advertisement


All purpose football thread 2023/24 Season

Blue Belle said:
I wasn't trying to be contrary with my question. I genuinely wondered why you were so very adamant about the possible outcome, you've made this comment on many occasions, when as Robert has stated before, and others have poked the finger, we don't really know what the guts of these charges are. I know we have a gist, but what weight they have, we will see in time. I've seen some documentaries about the UEFA charges, and some aspects were a bit sketchy, but people will always use a documentary or a report that belly rubs your/their agenda, it's just the way of the world, i guess.
Click to expand...
It is. I didn't think your question was contrary - I thought it a fair challenge.
 
Bob McC said:
Not much chance of that Oldius.. just ignore shit stirring trolls.
Click to expand...
I didn't think it was shit-stirring, tbh. Well, nothing that another trophy wouldn't encourage anyway.

Anyway, the charges will be heard and we will be guilty, or innocent, and we will move on. More importantly, a tough game against Everton awaits the reigning Premier League, European and World Club champions.
 
A good win for City against a 'live opponent' in good form and with a clear and physical gameplan. I thought City played well for the vast majority of the game with Foden a standout but good performances from Ake, Grealish, Gvardiol and Kovacic. Walker was also much improved in the second half. On to the next one to cut that gap and 'be there'.
 
The inconsistency of VAR/handball interpretation continues to frustrate - the toffees unlucky to concede a pen when the ball is blasted from just over a metre away? Contrast that with Ødegaard handling in the box at the weekend….
 
Last edited:
tqineil said:
The inconsistency of VAR/handball interpretation continues to frustrate - the toffees unlucky to concede a pen when the ball is blasted from just over a metre away? Contrast that with Odegard handling in the box at the weekend….
Click to expand...
Yes. It’s the inconsistent application of the rules that is the problem, not VAR itself.

That was not a deliberate handball.
 
Doesn’t have to be anymore.
apart from taking the laces out it could not have been a more obvious penalty under the current rules.
 
It did appear that the referee wasn't going to give the penalty, until the Man City players surrounded the referee. Personally, i thought it a bit close for a handball, but todays decisions are all over the place with consistency, whether it was a penalty as the current laws stand, or not.
 
I have no idea what the current handball rules are, and the more punditry I hear, the more confused I am. I think this was one that could go either way. It is a fact that the ball hit his hand on its way to goal. His hand was not by his side. It's also true that it was so close that he couldn't have avoided it. If I was an Evertonian, I'd think it shouldn't be handball. If I was a title rival, I'd think the same. As a City fan, I'm pleased with the decision.
 
oldius said:
I have no idea what the current handball rules are, and the more punditry I hear, the more confused I am. I think this was one that could go either way. It is a fact that the ball hit his hand on its way to goal. His hand was not by his side. It's also true that it was so close that he couldn't have avoided it. If I was an Evertonian, I'd think it shouldn't be handball. If I was a title rival, I'd think the same. As a City fan, I'm pleased with the decision.
Click to expand...
I think most people would feel the same.
 
I have no idea what the current handball rules are, and the more punditry I hear, the more confused I am. I think this was one that could go either way. It is a fact that the ball hit his hand on its way to goal. His hand was not by his side. It's also true that it was so close that he couldn't have avoided it. If I was an Evertonian, I'd think it shouldn't be handball. If I was a title rival, I'd think the same. As a City fan, I'm pleased with the decision.
tqineil said:
@oldius - any views on the Ødegaard one ? ;)
Click to expand...
I haven't seen it. Which match?
 
oldius said:
I have no idea what the current handball rules are, and the more punditry I hear, the more confused I am. I think this was one that could go either way. It is a fact that the ball hit his hand on its way to goal. His hand was not by his side. It's also true that it was so close that he couldn't have avoided it. If I was an Evertonian, I'd think it shouldn't be handball. If I was a title rival, I'd think the same. As a City fan, I'm pleased with the decision.

I haven't seen it. Which match?
Click to expand...
Liverpool v Arsenal

www.skysports.com

Ref Watch: Martin Odegaard handball 'should have been a penalty'

Former Premier League referee Dermot Gallagher believes that Martin Odegaard's handball against Liverpool should have resulted in a penalty.
www.skysports.com
 
Looks handball to me.
Tough isn't it? I was trying to think of a simplified rule and it is quite tricky.
If the ball strikes the hand and stops an attacking movement - handball.

That's my starter for ten - let's be 'aving you!
 
oldius said:
Looks handball to me.
Tough isn't it? I was trying to think of a simplified rule and it is quite tricky.
If the ball strikes the hand and stops an attacking movement - handball.

That's my starter for ten - let's be 'aving you!
Click to expand...
Ball strikes hand from, say, 2 yards, defended can’t react, not hand ball.

Ball strike defenders hand from say 10 yard, can react, is hand ball.

In between, referee’s discretion and if you don’t like it, plenty for supporters from one team to troll the supports of the other on a hifi forum. What’s not to like?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top