Man Utd 1-1 LCFC - Post Match Thread

[HighPeakFox]

12 minutes ago, MalletFox said:

Anyone who is referencing inconsistency or incompetence as the reason for the pathetic VAR decisions is genuinely missing the point, the Premier League is corrupt. It stares us all

in the face every weekend yet most supporters seem to micro view each incident and then go through the same cycle each weekend.

 

The McTom challenge in particular, on what planet is that NOT a red card? Both, from the ref actually on the pitch and then further compounded by VAR apparently not seeing an issue with the challenge. If that was a Leicester player going through Bruno, the referee brandishes a red card from his pocket within 3 seconds of the event happening, end of, there’s no debate over that, quite simply that’s exactly what happens. Playing devils advocate, IF the ref gave a yellow, VAR would have spent 5mins analysing it to get the perfect ‘still’ which would have been given as a red. The fact that neither of those things happened is not incompetence or inconsistency, it’s pretty bloody obvious corrupt decision making. It really is that simple!

The trouble is, you're convinced it's fact, when it is just a strongly held opinion. And let's face it, none of us here is objective about LCFC decisions.

[He aint bald]

5 hours ago, messerschmitt said:

Yeah I'd forgotten about the Perez one.

That red coincided with Perez falling out of favour, just as he was playing OKish  too.............

McTominay got hooked soon after and if Goldbridge and the United Stand are to be believed, is on borrowed time anyway.

Hope he gets his cumuppance 

[cityfanlee23]

7 hours ago, 5waller5 said:

No it doesn’t, the advantage would be played.

 

 

But the advantage can't be counted because of the leg hook. And you're basically assuming that if he had not dragged the leg and Varane went down, the ball would have done the exact same thing and ended up as a goal. Which is unlikely considering the ball only got to Kel because he hooked the leg and Varanes other foot knocked the ball to him as he lost balance. So in all honesty we have no idea what would have happened if Kel had not tangled with him how he did. 
It's impossible to debate if's and maybes when we have absolutely no idea. Leicester fans won't agree it was a foul, unless it was against one of our players, and they won't agree it would have been given  any consideration if the roles had been reversed so it becomes a rather silly debate. I think it was a foul. If you don't that's fine. Kel was trying to muscle Varane in a very similar way but just less of an obvious push. 

[MalletFox]

45 minutes ago, HighPeakFox said:

The trouble is, you're convinced it's fact, when it is just a strongly held opinion. And let's face it, none of us here is objective about LCFC decisions.

Do you disagree?

[UniFox21]

Ignoring the Varane slip, what the hell was Maguire doing diving in? 

[KFS]

5 minutes ago, UniFox21 said:

Ignoring the Varane slip, what the hell was Maguire doing diving in? 

80 mil 80 mil Man Ushited

80 mil 80 mil I say

80 mil 80 mil Man Ushited

Now you know that the fridge can’t play!

[09bballer]

8 hours ago, joshthanki said:

great away end , get the away and home ends bouncing like that lads

Throats a bit sore today!!! Enjoyed it yesterday.

[messerschmitt]

2 hours ago, HighPeakFox said:

The trouble is, you're convinced it's fact, when it is just a strongly held opinion. And let's face it, none of us here is objective about LCFC decisions.

Both Sky and the premier league have a mutual arrangement for them to show games, that's a fact. Both also benefit if the big six are at the top. Sky have more viewers and  its better and more attractive for subscribers and advertisers if they show Man city v Liverpool as 1st v 2nd as rather to if they were 3rd and 8th for instance.

The premier league also benefit as a product to sell overseas where the big six are huge, As much as we think were part of it, more people will want to watch Man u or Liverpool not Leicester or Burnley.

Referees are employed by the premier league.

If you don't think that there's any conflict of interest going on then fine.

I've mentioned before that the replays showed Teilemans didn't touch Fernandes for the yellow card. He protested and clearly the card should have been for simulation to Fernandes. This didn't get a mention on Sky.  If it had been the other way round and Teilemans had dived do you not think Sky would have banged on about it.

While i do think some on here do have a bias there are also a lot of people who are a bit older and see things more objectively and it's getting increasingly harder to ignore what is happening week after week.

[messerschmitt]

2 hours ago, cityfanlee23 said:

But the advantage can't be counted because of the leg hook. And you're basically assuming that if he had not dragged the leg and Varane went down, the ball would have done the exact same thing and ended up as a goal. Which is unlikely considering the ball only got to Kel because he hooked the leg and Varanes other foot knocked the ball to him as he lost balance. So in all honesty we have no idea what would have happened if Kel had not tangled with him how he did. 
It's impossible to debate if's and maybes when we have absolutely no idea. Leicester fans won't agree it was a foul, unless it was against one of our players, and they won't agree it would have been given  any consideration if the roles had been reversed so it becomes a rather silly debate. I think it was a foul. If you don't that's fine. Kel was trying to muscle Varane in a very similar way but just less of an obvious push. 

I think the point is if the exact same goal had been score by Man U, I don't think it would have been disallowed. the call would have been ref didn't see anything wrong VAR saw no obvious error ans pundits would have said it was a 50/50 challenge not enough to be a clear foul.

[HighPeakFox]

3 hours ago, MalletFox said:

Do you disagree?

Well, without wishing to appear passively confrontational, my opinion is neither here nor there. I just don't really think I can ever claim that my opinion is ever fact, and nor can anyone else. I didn't much like the 2 major decisions that were made yesterday, but I think presuming it's due to overt corruption as a default position is a slippery slope. 

 

Happy to discuss the 2 incidents, but not really when the opposing POV is 'You're not looking at things right'.

[HighPeakFox]

39 minutes ago, messerschmitt said:

Both Sky and the premier league have a mutual arrangement for them to show games, that's a fact. Both also benefit if the big six are at the top. Sky have more viewers and  its better and more attractive for subscribers and advertisers if they show Man city v Liverpool as 1st v 2nd as rather to if they were 3rd and 8th for instance.

The premier league also benefit as a product to sell overseas where the big six are huge, As much as we think were part of it, more people will want to watch Man u or Liverpool not Leicester or Burnley.

Referees are employed by the premier league.

If you don't think that there's any conflict of interest going on then fine.

I've mentioned before that the replays showed Teilemans didn't touch Fernandes for the yellow card. He protested and clearly the card should have been for simulation to Fernandes. This didn't get a mention on Sky.  If it had been the other way round and Tielemans had dived do you not think Sky would have banged on about it?

While i do think some on here do have a bias there are also a lot of people who are a bit older and see things more objectively and it's getting increasingly harder to ignore what is happening week after week.

I take all your points, respectfully. But as I said above, what I think is neither here nor there really. It's a life thing for me - I deal with what is and try not to spend energy on stuff I cannot affect. 

[5waller5]

3 hours ago, cityfanlee23 said:

But the advantage can't be counted because of the leg hook. And you're basically assuming that if he had not dragged the leg and Varane went down, the ball would have done the exact same thing and ended up as a goal. Which is unlikely considering the ball only got to Kel because he hooked the leg and Varanes other foot knocked the ball to him as he lost balance. So in all honesty we have no idea what would have happened if Kel had not tangled with him how he did. 
It's impossible to debate if's and maybes when we have absolutely no idea. Leicester fans won't agree it was a foul, unless it was against one of our players, and they won't agree it would have been given  any consideration if the roles had been reversed so it becomes a rather silly debate. I think it was a foul. If you don't that's fine. Kel was trying to muscle Varane in a very similar way but just less of an obvious push. 

It is clear though. Push precedes the hook that you refer to.

 

Push = foul.

 

Advantage played.

 

Goal scored.

 

[Spudulike]

3 hours ago, cityfanlee23 said:

But the advantage can't be counted because of the leg hook. And you're basically assuming that if he had not dragged the leg and Varane went down, the ball would have done the exact same thing and ended up as a goal. Which is unlikely considering the ball only got to Kel because he hooked the leg and Varanes other foot knocked the ball to him as he lost balance. So in all honesty we have no idea what would have happened if Kel had not tangled with him how he did. 
It's impossible to debate if's and maybes when we have absolutely no idea. Leicester fans won't agree it was a foul, unless it was against one of our players, and they won't agree it would have been given  any consideration if the roles had been reversed so it becomes a rather silly debate. I think it was a foul. If you don't that's fine. Kel was trying to muscle Varane in a very similar way but just less of an obvious push. 

So that's it then. If there is no agreement on what the correct decision is then it is not clear and obvious. The on field ref gave the goal and he was closest official. VAR scrutinise all goals but on this occasion there was no requirement for them to make any ruling or even edit a slow-mo sequence to present as evidence that it should be ruled out. 

[cityfanlee23]

1 minute ago, 5waller5 said:

It is clear though. Push precedes the hook that you refer to.

 

Push = foul.

 

Advantage played.

 

Goal scored.

 

So you're going to completely ignore the fact that 2 fouls were committed? one by Varane and one by Kel? 
Push = Foul
Leg hook = Foul
Advantage cancelled. 
Free kick. 

You can't pick and choose which is okay and which is not an okay foul to suit you. 

[cityfanlee23]

2 minutes ago, Spudulike said:

So that's it then. If there is no agreement on what the correct decision is then it is not clear and obvious. The on field ref gave the goal and he was closest official. VAR scrutinise all goals but on this occasion there was no requirement for them to make any ruling or even edit a slow-mo sequence to present as evidence that it should be ruled out. 

Again, this is why I hate the "clear and obvious" rule. To me it was clear an obvious that a foul was committed, to you it was not clear and obvious. So it creates this really pointless line that fans from both sides of a challenge will hang onto. 

[Spudulike]

1 minute ago, cityfanlee23 said:

Again, this is why I hate the "clear and obvious" rule. To me it was clear an obvious that a foul was committed, to you it was not clear and obvious. So it creates this really pointless line that fans from both sides of a challenge will hang onto. 

It was a subjective call. The ref gave the goal and was, by all intents and purposes, overruled by another official. Some experts thought it was a foul, some not and some didn't know. You can go around in ever decreasing circles but ultimately the officiating abides by the dreaded clear and obvious ruling. Doesn't it? 

[cityfanlee23]

2 minutes ago, Spudulike said:

It was a subjective call. The ref gave the goal and was, by all intents and purposes, overruled by another official. Some experts thought it was a foul, some not and some didn't know. You can go around in ever decreasing circles but ultimately the officiating abides by the dreaded clear and obvious ruling. Doesn't it? 

The ref made a subjective call yes, just as us fans are. I happen to agree with VAR on this one. I disagree with many calls. At the end of the day the call on something being "clear and obvious" is not based on every single person agreeing. By those standards nothing would ever be clear and obvious. I bet you could find someone who thought the Mctominay challenge was nuanced and not a red. It was still clear and obvious to me that it was. To you too I'm sure.

[lanefox]

9 hours ago, messerschmitt said:

I'll make a prediction that Dermot Gallagher will be on Sky sports Monday and he will agree with the yellow card and say VAR was right to disallow the goal.

I’ll be shocked if it gets mentioned, even more stunned today to see Gabby Agbonlahor saying it should’ve been a red on anti Leicester talksport 

[Dan LCFC]

I was happy enough with our performance. I don't think we lacked organisation which is more than I can say for a lot of the displays this season - the final ball was infuriating a lot of the time but I thought it was better, and hopefully this is a direct result of the centre halves as that would bode quite well going forwards. Only so much you can do when playing against VAR as well though. I really do fear we're witnessing an unprecedented level of match fixing in this country. When things get so consistently ridiculous I fail to believe it's just pure incompetence at work.

[gerblod]

17 hours ago, turtmcfly said:

My bad. In my (poor) defence, 1.30am is stupidly late to be posting (so don't do it, knobber) and the videos were no longer visible by that time, so it was hard to follow the thread. Glad I chose that emoji, not something more, er, combatative. 

 

Have amended doh-riginal post

 

A valiant rearguard action. Ten Hail Marys should suffice for penance . 

[gerblod]

12 hours ago, HighPeakFox said:

I didn't much like the 2 major decisions that were made yesterday, but I think presuming it's due to overt corruption as a default position is a slippery slope.

It needs repeating that the possibility of VAR being rigged to favour certain teams is a knee jerk and frankly juvenile assertion. Unconscious bias might infiltrate the decision making process perhaps, but VAR overview takes place away from the 'cauldron of emotions'.

To call refs and their assistants corrupt or cheats is the most ungrateful of responses. Without them the games we want to watch couldn't take place.

[st albans fox]

11 hours ago, cityfanlee23 said:

Again, this is why I hate the "clear and obvious" rule. To me it was clear an obvious that a foul was committed, to you it was not clear and obvious. So it creates this really pointless line that fans from both sides of a challenge will hang onto. 

 

11 hours ago, cityfanlee23 said:

The ref made a subjective call yes, just as us fans are. I happen to agree with VAR on this one. I disagree with many calls. At the end of the day the call on something being "clear and obvious" is not based on every single person agreeing. By those standards nothing would ever be clear and obvious. I bet you could find someone who thought the Mctominay challenge was nuanced and not a red. It was still clear and obvious to me that it was. To you too I'm sure.

I think you’re wrong 

clear and obvious is where 90% of people  agree.  Of course those being asked would have to understand what constitutes foul play but var should only overturn on field calls for howlers and a howler is where 90% of people would agree.  The varane/kel battle on Saturday would probably fall into the 65/35 it’s a foul.  That’s not a basis for overturning  on field call in a situation where the incident doesn’t not lead directly to the goal. Rodgers is right to point out that there is another challenge before the pass to the scorer.  
I spoke to several people down here yesterday at the kids game and no one thought it was an overturn.  Is it a foul ?  Probably (on the basis above of 65/35)  - is it a clear and obvious error not to award the foul ? Most definitely not.   And that’s without taking into account that it doesn’t lead directly to the goal. 
 

and I’m not one who would jump up and down about the MCT not being a red. to me, that a refs call either way. what annoys me about that is the apparent ‘consequence rule’ which would mean that if madders shin had been smashed in half, he would have been red carded by mariner. 
 

var has the incorrect approach to goals. It asks ‘what can I find to rule out this goal’. it’s coming at it from the wrong angle. 
 

 

[frakenfox]

3 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

var has the incorrect approach to goals. It asks ‘what can I find to rule out this goal’. it’s coming at it from the wrong angle. 

Agreed.

 

VAR by its nature is presenting an incident in an isolated and specific context, a snippet if you like, to ask 'make a decision on that'. 

 

I think VAR is over complicating decisions in some instances, by introducing a 'different context' review process that simply shifts the debate over decisions to a different area. I'm not sure what my answer would be but I'd be drawn to either scrap it entirely or limit its use to offsides and perhaps a few other cases.

[Tom12345]

On 03/04/2022 at 15:42, Spudulike said:

Look at the incident as a whole. Was Varane pushing Nacho? Was it really clear and obvious requiring VAR intervention? 

 

The game loses integrity if VAR picks and chooses which incidents to review. It's possible to find something wrong in most goals if you look hard enough from every angle, use slow-mo and stills. 

Yeah. Sometimes you play on. Here, it was a few moves before the goal. If the ref did not call it, it should not be reviewable. I mean how far back do you go otherwise. The ref saw what happened, obviously thought that it was one of those 50/50 tackles that we see all the time, and decided it should be played on in real time.  VAR should be limited to offsides, handballs, penalties and red card offences, and only where it is clear and obvious. This is just a random “foul”.

Edited 4 April 2022 by Tom12345

[turtmcfly]

37 minutes ago, gerblod said:

It needs repeating that the possibility of VAR being rigged to favour certain teams is a knee jerk and frankly juvenile assertion. Unconscious bias might infiltrate the decision making process perhaps, but VAR overview takes place away from the 'cauldron of emotions'.

To call refs and their assistants corrupt or cheats is the most ungrateful of responses. Without them the games we want to watch couldn't take place.

 

What isn't covered by unconscious bias can be explained by the application of Hanlon's razor. 

 

The conspiracy theorists fail the test of Hitchen's razor - you will never get any detail from them regarding how this cheating network (and it has to be a network) hangs together, let alone how it manages to keep a lid on the whole thing (a reminder - Jonathan Moss is a PGMOL Select Group 1 official)

 

As explained here, it's not even a good coping mechanism https://www.kent.ac.uk/news/science/30340/explainer-why-do-people-believe-in-conspiracy-theories