hypothetical question and we were discussing possibilities.
We all know the rule you keep quoting

 

[Swango1980]

Yes I agree.
All I’m saying is the ref did have a choice!
But he chose the VAR option.

How many times have we discussed the ref going to the monitor and not having the balls to say “ I’m sticking with my original decision “ he could have done that.

Wether it’s right or wrong is debatable.

Yes, the ref could do that if the decision was subjective.

This wasn't. The only way the ref could stick with his original decision would be to say "I don't think Haaland made a foul"

Then we'd all laugh at him

 

[clubchamp98]

Yes, the ref could do that if the decision was subjective.

This wasn't. The only way the ref could stick with his original decision would be to say "I don't think Haaland made a foul"

Then we'd all laugh at him

We’re doing that anyway as he did give the goal onfield.!

 

[PaulMdj]

I agree but they ignore the pulling of shirts all the time and so do VAR.

“He didn’t have hold of it long enough for it to be a foul” is ignoring the rule.
Pulling of a shirt is a foul under the laws of the game!

And as I explained before, once Haaland fouled Szoboszlai he couldn’t ignore it, in theory Haaland prevented Szoboszlai from clearing the ball, once that happened he had to review, with VAR, the whole passage of play.

A. Was Haaland offside when Cherki played the ball? No.

B. Did Szoboszlai DOGSO when pulling Haaland’s shirt? Yes.

Everything after that is then irrelevant, the goal, Haaland’s shirt pull.

Red card and free kick to City.

If, Haaland hadn’t pulled his shirt and the ball had gone in, the Ref could of given a goal and a Yellow Card to Szoboszlai.

You have to remember, all players pull and push an opposition players shirt, not every shirt pull is a foul.

After the ball went in you had 3-4 LPool players surrounding the Ref asking for the foul on Szoboszlai.

 

[Arthur Wedge]

Stay out of it then Tash asked a hypothetical question and we were discussing possibilities.
We all know the rule you keep quoting

If you all know the rule then you know what the ref had to do

The possibilities are very clear - ignore the rules and allow players to take others out off the ball just so a goal can be scored then the referee gets punished

Or he can referee the match properly

And not every touch on a player is a foul and not every shirt pull is a yellow card

 

[Crazyface]

That’s cheap in this day and age.

Spurs at the weekend cost me a shade over £80 just for the ticket, and Fulham a couple of weeks ago was £63. £53 is very reasonable.

For fear of provoking a backlash, and it’s not my intention, I’m very surprised to see the team placed second in the league, who are very much in the title race, are even able to open up ticket sales to non-members.

Wow 80 notes!!! And £53 is very reasonable in the same sentence.

 

[Crazyface]

All this discussion on shirt pulling. It's in every game I watch. And holding. It needs to be stopped because they are all cheating.

 

[Billysboots]

Saw a post the other day re City and empty seats. City have nine home games in January and February. Just after Xmas when everyone is supposed to be skint you somehow have to find money for nine games.

I absolutely see your point, Tash, but your argument assumes that every home game is attended by only the same hardcore group of supporters. That’s not how match ticketing works.

I ask the question in all seriousness because I do not know the answer, but is City’s membership not sufficient to ensure that league games during the title run in sell out without tickets having to go on general sale? I would have thought the membership numbers would more than fill the ground to capacity several times over.

 

[Billysboots]

Wow 80 notes!!! And £53 is very reasonable in the same sentence.

It was worth every penny! And there are big discounts available on food and drink at OT if you time your arrival right.

 

[Arthur Wedge]

Saw a post the other day re City and empty seats. City have nine home games in January and February. Just after Xmas when everyone is supposed to be skint you somehow have to find money for nine games.

It’s the same situation for many clubs and they still sell out

Most games there seems to be empty seats

Is the club just not that big in the local area