Hanshithispantz

The replay shows the ball deviates slightly which means he touched the ball. They f***ed up. Touching a ball slightly doesnt mean that it isnt a foul.. It means he won the ball so unless it was reckless (or he does something else like pull the player down with his arm) then aye it literally does. No it doesnt. The follow through clips Griezmann's legs when he is clean through. 100% penalty. The follow up had about as much purchase as a hair. I'm sick of this whole contact=foul nonsense. The game's dead when fans of the game are perpetuating this bollocks. This man. Why aren't all challenges that have follow through not given as fouls then if that's the rule? Because usually the dont take away a goalscoring chance like in this case? Funny that there are still people who think "winning the ball=always a fair tackle" Nobody believes this. If a tackle is reckless for example then winning the ball is irrelevant. Please explain how winning the ball in this case didn't negate the contact that came afterwards? Like what was it about the tackle that was wrong? Because the slightest of touches doesnt even take the ball away from Griezmann. After the first contact to the ball, it's still a goal scoring situation. There are 5 video referees that have watched it in slow motion and the referee watched it again. I seem to think they have more understanding to the laws of game than you. I think Griezmann was still getting to the ball, hard to say though. If he had tackled the ball away from Griezmann and then clipped him, fine. For me it looked like he was still clean through. I've never seen this kind of argument for justification of a penalty before like. In the Premiership atleast. Every time the ball is touched it's always been classed as a fair tackle and whatever comes afterwards has been irrelevant unless there's a kickout or a short/shirt grab or whatever. I'm assuming this is because the game is usually refereed in real time, and not in slow motion by 5 referees who know better than me. EDIT: We're talking as if this is like different phases of play or something because it's getting dissected in slo-mo. It was all one fluid motion in real time, he won the ball and then took the player. Seen what kind of argument? Its a penalty because he takes away a goal scoring chance by tripping the opponent. He doesn't tackle the ball away from Griezmann, then it would be fair tackle. "Every time the ball is touched it's always been classed as a fair tackle" You just said no one thinks this. It's not just for dangerous tackles and such, "winning the ball" is not when 0,01 inches of your stud touches the ball and the player still has a good goal scoring chance. This seems to be some English argument. Probably the last I'll say on this as we're not going to agree so I'll just clarify what I mean. When I say "every time the ball is touched it's always been classed as a fair tackle" I'm talking about when the tackle is otherwise fair - as in the amount the ball moves has always been irrelevant as long as it was clear that it did move (otherwise whether there was contact is contentious in itself). I've just never seen this argued before, that the player still would have had control were they not taken down means it's a foul. I'm not saying that touching the ball automatically makes the tackle fair, I was just using reckless tackles as an example but there are obviously more - one of which is that the contact with the player comes in another 'phase of play' (not sure if that's the correct terminology or not) which seems to be what Triggs is arguing (but I personally don't think applies here).

Like you realise he didn't 'trip the opponent' don't you? He tackled him? It's a massive part of the game. EDIT: Obviously taking the piss like but that rule you've dragged up really doesn't support what you're saying in any way. Your argument for the penalty is that the 'trip' happened in a different stage of play to the contact with the ball.

I'm not sure how this supports your view that tackles should be removed from the game mind?

And that's ultimately the most important thing. If it doesn't make the sport better to watch (and infact is a determent to it as a spectacle) then what's the point? I personally don't even think that was a penalty at all but some people seem to think it is, so at the very best it's a debatable decision. So what exactly did VAR achieve today? At best a debatable decision is still a debatable decision only reversed. I can see it being handy with things such as off the ball incidents which the referee misses, but it cannot be used in the way it was today. And they've had to change the offside rule to accommodate it too.

she's really fit mind...totally enjoying having these ladies next to the usual suspects it's great Aye I think she's genuinely attractive tbh. very, i'd prefer to have her there in a fucking niqab ahead of the usual parade of bellends mind I liked her enthusiasm. A bit like Henry when he first started. It's a shame she was sat next to 2 of the most dour fuckers they could find.

she's really fit mind...totally enjoying having these ladies next to the usual suspects it's great Aye I think she's genuinely attractive tbh.

The replay shows the ball deviates slightly which means he touched the ball. They f***ed up. Touching a ball slightly doesnt mean that it isnt a foul.. It means he won the ball so unless it was reckless (or he does something else like pull the player down with his arm) then aye it literally does. No it doesnt. The follow through clips Griezmann's legs when he is clean through. 100% penalty. The follow up had about as much purchase as a hair. I'm sick of this whole contact=foul nonsense. The game's dead when fans of the game are perpetuating this bollocks. This man. Why aren't all challenges that have follow through not given as fouls then if that's the rule? Because usually the dont take away a goalscoring chance like in this case? Funny that there are still people who think "winning the ball=always a fair tackle" Nobody believes this. If a tackle is reckless for example then winning the ball is irrelevant. Please explain how winning the ball in this case didn't negate the contact that came afterwards? Like what was it about the tackle that was wrong? Because the slightest of touches doesnt even take the ball away from Griezmann. After the first contact to the ball, it's still a goal scoring situation. There are 5 video referees that have watched it in slow motion and the referee watched it again. I seem to think they have more understanding to the laws of game than you. I think Griezmann was still getting to the ball, hard to say though. If he had tackled the ball away from Griezmann and then clipped him, fine. For me it looked like he was still clean through. I've never seen this kind of argument for justification of a penalty before like. In the Premiership atleast. Every time the ball is touched it's always been classed as a fair tackle and whatever comes afterwards has been irrelevant unless there's a kickout or a short/shirt grab or whatever. I'm assuming this is because the game is usually refereed in real time, and not in slow motion by 5 referees who know better than me. EDIT: We're talking as if this is like different phases of play or something because it's getting dissected in slo-mo. It was all one fluid motion in real time, he won the ball and then took the player.

The replay shows the ball deviates slightly which means he touched the ball. They f***ed up. Touching a ball slightly doesnt mean that it isnt a foul.. It means he won the ball so unless it was reckless (or he does something else like pull the player down with his arm) then aye it literally does. No it doesnt. The follow through clips Griezmann's legs when he is clean through. 100% penalty. The follow up had about as much purchase as a hair. I'm sick of this whole contact=foul nonsense. The game's dead when fans of the game are perpetuating this bollocks. This man. Why aren't all challenges that have follow through not given as fouls then if that's the rule? Because usually the dont take away a goalscoring chance like in this case? Funny that there are still people who think "winning the ball=always a fair tackle" Nobody believes this. If a tackle is reckless for example then winning the ball is irrelevant. Please explain how winning the ball in this case didn't negate the contact that came afterwards? Like what was it about the tackle that was wrong?

Dude you're wrong. Get over yourself. Your craic is consistently terrible man. Be quiet.

Just rewound it to watch it again, he 100% touched the ball and then touches Griezmann with the same movement, anyone who thinks that is a penalty is shilling for VAR for some odd reason. It's not even close to being contentious.

The replay shows the ball deviates slightly which means he touched the ball. They fucked up. Touching a ball slightly doesnt mean that it isnt a foul.. It means he won the ball so unless it was reckless (or he does something else like pull the player down with his arm) then aye it literally does. what This is after the touch. Hasnt won the ball at all, it's still in Griezmann's possession, regardless of the slightest of touches He touched the ball with his sliding tackle, you're acting like he touched the ball and then with with a completely different action hoofed Griezman.

You could never remove subjectivity as the most are not set in stone, it's the main reason why the whole idea is a load of shite (alongside how it removes some of the fun out of scoring goals due to the uncertainty as to whether or not it will stand)

The replay shows the ball deviates slightly which means he touched the ball. They fucked up. Touching a ball slightly doesnt mean that it isnt a foul.. It means he won the ball so unless it was reckless (or he does something else like pull the player down with his arm) then aye it literally does.

That was an awful penalty mind

Fucking get in

The replay shows the ball deviates slightly which means he touched the ball. They fucked up.

Legitimately fucking pissed me off that like. Australia deserve something from this, that's a massive pisstake.

He blatantly touches the ball, VAR is a fucking joke like. Pretty confident I'm not licking my own piss.

She's areet, she'd probably be better if she wasn't surrounded by miseries like Phil Nevill and Mark Chapman.

Alex Scott is an acceptable replacement for Fabregas as the punditry eye candy. She's also a better pundit than Phil Neville.

Aye I want Kennedy too, I think Townsend would be competing with Ritchie and not him in anycase. If it's a case of us getting only 1 winger in, or we want a more attacking winger alongside one of those, then I'd go with Kennedy.

I want Kennedy but Townsend was better in his 6 months here like. He's a no brainer if we're not paying daft money for him.

Love that :lol:

:lol:

in real time I legitimately squealed like, I felt that hit.