Injustices 25/26

Jim_Cannon said:
What a joke. If they are prepared to relax the rules why could they have not shown more leniency to Palace and other clubs this season?
Click to expand...
It's worse than you think. They changed the rule for only last season - and already knew they'd change the rule this season. All of this is because we're against the European Clubs' Association: which is a Super League stitch up.
 
DOGSO. Gillett ignored VAR which just never happens. Yet another first for Palace by our useless refs.
So although Sarr goes down easily, and we know he could've got to that ball and scored, or been clattered by the keeper for a penalty, Gillett agrees that there was contact because this wasn't the reason for the overturn, and Gillett also implies that Sarr would've reached the ball before the goalkeeper. Gillett said that it was because 1. his touch took him away from goal and 2. there was a covering defender. Let's deal with the defender first. You can see from the image that the defender is the wrong side of Mateta, but also has at least 15 yards to make up. So he has to get around JP first, and if he does then JP is open on the penalty spot to receive the ball.
Going away from goal? Look at the maths Gillett you moron.

1760860360740.webp

More likely is that Sarr just gets to the ball for a shot - the very definition of a GOAL SCORING OPPORTUNITY, or is brought down by the keeper for a penalty, who, by the way, hadn;t moved off his line by that point.

The penalty was a good call, Ariola implied cheating by saying that VAR knew it wasn't a penalty but decided not to intervene because they'd be ignored. That makes no sense because that just means VAR also thought it was a penalty. Here's a picture of the penalty incident, Bournemouth defenders in red and white

1760860534365.webp
 
From the BBC.

Chelsea might trigger a buyback clause to re-sign Belgium midfielder Diego Moreira, 21, from sister club Strasbourg. (TBR Football)

Selling a player to a "sister club" with both a buy-back and a sell-on clause is fine apparently but it looks a bit dubious.
 
My problem with yesterday is the time it took to come to the same decision, fair enough if we thought the ref made a wrong decision, it happens, and fair enough if he had the balls to stick to his decision. But I think they should scrap the screens and tell the ref he’s made a fcuk up and to change his decision, they obviously thought he had.
I know they don’t want to ref the games from the var office, they want the refs to still have the final decision, but when they send the ref to the screen they’re obviously telling him they think he’s fcuked up
 
BromleyMonkey said:
My problem with yesterday is the time it took to come to the same decision, fair enough if we thought the ref made a wrong decision, it happens, and fair enough if he had the balls to stick to his decision. But I think they should scrap the screens and tell the ref he’s made a fcuk up and to change his decision, they obviously thought he had.
I know they don’t want to ref the games from the var office, they want the refs to still have the final decision, but when they send the ref to the screen they’re obviously telling him they think he’s fcuked up
Click to expand...
Agreed but I suspect Gillett hates to be told he was wrong. With regard to Spindles post, “ slightly going away from goal” wtf does that mean? Sarr would have reached the ball and if necessary would have cut in, it was most definitely a goal scoring opportunity.
Looking at Mateta’s first goal, the time it took to conclude it was inside was ridiculous, look at the lines, clearly onside.
The penalty was a foul but I agree with Shearer there has got to be consistency, the previous corner the ref warned the defender and he repeated the offence, his fault noone else’s
 
BromleyMonkey said:
My problem with yesterday is the time it took to come to the same decision, fair enough if we thought the ref made a wrong decision, it happens, and fair enough if he had the balls to stick to his decision. But I think they should scrap the screens and tell the ref he’s made a fcuk up and to change his decision, they obviously thought he had.
I know they don’t want to ref the games from the var office, they want the refs to still have the final decision, but when they send the ref to the screen they’re obviously telling him they think he’s fcuked up
Click to expand...
And he was.
 
BromleyMonkey said:
My problem with yesterday is the time it took to come to the same decision, fair enough if we thought the ref made a wrong decision, it happens, and fair enough if he had the balls to stick to his decision. But I think they should scrap the screens and tell the ref he’s made a fcuk up and to change his decision, they obviously thought he had.
I know they don’t want to ref the games from the var office, they want the refs to still have the final decision, but when they send the ref to the screen they’re obviously telling him they think he’s fcuked up
Click to expand...
Yes, yes, anything to stop the Spanish and Latino players running up to the ref and drawing the imaginary screen in a painfully agonizing football themed game of Charades.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Holmesdale Online Shop

Back
Top