Other games (2022/23)

[St. Maximin]

4 minutes ago, Shadow Puppets said:

Surely the fact that we’re even debating it means that it’s not a clear and obvious error on the refs part. I’ve watched it 10 times now and I still can’t decide for sure whether it was or wasn’t.

Correct. It may have been a penalty. It may not have. Even if there was some contact, it may not have been significant enough. Contact doesn’t equal foul. It absolutely isn’t obviously a penalty and a sign you need your eyes testing if you don’t agree. 

 

Whatever you think of VAR, it did it’s job correctly here. 

 

 

Edited May 29, 2022 by St. Maximin

[Pata]

2 minutes ago, Gawalls said:

Yeah but unfortunately some people won’t see it as a debate, they’ll just think they’re right and you’re wrong.

 

Well it really shouldn't be a debate if it's between people with at least 3 eyes combined between them.

 

 

Edited May 29, 2022 by Pata

[The Prophet]

Surely the fact he books him for diving, despite there being contact, makes it a clear and obvious error though?

[joeyt]

1 minute ago, St. Maximin said:

Correct. It may have been a penalty. It may not have. Even if there was some contact, it may not have been significant enough. Contact doesn’t equal foul. It absolutely isn’t obviously a penalty and a sign you need your eyes testing if you don’t agree. 

 

Whatever you think of VAR, it did it’s job correctly here. 

 

 

 

 

If there's any contact all in that instance it should be a pen as Colback is nowehere near the ball

[Shadow Puppets]

2 minutes ago, Rich said:

Eye test marra. I’m serious.

Haha. I agree from one angle it looks like contact, but the other 2 angles don’t. And to me it looks like the Hudds player massively overemphasises the flick back of his leg.

 

As Mike said before, perhaps it’s BOTH a penalty and a dive ?

[Gawalls]

1 minute ago, St. Maximin said:

Correct. It may have been a penalty. It may not have. Even if there was some contact, it may not have been significant enough. Contact doesn’t equal foul. It absolutely isn’t obviously a penalty and a sigh you need your eyes testing if you don’t agree. 

 

Whatever you think of VAR, it did it’s job correctly here. 

I honestly think when using var that if they can’t decide within seconds then referees decision stands

[Shadow Puppets]

Just now, The Prophet said:

Surely the fact he books him for diving, despite there being contact, makes it a clear and obvious error though?

He does dive though? And it’s debatable whether there is actually any significant contact at all.

[The Prophet]

Just now, Shadow Puppets said:

He does dive though? And it’s debatable whether there is actually any significant contact at all.

 

It's theatrical, but it's still a foul. As Mike said, it's a dive but it's still a penalty.

[joeyt]

1 minute ago, Gawalls said:

I honestly think when using var that if they can’t decide within seconds then referees decision stands

 

Referees are leaving it to VAR to make decisions in a lot of cases though

[Gawalls]

Come on forest 

[Pata]

1 minute ago, Gawalls said:

I honestly think when using var that if they can’t decide within seconds then referees decision stands

 

Referee's original decision shouldn't have any standing, there's a reason why VAR was created.

[Jackie Broon]

1 minute ago, Shadow Puppets said:

He does dive though? And it’s debatable whether there is actually any significant contact at all.

 

He made the most of it but I don't think he could've stayed on his feet, contact or not.

[Shadow Puppets]

1 minute ago, The Prophet said:

 

It's theatrical, but it's still a foul. As Mike said, it's a dive but it's still a penalty.

I don’t know. I’ve watched it another few times and I still can’t decide. It still looks to me like he flicks his leg back BEFORE any contact is made.

 

 

Edited May 29, 2022 by Shadow Puppets

[Gawalls]

2 minutes ago, POOT 2.0 said:

I liked the thought of Forest being in the Prem. But after seeing their manager...I don't think I could handle seeing his glib expression week in, week out  He looks like his 2nd cowie is kicking in.

You’d rather Huddersfield shoving 9 men behind the ball until they’re losing and diving all over?

 

 We’ve just got rid of Burnley ffs

 

 

Edited May 29, 2022 by Gawalls

[Pata]

1 minute ago, Shadow Puppets said:

I don’t know. I’ve watched it another few times and I still can’t decide. It still looks to me like he flicks his leg back BEFORE any contact is made.

 

 

 

 

Why would he flick his right leg to his left leg? Why is Colback looking guilty as fuck and not going crazy at him for diving? 

 

 

Edited May 29, 2022 by Pata

[Mike]

1 minute ago, POOT 2.0 said:

I liked the thought of Forest being in the Prem. But after seeing their manager...I don't think I could handle seeing his glib expression week in, week out  He looks like his 2nd cowie is kicking in.

 

I am obsessed with his skull. Obsessed.

[nbthree3]

 

[Mike]

Huddersfield are tragic. They've been fucked, but still.

[Jackie Broon]

Just now, Shadow Puppets said:

I don’t know. I’ve watched it another few times and I still can’t decide. It still looks to me like he flicks his leg back BEFORE any contact is made.

 

 

 

 

There doesn't need to be contact for it to be a foul.

[Rich]

Good to have Forest back.
 

[Jaqen]

Can't wait for Bruno to run rings around the ginger rat next season. 

[Donut]

1 minute ago, Mike said:

Huddersfield are tragic. They've been fucked, but still.

They were woeful today. 0 shots on goal in a final. Cowardly performance. If I was a Huddersfield fan I would be livid now. At the players and at Jon Moss the vinyl-record peddling fraud.

[Superior Acuña]

Would've enjoyed Colback being the one to fuck it, but glad to have Forest finally back up. Leeds and Forest, lovely.

[The Butcher]

Brutal for the Huddersfield fans this. 

 

Moss is a disgrace. Good riddance. 

[Dancing Brave]

Nice to see Frank Clark looking well.