Dogawful Officiating

[Mike]

Would be dismantling London brick by brick if I were a City fan.

[Armchair Pundit]

1 hour ago, Numbers said:

How the fuck did they justify that? Wether it was a goalscoring opportunity or not if you handle outside the area its a red.

 

Clowns.

 

Someone said to me that if both the keeper's feet are inside the box, then it's okay - my understanding was that handling the ball outside box regardless was a red. Seems a bit fishy to me, especially with VAR checking it.

[Toon1984]

42 minutes ago, Armchair Pundit said:

 

Someone said to me that if both the keeper's feet are inside the box, then it's okay - my understanding was that handling the ball outside box regardless was a red. Seems a bit fishy to me, especially with VAR checking it.

Lol. It’s not rugby.

[Tsunami]

Nick Pope anyone?

[JigsawGoesToPieces]

1 hour ago, Toon1984 said:

Since VAR was introduced in the PL, does anyone know how many times the ref has gone to the monitor but stuck to his original decision?

I think I can remember just one, a while back. 
To speed the game up maybe the VAR should just tell the on field ref to change his decision.

 

England did it recently, was sent to monitor for a pen and stuck with it, was on that referee micd up programme with Webb and Michael 'Mr no personality' Owen

 

 

Edited 6 hours ago by JigsawGoesToPieces

[Wolfcastle]

Its a clear booking anywhere on the pitch. Denying a goalscoring opportunity with the same ingringement has got to be red.

[Toon1984]

So, in summary, another VAR abhorration helps decide a title.
Before VAR you’d often give the refs the benefit of the doubt - mistakes were understandable mainly due to the speed of the game. Now, though, with endless slowmo replays available it’s come to light that some of them just don’t understand the rules of the game very well. 

[Sima]

 

More of a DOGSO than today.  Apparently.

[Geordie Ahmed]

27 minutes ago, Sima said:

 

More of a DOGSO than today.  Apparently.

 

Their explanation for it not being a DOGSO today was utterly insane

 

Apparently it's because Haaland/ball was going away from goal, aye, only cos Henderson pushed the ball that way

 

City only have themselves to blame by missing a penalty and being toothless but it was an outrageous decision

[The Prophet]

2 hours ago, Pokerprince2004 said:

 

Just last week it happened in the Fulham v Everton match. I also remember Oliver sticking with a Bournemouth penalty at Forest and Villa got a 90th minute penalty against Palace last season even though VAR tried to overrule it although I agree its pretty rare. 

 

Aye, they're the only two times it's happened.

[healthyaddiction]

Wasn't Man Citys penalty today really similar to the Joe Willock one that was overturned vs Brighton and he got given a yellow for diving? Both went down before being touched but then did get touched by the defender on the way down. Both are dives, but I don't know why Man Citys is ok.

[Bimpy474]

16 minutes ago, healthyaddiction said:

Wasn't Man Citys penalty today really similar to the Joe Willock one that was overturned vs Brighton and he got given a yellow for diving? Both went down before being touched but then did get touched by the defender on the way down. Both are dives, but I don't know why Man Citys is ok.

 

Not really, there's much more contact on Silva. Still think Mitchell got touch on the ball myself.

[healthyaddiction]

12 minutes ago, Bimpy474 said:

 

Not really, there's much more contact on Silva. Still think Mitchell got touch on the ball myself.

Silva is still practically on the ground before he's touched.

 

 

Edited 5 hours ago by healthyaddiction

[JigsawGoesToPieces]

2 hours ago, Numbers said:

How the fuck did they justify that? Wether it was a goalscoring opportunity or not if you handle outside the area its a red.

 

Clowns.

 

Denial of obvious goalscoring opportunity is a red card but handball itself i dont think is

 

 

[Bimpy474]

3 hours ago, healthyaddiction said:

Silva is still practically on the ground before he's touched.

 

 

 

 

Aye that's true, but it's the contact they looking at. I agree it's a dive, but as we've seen ourselves with Maddison they never penalise a player doing that if he gets touched (of course they should), and unfortunately for Mitchell, it was a fairly solid connection.