Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Man United 2021-24, 'Best of the Rest'

Wan Bissaka not too bad, but the rest were just awful. Struggling to think of anyone else in the starting line up who was even 6/10.
 
I thought they would look at it and give a penalty... but we also all know that keepers have been cleaning people out for years and it's rarely been a penalty.
 
Honest mistake dontcha know..... Honest mistake from the ref on the pitch and all of the VAR staff. Next....
 
Just watched last nights highlights. Wolves must be kicking themselves after dominating the game. Awful VAR decision, really awful.
 
The39thStep said:
www.bbc.com

Man Utd 1-0 Wolves: Officials to miss weekend games after penalty error

Three Premier League officials at the centre of a decision not to award a penalty to Wolves at Manchester United on Monday have been overlooked for this weekend's matches.
www.bbc.com
Click to expand...
I'm a fan of VAR, but I presume it fell into the clear and obvious error black hole. I mean it was a clear and obvious error, but somehow the ref missed or bottled it - but the bigger error was the VAR bod not sending him to the monitor. Dreadful decision all round. Like I say, I like the tech, but maybe it's the rules around VARthat allow this buck passing.
 
Wilf said:
I'm a fan of VAR, but I presume it fell into the clear and obvious error black hole. I mean it was a clear and obvious error, but somehow the ref missed or bottled it - but the bigger error was the VAR bod not sending him to the monitor. Dreadful decision all round. Like I say, I like the tech, but maybe it's the rules around VARthat allow this buck passing.
Click to expand...
I'm not a fan of VAR tbh rather than adding to the game it has evolved sometimes into being the game. I expect referees to make mistakes but we now have an ever decreasing/expanding system where the video ref also makes mistakes adding to the referee's mistake and then the head of PMOL then apologies for the mistakes leading to a review of the mistakes and new guidelines and instructions are issued to reduce the mistakes. Please re/read.
 
I think the issue is there are still some fouls where it's simply debatable whether or not it's a foul. There will always be grey areas.

So they have said 'clear and obvious error' to avoid the one ref's opinion (VAR) simply overruling another (on the pitch) on these grey area fouls. Which I think is right. But then you're left with something like last night which while clumsy certainly hasn't ALWAYS been given - keepers get away with a lot of clumsiness - so therefore it isn't a clear and obvious error.

The situation always clouds these judgements too. If that had been the Wolves keeper at the end I'm sure it would have been completely forgotten by now.
 
The39thStep said:
I'm not a fan of VAR tbh rather than adding to the game it has evolved sometimes into being the game. I expect referees to make mistakes but we now have an ever decreasing/expanding system where the video ref also makes mistakes adding to the referee's mistake and then the head of PMOL then apologies for the mistakes leading to a review of the mistakes and new guidelines and instructions are issued to reduce the mistakes. Please re/read.
Click to expand...
VAR has certainly become more intrusive. I suspect some of it could be improved be looking at the non-Var rules, such as the hyper sensitive handball rule. Also, maybe have thicker lines for offsides. But overall, that tricksy concept, trying to restore a bit of common sense (and proportionality) to the process.
 
pbsmooth said:
I think the issue is there are still some fouls where it's simply debatable whether or not it's a foul. There will always be grey areas.

So they have said 'clear and obvious error' to avoid the one ref's opinion (VAR) simply overruling another (on the pitch) on these grey area fouls. Which I think is right. But then you're left with something like last night which while clumsy certainly hasn't ALWAYS been given - keepers get away with a lot of clumsiness - so therefore it isn't a clear and obvious error.

The situation always clouds these judgements too. If that had been the Wolves keeper at the end I'm sure it would have been completely forgotten by now.
Click to expand...
A coupkle of quick points . Firstly VAR was introduced into the EPL on the basis of clear and obvious error with the exception of offsides which were reviewed after every goal. It simply isn't the case that clear and obvious has been tacked on somewhere/somehow. Second is that VAR did initially intervene with one, sometimes several supervised by a senior, ref's opinion overruling another and has since been modified to 'go and have another look' but there are occasions when its more go and have another look its actually saying what they think the referee has missed. Its not the VAR remit to remove the referee from decisions about fouls and the application of the laws and regulations but it will intervene to review incidents that the other referee feel crosses the line ie serious foul play etc and the upgrading and downgrading of yellows and reds.

Lastly why bother trying to defend the terrible penalty decision ? It was a blatant penalty, with nothing to do with clumsiness and nothing to do with the team that failed to get the penalty. It's a terrible refereeing mistake which the head honcho has now apologised for and acknowledged so no point in you defending the indefensible. Just say 'we were lucky to get away with it' .
 
The39thStep said:
A coupkle of quick points . Firstly VAR was introduced into the EPL on the basis of clear and obvious error with the exception of offsides which were reviewed after every goal. It simply isn't the case that clear and obvious has been tacked on somewhere/somehow. Second is that VAR did initially intervene with one, sometimes several supervised by a senior, ref's opinion overruling another and has since been modified to 'go and have another look' but there are occasions when its more go and have another look its actually saying what they think the referee has missed. Its not the VAR remit
Lastly why bother trying to defend the terrible penalty decision ? It was a blatant penalty, with nothing to do with clumsiness and nothing to do with the team that failed to get the penalty. It's a terrible refereeing mistake which the head honcho has now apologised for and acknowledged so no point in you defending the indefensible. Just say 'we were lucky to get away with it' .
Click to expand...
Know you didn't ask me, but I wouldn't deam of defending it. Keepers have got away with flattering players in the past, but only when getting the ball or close to it. This was at the far end from that, didn't get the ball and nowhere near it. In fact just the sort of thing that VAR...
 
Wilf said:
Know you didn't ask me, but I wouldn't deam of defending it. Keepers have got away with flattering players in the past, but only when getting the ball or close to it. This was at the far end from that, didn't get the ball and nowhere near it. In fact just the sort of thing that VAR...
Click to expand...
Exactly. We got away with murder in a game against West Ham last season or the season before. Cast iron penalty but after VAR no penalty awarded.
 
The39thStep said:
A coupkle of quick points . Firstly VAR was introduced into the EPL on the basis of clear and obvious error with the exception of offsides which were reviewed after every goal. It simply isn't the case that clear and obvious has been tacked on somewhere/somehow. Second is that VAR did initially intervene with one, sometimes several supervised by a senior, ref's opinion overruling another and has since been modified to 'go and have another look' but there are occasions when its more go and have another look its actually saying what they think the referee has missed. Its not the VAR remit to remove the referee from decisions about fouls and the application of the laws and regulations but it will intervene to review incidents that the other referee feel crosses the line ie serious foul play etc and the upgrading and downgrading of yellows and reds.

Lastly why bother trying to defend the terrible penalty decision ? It was a blatant penalty, with nothing to do with clumsiness and nothing to do with the team that failed to get the penalty. It's a terrible refereeing mistake which the head honcho has now apologised for and acknowledged so no point in you defending the indefensible. Just say 'we were lucky to get away with it' .
Click to expand...
I had a memory of it being more of a mess when they first brought it in and then a move to saying "only when clear and obvious error". But happy to be corrected.

I said it was lucky but also said there was a time not too long ago where keepers would get away with all sorts. Don't think that's controversial.
 
I mean we literally had ref and VAR look and say it wasnt a clear and obvious error so I mean it's clearly debatable. Another ref saying it was a penalty doesn't make the other decisions go away. It just shows it was debatable...
 
pbsmooth said:
I mean we literally had ref and VAR look and say it wasnt a clear and obvious error so I mean it's clearly debatable. Another ref saying it was a penalty doesn't make the other decisions go away. It just shows it was debatable...
Click to expand...
I think the ref got it wrong or didn't see it properly and then the VAR person probably hid behind the clear and obvious thing. Both wrong as to the pen and the VARist possibly a shithouse, knowing that sending the ref to the monitor was akin to he himself giving it.
 
So, United think the police and CPS got it wrong. Fucking rape apologists.

Based on the evidence available to us, we have concluded that the material posted online did not provide a full picture and that Mason did not commit the offences in respect of which he was originally charged. That said, as Mason publicly acknowledges today, he has made mistakes which he is taking responsibility for.
Click to expand...

 
United giving Antony 'leave of absence' to address the allegations against him. As always, these are only allegations, but from 3 women now. Not quite up to of the Mason Greenwood affair in terms of the club mishandling the issues - yet. But still, given the seriousness of the allegations, surely suspending him would have been the only reasonable starting point. Probably not much difference in practice, he'll carry on getting paid and won't play, but 'leave of absence' for most people sounds like time off to address something you are the victim of - not the (alleged) perp.
www.theguardian.com

Manchester United give Antony leave of absence to address allegations against him

The 23-year-old earlier was dropped from the Brazil squad after accusations of physical aggression on a number of occasions since January
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

P
Man United - the team that gets me excited? 2024-2026
4 5 6 7 8
Replies
238
Views
5K
Wilf
Wilf
two sheds
Nations League 24-25
2 3 4
Replies
119
Views
2K
Maggot
Maggot
tommers
West Ham 24/25
Replies
5
Views
328
stethoscope
stethoscope
S
Budget against achievements, Premier League 2023-24
Replies
11
Views
435
stavros
S
Numbers
The Bees 23/24
Replies
8
Views
357
Santino
S
Back
Top Bottom