Greenlizard0 PL & Championship Football Thread ** spoilers ** [23rd - 28th April 2022]

They need this man to keep them up.

Edit:link won't work
MWj4YyVpFQBQcwJi7

MWj4YyVpFQBQcwJi7
 
If it was Dyche’s Burnley going down, I’d be happy. Now it’s ‘just’ Burnley, I’m not so bothered.

Everton going down would be more of an event, that’s for sure!
 
Bigpig said:
Not so much Everton but I will enjoy that worm Pickford going down.
Click to expand...

He won't stay if we go down, we have the World Cup just around the corner. He will just move to a Premiership Club.

IvanDobskey said:
I still think Everton will stay up by the skin of their teeth. They've been here before, and escaped. I just think Burnley's time is probably up in the premiership now. They've done amazingly well to be there as long as they have. I think it might do Everton some good to go down though :p
Click to expand...

Well, if we cannot beat Watford away then we don't deserve to stay up.

From what I've read, we can financially survive a year outside the Premiership, so need promotion straight back up. Not sure what will happen if we don't get promoted straight away.
 
Apparently Everton have asked Mike Riley to explain why their penalty shout wasn't reviewed more thoroughly.

For me, it was a 50/50 penalty. It would be soft but you see them given. However, by that point in the match the referee was clearly so fed up with their players going to ground at every opportunity that he was basically ignoring things. That's not how refereeing should work, but Everton very much only have themselves to blame.
 
manic111 said:
Apparently Everton have asked Mike Riley to explain why their penalty shout wasn't reviewed more thoroughly.

For me, it was a 50/50 penalty. It would be soft but you see them given. However, by that point in the match the referee was clearly so fed up with their players going to ground at every opportunity that he was basically ignoring things. That's not how refereeing should work, but Everton very much only have themselves to blame.
Click to expand...

No, that's not how the refereeing should be done, Gordon got a yellow for simulation....fair enough, but if the other foul was a penalty it should have been given. Gordon had already been punished with a yellow, so you'd hope the referee wouldn't be thinking about the previously dive.
 
ThundyCat said:
No, that's not how the refereeing should be done, Gordon got a yellow for simulation....fair enough, but if the other foul was a penalty it should have been given. Gordon had already been punished with a yellow, so you'd hope the referee wouldn't be thinking about the previously dive.
Click to expand...
Gordon initiates contact by cutting across Matip when there was no need, he's looking for a pen. Start of the season ref's confirmed that they were clamping down on soft penalties where the attacker does this. As Manic said they are subjective at best which is why var didn't flag it as an issue.
 
Still think I was a penalty and would be furious if it wasn’t given to the toon, he’s right in what he said though, if it’s the other way the Ref either gives it or VAR tells him to go to the monitor if he hasn’t.
 
woppy101 said:
Still think I was a penalty and would be furious if it wasn’t given to the toon, he’s right in what he said though, if it’s the other way the Ref either gives it or VAR tells him to go to the monitor if he hasn’t.
Click to expand...

We got robbed for a penalty at home to City. A point here and there could mean all the difference between Premiership and Championship football next season.
 
ThundyCat said:
No, that's not how the refereeing should be done, Gordon got a yellow for simulation....fair enough, but if the other foul was a penalty it should have been given. Gordon had already been punished with a yellow, so you'd hope the referee wouldn't be thinking about the previously dive.
Click to expand...
But clearly you do still consider what's gone before. If a player gains a reputation for diving, and there's then a 50/50 call involving them, the ref will be less likely to give them the benefit of the doubt, as there is a greater likelihood in the ref's mind that it's a dive.

It's not a punishment for diving, but it weighs into the question of whether the player has fallen over the next time because he was fouled or because he's dived again.

It's the same as Richarlison. If he goes down in apparent pain, the first thought will be that he's pretending to be injured. If, I don't know, James Tarkowski goes down apparently in the same amount of pain, you're more likely to believe that he's injured.
 
manic111 said:
But clearly you do still consider what's gone before. If a player gains a reputation for diving, and there's then a 50/50 call involving them, the ref will be less likely to give them the benefit of the doubt, as there is a greater likelihood in the ref's mind that it's a dive.

It's not a punishment for diving, but it weighs into the question of whether the player has fallen over the next time because he was fouled or because he's dived again.

It's the same as Richarlison. If he goes down in apparent pain, the first thought will be that he's pretending to be injured. If, I don't know, James Tarkowski goes down apparently in the same amount of pain, you're more likely to believe that he's injured.
Click to expand...
That’s the point of VAR though to stop that sort of bias
 
manic111 said:
But clearly you do still consider what's gone before. If a player gains a reputation for diving, and there's then a 50/50 call involving them, the ref will be less likely to give them the benefit of the doubt, as there is a greater likelihood in the ref's mind that it's a dive.

It's not a punishment for diving, but it weighs into the question of whether the player has fallen over the next time because he was fouled or because he's dived again.

It's the same as Richarlison. If he goes down in apparent pain, the first thought will be that he's pretending to be injured. If, I don't know, James Tarkowski goes down apparently in the same amount of pain, you're more likely to believe that he's injured.
Click to expand...

VAR should have intervened with the second incident and should have had the referee go over to the screen. As for Richy, you could clearly see his ankle get clipped, so I'm sure he was in quite some pain. I'm not saying it was intentional, but he got clipped.
 
ThundyCat said:
VAR should have intervened with the second incident and should have had the referee go over to the screen. As for Richy, you could clearly see his ankle get clipped, so I'm sure he was in quite some pain. I'm not saying it was intentional, but he got clipped.
Click to expand...
He headed a ball out from a corner and went down for 3 minutes. None of the physios even checked him for a concussion.

The problem with VAR is that many decisions in football are not objective. Everyone, neutrals included, will have a different opinion on that kind of "foul". Therefore the character of the player going down affects a subjective evaluation.

It's different to an offside which (provided the tech is working properly) is objective. Nobody is going to give a player offside because he's a player who's frequently offside. But fouls are different.

To be clear, I'm not necessarily saying that VAR was right on the Gordon incident. But he did not help himself.
 
Everton have presumably asked why Richarlison wasnt sent off for kicking out at Henderson or why Allan wasnt punished. Easily red card decisions there. Then you have the insane amount of time wasting in the first half especially from Gordon kicking the ball away after being booked.

Both teams had decisions go there way. Id argue the Gordon pen was the hardest of the rest to give.

Edit. They’ve asked for this to be clarified?

https://twitter.com/paul_tomkins/status/1518564290327764993?s=21&t=UV5itL4QtkwEUkg7Ch2ALQ



I find it all a bit pathetic to be honest. Lampard deflecting his teams awful performance, their cheating and time wasting and somehow this is the refs fault.

Awful manager.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom