AFC Bournemouth 1-1 Newcastle United (25/08/24)

[Whitley mag]

25 minutes ago, nufc4eva said:

We have to find a way of moving the ball quicker, at times would get to one of our players and Bournemouth had time to reorganise. We move it far too slow.

 

Also our technical ability is shocking, misplaced passes, no mobility, struggling to know what to do with the ball. Bournemouth moved the ball well and worked space much better

Take Bruno and Schar out of the team and I’m not convinced we have that many technically gifted players capable of retaining possession, where blessed with running ability and physical players, but this stood out like a sore thumb in Europe, we simply can’t control games and that’s down to the profile of player we seem to want.

 

 

Edited August 25 by Whitley mag

[nufc4eva]

29 minutes ago, Whitley mag said:

Take Bruno and Schar out of the team and I’m not convinced we have that many technically gifted players capable of retaining possession, where blessed with running ability and physical players, but this stood out like a sore thumb in Europe, we simply can’t control games and that’s down to the profile of player we seem to want.

 

 

 

Agree with that, they are the only 2 that have that ability. To be a top team we are going to need a mix of technical and physical. Hoping Tonali comes good and we can get some players in this week. 

 

A couple of tricky/technical midfield or attacking players would help. If they don't come in we have to play Gordon and Barnes every game.

[gazza ladra]

4 hours ago, Tsunami said:

 

 

I think we’ve forgotten what Willock brings to the team.

 

 

[Cf]

MOTD just showed a graphic of the guidance of handball. 

 

Green at the top of the shoulder and above the armpit. Red below down the rest of the arm. Green section really small at the very top of the arm. 

 

Then go on to say the video isn't conclusive despite it obviously being in the middle of the upper arm and clearly in the red zone of the graphic they 20 seconds ago just shown. 

 

Then some rubbish about "why are VAR even getting involved?"

 

 

Edited August 25 by Cf

[AyeDubbleYoo]

5 hours ago, Dr.Spaceman said:

It's just never a red card. Never has been and never will be. The handball was 50/50 and they should have stayed with the on-field decision.

 

I'm not sure if that's how handball reviews work. I think they're just making a call on "factually" did the ball hit the shoulder or the arm. 

[Danh1]

Have to say when I first seen it I didn’t think it would be ruled out. By letter of the law it may well be handball but if I was playing on a Sunday morning and that gets ruled out I’m raging. 
 

Will take it though, had enough dubious ones go against us over the years.

 

VAR overall is a stain on the game. 

[AyeDubbleYoo]

5 minutes ago, Cf said:

MOTD just showed a graphic of the guidance of handball. 

 

Green at the top of the shoulder and above the armpit. Red below down the rest of the arm. Green section really small at the very top of the arm. 

 

Then go on to say the video isn't conclusive despite it obviously being in the middle of the upper arm and clearly in the red zone of the graphic they 20 seconds ago just shown. 

 

Then some rubbish about "why are VAR even getting involved?"

 

 

For me it's a handball for that reason. 

 

And also for the pundits to have a really good laugh about never having read the guidance is absolutely embarrassing. They should all have studied the laws of the game and the referees guidance back to front, or they shouldn't be analysing games.

[Abacus]

13 minutes ago, Cf said:

MOTD just showed a graphic of the guidance of handball. 

 

Green at the top of the shoulder and above the armpit. Red below down the rest of the arm. Green section really small at the very top of the arm. 

 

Then go on to say the video isn't conclusive despite it obviously being in the middle of the upper arm and clearly in the red zone of the graphic they 20 seconds ago just shown. 

 

Then some rubbish about "why are VAR even getting involved?"

 

 

 

I thought the same. It was a marginal handball, but it was one. Just.

 

If they're on one hand showing the rulebook and that VAR then corrects a factual error like a marginal offside, also in that case without asking the ref to look again, then that's how it's supposed to be used.

 

 

Edited August 25 by Abacus

[Geordie Ahmed]

My initial thought was that it's fine and a bad decision to disallow it, that's because for some reason I assumed the line for handball was basically the bottom of the sleeve (no idea why I thought this)

 

However having seen the guidance show that it's much further up, basically anything below the armpit is handball then it's clear cut that it was handball and the correct decision to disallow it 

 

What's strange is how some of the pundits are doubling down and trying to still claim it was a shocking decision 

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Just now, Geordie Ahmed said:

My initial thought was that it's fine and a bad decision to disallow it, that's because for some reason I assumed the line for handball was basically the bottom of the sleeve (no idea why I thought this)

 

However having seen the guidance show that it's much further up, basically anything below the armpit is handball then it's clear cut that it was handball and the correct decision to disallow it 

 

What's strange is how some of the pundits are doubling down and trying to still claim it was a shocking decision 

 

I thought it was the bottom of the sleeve as well, I think most people do. Like I've said before, football is a weird sport where everyone involved doesn't know the rules. 

[Danh1]

1 minute ago, AyeDubbleYoo said:

 

I thought it was the bottom of the sleeve as well, I think most people do. Like I've said before, football is a weird sport where everyone involved doesn't know the rules. 

Valid point. Even extends to financial fair play rules. Everything is so murky. 

[Yorkie]

I think if it's the other way I'm fizzing because I don’t believe the footage is absolutely conclusive in terms of where it hits him. For VAR to take two points away from a team based on imperfect evidence which requires a fair amount of assumption... it's a massive call. Absolutely the sort of thing that you should just say, nah, we shouldn't intervene here.

[TheBrownBottle]

2 minutes ago, AyeDubbleYoo said:

 

I thought it was the bottom of the sleeve as well, I think most people do. Like I've said before, football is a weird sport where everyone involved doesn't know the rules. 

Football is the only sport that I know of where 'pundits' will talk about 'common sense' - and talk about the laws of the game as they think they should exist, and often because they literally don't know the laws themselves.  They then rant about referees making the only decision that can be made under the laws of the game as if the referee has made a mistake, rather than considering that they should probably have an idea of how the rules work.  Which you would think would be a fundamental when you're getting paid six- and seven-figure salaries to understand how football works and then relay it back to the audience.

[On the Grid]

I reckon ref thought he had headed it, hence he gave the goal. He looked again and lets be honest it hit his arm...that being said I'd be livid if that decision was against us

[TheBrownBottle]

The lad is unlucky because it doesn't appear to be deliberate in any way at all - but it is still a handball.  VAR is shite and ruins the sport, but that doesn't mean that the decision is wrong

[Cf]

I feel like I'm being gaslit here. It clearly comes off his arm. I can tell it comes off his arm because his shoulder is perfectly visible throughout and at no point does the ball touch his shoulder. 

[Geordie Ahmed]

7 minutes ago, Yorkie said:

I think if it's the other way I'm fizzing because I don’t believe the footage is absolutely conclusive in terms of where it hits him. For VAR to take two points away from a team based on imperfect evidence which requires a fair amount of assumption... it's a massive call. Absolutely the sort of thing that you should just say, nah, we shouldn't intervene here.

I think the footage is clear, it shows the ball has hit him below the armpit 

[Geordie Ahmed]

2 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

The lad is unlucky because it doesn't appear to be deliberate in any way at all - but it is still a handball.  VAR is shite and ruins the sport, but that doesn't mean that the decision is wrong

I do agree he's unlucky because I'm not a fan of the handball law in relation to goals scored

 

They improved it by changing it to only if it hits the goalscorers arm do they disallow it but they need to go one step further and change it to deliberate handball 

[AyeDubbleYoo]

2 minutes ago, Cf said:

I feel like I'm being gaslit here. It clearly comes off his arm. I can tell it comes off his arm because his shoulder is perfectly visible throughout and at no point does the ball touch his shoulder. 

 

Agree, I think it's clearer because of the way he's reaching his arm over Burn and down in front. That aspect is why I thought it would be disallowed at the time. 

[AyeDubbleYoo]

5 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

The lad is unlucky because it doesn't appear to be deliberate in any way at all - but it is still a handball.  VAR is shite and ruins the sport, but that doesn't mean that the decision is wrong

 

I agree VAR is an overall negative factor in football but I think incidents like this are one of the better ways to use it. 

[El Prontonise]

7 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

The lad is unlucky because it doesn't appear to be deliberate in any way at all - but it is still a handball.  VAR is shite and ruins the sport, but that doesn't mean that the decision is wrong

 

It's wrong under the current rules, previously before VAR etc then it would rightly be given imo.  The rule was previously deliberate handball which this wasn't.

[TheBrownBottle]

Just now, El Prontonise said:

 

It's wrong under the current rules, previously before VAR etc then it would rightly be given imo.  The rule was previously deliberate handball which this wasn't.

Yeah, they were tightened up back in 2020 - so intent plays no role anymore.  I understand that intent is down to interpretation, so it opens itself up to inconsistencies - but I'd be devastated if we had a cup final winner chalked off on this basis

[Yorkie]

If it definitely hits him below the shoulder then I absolutely agree with the rule, like. You can't arm it in.

[Cf]

2 minutes ago, Yorkie said:

If it definitely hits him below the shoulder then I absolutely agree with the rule, like. You can't arm it in.

 

2:40. It's clearly below the shoulder. 

 

 

[Yorkie]

If you told me it came off Burn I'd believe you.