https://twitter.com/Gunnersc0m/status/1699143936621592890?t=ic9jXbkMao0Y_oFajL_xwQ&s=19
Easy enough to watch that and think yea, fair enough. But show us all the ones that an on field review was not recommended for.
His leg makes contact with AWB because he is in the way. He wasnāt standing his ground, he ran across him. Thatās a foul. 
6 Likes
Fair enough, fair assessment.
I hope they are consistent with the minimal contact assessment if thatās how we are judging things now.
2 Likes
Thats not how it will be assessed. Look at the penalty Man U got in Forest game and VAR didnt review. There is minimal contact.
Starts at 8:03ā¦
3 Likes
There is no consistency. Refereeing decisions are a complete and utter lottery. Unacceptable load of bollocks.
The nerve of United fans to moan about refereeing decisions when they get cheap shite like that to win them games. Fuck off you moany cunts
3 Likes
Video just reinforces my point. āI thinkā āI thinkā āCheck the APPā Why is it so convoluted? Just get the angles for replay ready asap and make the ref immediately go to monitor to verify his decision.
2 Likes
Man U supporters got used to Ferguson, not only buying the best players in the PL but having the ref as an extra player during the game.
They also got used to Man U kicking the opposition all over the pitch, then Ferguson screaming in the faces of the officials who were too scared of him to do anything.
3 Likes
Sundays penalty decision is bothering me, I cant decide if it was or if it wasnt.
In the stadium as soon as it happened I thought it was a nailed on pen and he gave it.
Then when I get home and watch the game back the next morning, the replays show no initial contact until Havertzās leg flicks up and touches their player.
On the replay in slow mo it doesnt look like a penalty to me, but then we have to remember that the referee was called over to review his own decision and as such reversed it.
In the past, these type of decisions have usually stuck because the ref sticks with his decision. Dont get me wrong, I like the on field ref being able to change his mind if hes got it wrong, but I just think in terms of consistency then other similar decisions previous havent been reversed but ours was.
I agree, and if it was given against us weād be complaining.
So because itās not a clear penalty, the ref probably made the right decision but there is certainly a complete lack of consistency with a lot of refereeing decisions.
Unpopular opinion - I donāt think the Onana incident should be a penalty.
As per the current rule, it should be penalized for sure.
Yep, I spose thats a good barometer to use, would we be happy if it was given against us and the clear answer to that is no.
1 Like
I agree to a certain extent, however I can say with 99.9% certainty if that was Ramsdale and Jarred Gillet over this past weekend, they award the penalty.
3 Likes
For me that is not the barometer to use - in this new season, VAR is supposed to interfere less and the on-field decision should stand (this based on similar incidents like the Man U pen against Wolves). Also Anthony Taylor asks repeatedly while heading to the monitor, is there contactā¦but no response.
I also think there is an argument to be made that Kai has moved beyond the defender (AWB), there is definite contact, without Kai intentionally changing his movement (he doesnāt drag his foot to initiate contact) and if AWB leg is not there, there is no contact - once Kai has moved beyond AWB, it is up to the defender to not make contact.
I can see from both sides the argument for an against, but there is definite contact and in full stride, who is to say the ankle tap is not sufficient to bring Kai down. If it becomes subjective, then IMO VAR needs to stay out of it and stick with the on field. Alternatively VAR needs to intervene in penalties deemed soft and consistently allow the ref to review on the monitor (showing them the softest angle 
)
https://twitter.com/footballdaily/status/1699328264987160877?s=46&t=LlMNFvsPPy2ozwuX8FhQrA
This is a shambles. 4 people all shouting and talking over each other
4 Likes
Ultimately Iām glad they are releasing these as transparency has been badly lacking in refereeing for decades now.
It does not show refs in a good light though and exposes the lack of consistency. That would be ok too if some clearer guidelines were being defined as time proceeds but we just have a total opinion based system as it stands.
They literally use the word subjective here so why not show it to the man on the field and bring his subjectivity into things.
Whatās the rule? If itās subjective itās not a clear and obvious error?
I also hate hearing the phrase 'flow of the gameās when it comes to these things. Itās not the refs role to ensure that, they are there to enforce the rules.
6 Likes
Agree, I feel similarly when people talk about a ref not sending someone off deservedly early doors because it would āruin the game as a spectacleā, or similar phrasing.
Fuck that, a red is a red, 1st minute or 90th.
A refās job is to enforce the rules, not to ensure that the match remains a spectacle and is as entertaining as possible.
4 Likes
Saka gets so little protection from referees, they really do allow him to be kicked all over the park with very little consequence
1 Like