LCFC - West Ham Post Match Thread 2-2

[ClaphamFox]

3 minutes ago, AKCJ said:

It'd be nice if the 6 foot 6 centre half brought on specifically to deal with set pieces and crosses dealt with a set piece or a cross.

 

Sick of nobody in this team stepping up and taking charge and Kasper is definitely a big part of that reason.

 

He's miles away from the ball and generally always is.

It's difficult to imagine a less commanding centre back than Vestergaard, which is quite something given his height advantage. He's like the tall kid at school who's just a gentle giant and gets picked on by much smaller kids. 

Edited 14 February 2022 by ClaphamFox

[AKCJ]

Just now, ClaphamFox said:

It's difficult to imagine a less commanding centre-half than Vestergaard, which is quite something given his height advantage. He's like the tall kid at school who's just a gentle giant and gets picked on by much smaller kids.

He's not even jumped to win the header. Disgraceful.

 

If Brendan considers playing him again then he should be sacked for it.

[st albans fox]

25 minutes ago, Supergray22 said:

Maybe I have misunderstood this since childhood. Stupid of me because it is actually in the title. Anywhere on the arm above the wrist is not hand ball. Therefore length of sleeve is irrelevant unless it covers the palms of the hand or the fingers. Simple and I’m stupid. 

too many people will not see through your ‘joke’ …
 

 

3 minutes ago, AKCJ said:

He's not even jumped to win the header. Disgraceful.

 

If Brendan considers playing him again then he should be sacked for it.

A bit much to criticise him not jumping for a ball that was going straight onto his head until he was pushed out of the way by his own player !

[AKCJ]

2 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

too many people will not see through your ‘joke’ …
 

 

A bit much to criticise him not jumping for a ball that was going straight onto his head until he was pushed out of the way by his own player !

Jump and meet the ball like a professional footballer. Don't stand still and wait for it to hit you like an under 8 would.

[ClaphamFox]

1 minute ago, AKCJ said:

Jump and meet the ball like a professional footballer. Don't stand still and wait for it to hit you like an under 8 would.

Rodgers did say that he put Vestergaard on to "stand and win headers", so maybe he was just following his manager's instructions to the letter?

[turtmcfly]

17 minutes ago, AKCJ said:

He's not even jumped to win the header. Disgraceful.

 

If Brendan considers playing him again then he should be sacked for it.

 

Christ. Watch the replay. 

 

I don't want him in the team but as always some can't help exaggerating for effect 

[Finnegan]

44 minutes ago, Supergray22 said:

Look at the shadow from the ball on the arm. Didn’t hit any part of the sleeve. His reaction in the press conference afterwards gave it away too. He knew he handled it in. He moved his arm towards the ball too. Anywhere else on the pitch and on any other planet that is handball. 

 

44 minutes ago, Chloe_77 said:

Exactly- For example Villas short sleeves are far longer then most other teams. 

 

39 minutes ago, Supergray22 said:

Maybe I have misunderstood this since childhood. Stupid of me because it is actually in the title. Anywhere on the arm above the wrist is not hand ball. Therefore length of sleeve is irrelevant unless it covers the palms of the hand or the fingers. Simple and I’m stupid. 

 

38 minutes ago, Twitcher said:

Event hough it's half on the arm and half on the sleeve. As they said on MOTD, there's no rule that deals with those that land on the border.

 

34 minutes ago, 5waller5 said:

I’m assuming that the same rule applies throughout football - if it’s on the line it’s included.

 

ie. Whole of the ball has to be over the line for throw in, whole of ball over T shirt line for handball

 

 

Quoting a bunch of you at once to make the same reply - forget the T-Shirt. Forget the sleeve. The sleeve is a concept, it's not to be taken literally. if one team's sleeves are longer than another team's sleeves they don't get to hand ball it more. 'Sleeve' is a euphemism essentially for the stop of the arm. It's not about the ball touching fabric, it's about it touching the outside upper arm. Dawson is jumping and lifting his arm, his sleeve is obviously going to roll up his arm.

 

I mean, this is why it's such a stupid rule, it's impossible to police and DELIBERATELY vague, just like "thicker lines" for offsides is. It's a woolly, unspecified term that enables potential corruption in the league. It's an extremely poor and arbitrary rule.

 

However, again, it was policed accurately yesterday and as per the current rules of the game there is no reason Dawson's goal should not stand. There is ESPECIALLY no reason to claim it was "clear and obvious." Again, deliberately woolly rules = less "clear and obvious" = less VAR intervention. It's exactly what they want.

 

If you'll allow me to go full tinfoil hat here - the footballing institution has never wanted VAR, it's why it's as poorly implemented as it is, it's why BT Sport, Sky Sports, The Sun, the Daily Mail and every other media outlet that common fans engage with has been on a campaign to convince you that "VAR = Bad" ever since it's implementation. They don't want it because if VAR was implemented correctly it would level the playing field, take corruption definitively out of the sport and wouldn't allow them to stop having - how did they put it? - "any more Leicester Citys."

 

The billionaires who make enormous amounts of money from Liverpool and Manchester United being successful are the same billionaires that own the media institutions convincing you that VAR is a bad thing and you don't like it. It's exactly the same tactics the same billionaires use to convince you you don't want a government that will tax them more.

 

But all of my socialist ranting aside - this is yet another example where the LAW is the problem not VAR and not in this case either Michael Oliver or his video assistant.

[Guest Col city fan]

2 hours ago, Arkie Bennett said:

I've seen media reports exaggerating the atmosphere yesterday. Using the word 'toxic' does not mean it was toxic. Sure, there were boos and noises of discontent when we were repeatedly aimlessly passing it around at the back. For 30 minutes in the second half the atmosphere was electric. We saw wave after wave of attack, culminating in our second goal. Barnes was tremendous. It was inevitable that West Ham would push for the equaliser, so the Vestergaard substition was understandable and he shouldn't have been booed on. Their equaliser was a travesty, it would never have been given against an ESL team.

Schmeichel is a club legend of course, but he is flawed as a goalkeeper. If he attempted to come for balls in a crowded 6-yard box he would win free kicks and relieve some pressure on the team. He might even win the ball. He does neither, and our defenders don't always deal with it instead. Something has to change. 

I don’t think it was exaggerated personally. We were bored in the first half. We were literally watching Amartey pass sideways to Soyuncu, forward to Tielemans, back to Amartey, back to Soyuncu, sometimes literally for minutes…🤷‍♂️
As soon as the players gave the crowd something to get excited about, the whole atmosphere changed and quite rightly so.

All we want to see really is our team having a proper go. As fans, we are no better or worse than any other fans. We want some fight in the team and will get behind them if we see that.

[lcfc old boy]

15 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Quoting a bunch of you at once to make the same reply - forget the T-Shirt. Forget the sleeve. The sleeve is a concept, it's not to be taken literally. if one team's sleeves are longer than another team's sleeves they don't get to hand ball it more. 'Sleeve' is a euphemism essentially for the stop of the arm. It's not about the ball touching fabric, it's about it touching the outside upper arm. Dawson is jumping and lifting his arm, his sleeve is obviously going to roll up his arm.

 

I mean, this is why it's such a stupid rule, it's impossible to police and DELIBERATELY vague, just like "thicker lines" for offsides is. It's a woolly, unspecified term that enables potential corruption in the league. It's an extremely poor and arbitrary rule.

 

However, again, it was policed accurately yesterday and as per the current rules of the game there is no reason Dawson's goal should not stand. There is ESPECIALLY no reason to claim it was "clear and obvious." Again, deliberately woolly rules = less "clear and obvious" = less VAR intervention. It's exactly what they want.

 

If you'll allow me to go full tinfoil hat here - the footballing institution has never wanted VAR, it's why it's as poorly implemented as it is, it's why BT Sport, Sky Sports, The Sun, the Daily Mail and every other media outlet that common fans engage with has been on a campaign to convince you that "VAR = Bad" ever since it's implementation. They don't want it because if VAR was implemented correctly it would level the playing field, take corruption definitively out of the sport and wouldn't allow them to stop having - how did they put it? - "any more Leicester Citys."

 

The billionaires who make enormous amounts of money from Liverpool and Manchester United being successful are the same billionaires that own the media institutions convincing you that VAR is a bad thing and you don't like it. It's exactly the same tactics the same billionaires use to convince you you don't want a government that will tax them more.

 

But all of my socialist ranting aside - this is yet another example where the LAW is the problem not VAR and not in this case either Michael Oliver or his video assistant.

we were robbed

[blue blood]

1 hour ago, Finnegan said:

 

You are right, it is a stupid rule. 

 

I'm not arguing that it is a good rule. I think every year they fvck up the handball rule a little bit more. It's an absolute mess at the moment. 

 

However, that image is from the official Premier League website and is an accurate depiction of the current law. As per that law, the goal yesterday was legitimate. 

Definitely not arguing the legitimacy of the goal. Our shit defending only brings that whole situation on. 

 

As we all agree not all sleeve lengths are made equal, it's a farce that this was not taken into consideration when the FA devised this rule. 

[AKCJ]

16 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Quoting a bunch of you at once to make the same reply - forget the T-Shirt. Forget the sleeve. The sleeve is a concept, it's not to be taken literally. if one team's sleeves are longer than another team's sleeves they don't get to hand ball it more. 'Sleeve' is a euphemism essentially for the stop of the arm. It's not about the ball touching fabric, it's about it touching the outside upper arm. Dawson is jumping and lifting his arm, his sleeve is obviously going to roll up his arm.

 

I mean, this is why it's such a stupid rule, it's impossible to police and DELIBERATELY vague, just like "thicker lines" for offsides is. It's a woolly, unspecified term that enables potential corruption in the league. It's an extremely poor and arbitrary rule.

 

However, again, it was policed accurately yesterday and as per the current rules of the game there is no reason Dawson's goal should not stand. There is ESPECIALLY no reason to claim it was "clear and obvious." Again, deliberately woolly rules = less "clear and obvious" = less VAR intervention. It's exactly what they want.

 

If you'll allow me to go full tinfoil hat here - the footballing institution has never wanted VAR, it's why it's as poorly implemented as it is, it's why BT Sport, Sky Sports, The Sun, the Daily Mail and every other media outlet that common fans engage with has been on a campaign to convince you that "VAR = Bad" ever since it's implementation. They don't want it because if VAR was implemented correctly it would level the playing field, take corruption definitively out of the sport and wouldn't allow them to stop having - how did they put it? - "any more Leicester Citys."

 

The billionaires who make enormous amounts of money from Liverpool and Manchester United being successful are the same billionaires that own the media institutions convincing you that VAR is a bad thing and you don't like it. It's exactly the same tactics the same billionaires use to convince you you don't want a government that will tax them more.

 

But all of my socialist ranting aside - this is yet another example where the LAW is the problem not VAR and not in this case either Michael Oliver or his video assistant.

It's come square off the middle of his upper arm mate. It's bang in the gray area between the red zone and the green zone where it's open to interpretation. We're right to feel aggrieved because one day a team will have a goal disallowed where it's hit a player in exactly the same spot.

[ClaphamFox]

2 minutes ago, AKCJ said:

It's come square off the middle of his upper arm mate. It's bang in the gray area between the red zone and the green zone where it's open to interpretation. We're right to feel aggrieved because one day a team will have a goal disallowed where it's hit a player in exactly the same spot.

This will probably happen next weekend after the behind-the-scenes advice given to the officials is quietly changed.

Edited 14 February 2022 by ClaphamFox

[Finnegan]

4 minutes ago, blue blood said:

Definitely not arguing the legitimacy of the goal. Our shit defending only brings that whole situation on. 

 

As we all agree not all sleeve lengths are made equal, it's a farce that this was not taken into consideration when the FA devised this rule. 

 

But this is why the rule isn't LITERALLY about hitting cloth. Like I said.

 

 

3 minutes ago, AKCJ said:

It's come square off the middle of his upper arm mate. It's bang in the gray area between the red zone and the green zone where it's open to interpretation. We're right to feel aggrieved because one day a team will have a goal disallowed where it's hit a player in exactly the same spot.

 

Your tone sounds like you're arguing with me but your words are actually agreeing, I'm not sure which of us misunderstands the other? Possibly me, I'm tired.

 

I'm agreeing that it's ridiculous and that we do have a right to feel aggrieved, I'm just saying that the problem is how the law is currently written, not that we were "robbed" by terrible reffing. The whole thing is a mess.

[AKCJ]

2 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

Your tone sounds like you're arguing with me but your words are actually agreeing, I'm not sure which of us misunderstands the other? Possibly me, I'm tired.

 

I'm agreeing that it's ridiculous and that we do have a right to feel aggrieved, I'm just saying that the problem is how the law is currently written, not that we were "robbed" by terrible reffing. The whole thing is a mess.

So are we right to feel aggrieved or are we wrong to feel robbed? I'm not sure what you're saying mate.

[filbertway]

1 hour ago, AKCJ said:

It'd be nice if the 6 foot 6 centre half brought on specifically to deal with set pieces and crosses dealt with a set piece or a cross.

 

Sick of nobody in this team stepping up and taking charge and Kasper is definitely a big part of that reason.

 

He's miles away from the ball and generally always is.

Ideally Kasper doesn't barge him in the back.

 

 

[deep blue]

3 hours ago, Col city fan said:

That’s the difference isn’t it

Rodgers teams are so weak-willed it’s unbelievable 

If you turn it around yesterday and it was West Ham 2-1 up and looking to defend a lead, they’d have just seen the game out with strength and organisation

We did the same thing YET AGAIN.. went up, didn’t believe in ourselves, stupidly kept attacking 🤷‍♂️ and eventually succumbed to the late goal

We are the most ‘savvy less’ City team in years 

We didn't concede the equalising goal because we kept attacking.  All that time  (2nd half) we were on the front foot and in control, with them barely having a sniff.

 

The reason we gave away the equaliser was because Rodgers went scared and defensive.  By bringing on a defender for a midfielder we immediately lost control and outlets in midfield.  The switch also disrupted, disorganised and panicked the defence which had been untroubled during that 2nd half.

Edited 14 February 2022 by deep blue
Clarification

[deep blue]

The late sub was proven to be totally wrong by Rodgers' assertion that his reason for it was to counter Dawson being pushed up,   Well, ...  that went well!

[turtmcfly]

1 minute ago, Finnegan said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Quoting a bunch of you at once to make the same reply - forget the T-Shirt. Forget the sleeve. The sleeve is a concept, it's not to be taken literally. if one team's sleeves are longer than another team's sleeves they don't get to hand ball it more. 'Sleeve' is a euphemism essentially for the stop of the arm. It's not about the ball touching fabric, it's about it touching the outside upper arm. Dawson is jumping and lifting his arm, his sleeve is obviously going to roll up his arm.

 

I mean, this is why it's such a stupid rule, it's impossible to police and DELIBERATELY vague, just like "thicker lines" for offsides is. It's a woolly, unspecified term that enables potential corruption in the league. It's an extremely poor and arbitrary rule.

 

However, again, it was policed accurately yesterday and as per the current rules of the game there is no reason Dawson's goal should not stand. There is ESPECIALLY no reason to claim it was "clear and obvious." Again, deliberately woolly rules = less "clear and obvious" = less VAR intervention. It's exactly what they want.

 

If you'll allow me to go full tinfoil hat here - the footballing institution has never wanted VAR, it's why it's as poorly implemented as it is, it's why BT Sport, Sky Sports, The Sun, the Daily Mail and every other media outlet that common fans engage with has been on a campaign to convince you that "VAR = Bad" ever since it's implementation. They don't want it because if VAR was implemented correctly it would level the playing field, take corruption definitively out of the sport and wouldn't allow them to stop having - how did they put it? - "any more Leicester Citys."

 

The billionaires who make enormous amounts of money from Liverpool and Manchester United being successful are the same billionaires that own the media institutions convincing you that VAR is a bad thing and you don't like it. It's exactly the same tactics the same billionaires use to convince you you don't want a government that will tax them more.

 

But all of my socialist ranting aside - this is yet another example where the LAW is the problem not VAR and not in this case either Michael Oliver or his video assistant.

 

 

 

Let's pretend people weren't moaning to shit about the 'fake precision' of the previous offside VAR rule, with the tin-foil hat brigade you're happy to join 'wondering' out loud who the person controlling the camera and graphics was being paid by.

 

 

I could note that that despite the fact that the 'football institutions never wanted VAR', VAR was introduced anyway, and I could note who introduced it. I can't answer the question, 'why did they introduce something they didn't want when they had the power not to', because I use my tinfoil for cooking.

 

As for the media pushing the anti-VAR stuff... sheesh... The media ****ing loves VAR; it's controversy based clickbait heaven. What the 'anti-VAR stuff' amounts to, in the main, is them being a mouthpiece for whatever performatively dense nonsense comes out of ex-players' mouths. I'd take performatively dense from the dense over performatively clever from the nowhere near as clever as they think conspiracy theorists any day

 

 

 

[Finnegan]

8 minutes ago, AKCJ said:

So are we right to feel aggrieved or are we wrong to feel robbed? I'm not sure what you're saying mate.

 

For me "robbery" implies an injustice. The rules, as written, being ignored or poorly implemented. For as much as we genuinely collapsed against Spurs and it was an absolute embarrassment, it also was a miscarriage of justice and we were, to a point, "robbed." Bergwijn committed two yellow card offences by the laws of the game and should have been dismissed in a manner similar to Martinelli. 

 

Yesterday wasn't an injustice, the rules were implemented 'correctly.' We weren't robbed.

 

We can, however, be legitimately frustrated at how poor the law is, the handball law has been tampered with almost every season for the last - what - five or six years it feels like? It's getting beyond a joke now.

[AKCJ]

2 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

 

For me "robbery" implies an injustice. The rules, as written, being ignored or poorly implemented. For as much as we genuinely collapsed against Spurs and it was an absolute embarrassment, it also was a miscarriage of justice and we were, to a point, "robbed." Bergwijn committed two yellow card offences by the laws of the game and should have been dismissed in a manner similar to Martinelli. 

 

Yesterday wasn't an injustice, the rules were implemented 'correctly.' We weren't robbed.

 

We can, however, be legitimately frustrated at how poor the law is, the handball law has been tampered with almost every season for the last - what - five or six years it feels like? It's getting beyond a joke now.

But I think it is an injustice because another referee could easily look at that and give the foul. In the same way that one referee gave Martinelli two yellow cards but another gave Bergwijn one.

[deep blue]

1 hour ago, Twitcher said:

Event hough it's half on the arm and half on the sleeve. As they said on MOTD, there's no rule that deals with those that land on the border.

Surely that should be interpreted as " since some of the ball is on the bare arm then the ball has struck the bare arm (as well as other parts of the arm); therefore it's handball"? I haven't seen the actual rule as stated, but that interpretation seems the only logical one to me.

[LiberalFox]

Kasper has always been bad at commanding the area from corners, remember it being a problem even in the championship. No idea what he is trying to do.

[Finnegan]

4 minutes ago, AKCJ said:

But I think it is an injustice because another referee could easily look at that and give the foul. In the same way that one referee gave Martinelli two yellow cards but another gave Bergwijn one.

 

I mean, we're just going round and round in circles here essentially just arguing semantics for the sakes of it

 

The first one of those things is the laws being written badly, the second is one referee implementing them correctly and another referee getting it wrong. 

 

I mean look, both of those things are bad at the end of the day I think we can both agree on that. 

[CosbehFox]

48 minutes ago, AKCJ said:

It's come square off the middle of his upper arm mate. It's bang in the gray area between the red zone and the green zone where it's open to interpretation. We're right to feel aggrieved because one day a team will have a goal disallowed where it's hit a player in exactly the same spot.

Finnegan is agreeing with you. It's in a grey area of 50/50 and up to the referee's discretion. 

[Number 6]

Looking back at it I do think there are positives to take. The atmosphere at 0-1 was pretty toxic and we looked like we had absolutely no answer to their shape - leading to a ridiculous passage of knocking the ball along the back line. But we responded well and got a bit of luck for our endeavour before half time. Second half we were good and completely outplayed them. This is what makes the substitution even more annoying as I don't think they were putting us under that much pressure and we had dealt pretty well with them.

 

Putting all that aside I am very surprised that goal was given. Dawson didn't even celebrate, seeming to know what had happened. Was bizarre. I could maybe accept it if it was part of play leading to a goal but he's literally put it in with his arm. If that is the rule then the rule needs to change. Sadly we're not getting those tight ones go our way at the moment but I thought the second half was promising.

 

Another thing that needs working on is Daka's runs. You really appreciate Vardy's movement when you watch Daka. Whenever we were bearing down on the back line he didn't seem to know where to move and didn't take defenders away. Needs work, though to be fair he looked knackered late on.