Greenlizard0 Weekend Football Thread ** spoilers ** [8th - 10th November 2019]

Don
Joined
9 Jun 2004
Posts
46,288
The price they paid and their actual worth are two different things. Like that for most of the big money signings you see.
As I said in my next post, that's City's problem. Nobody can make excuses for City's 'injury crisis' when they've put out a side full of internationals, have a substitutes bench that cost more than most PL squads, had a £50m+ LB not even making the bench and have loaned out another £40m+ defender. All those comments about how unfortunate City have been with injuries should be criticising how much money City have wasted. You can't have that much money's worth of defenders available to you and have a defence that bad.
 
Soldato
Joined
14 Sep 2009
Posts
9,203
Location
Northumberland
As I said in my next post, that's City's problem. Nobody can make excuses for City's 'injury crisis' when they've put out a side full of internationals, have a substitutes bench that cost more than most PL squads, had a £50m+ LB not even making the bench and have loaned out another £40m+ defender. All those comments about how unfortunate City have been with injuries should be criticising how much money City have wasted. You can't have that much money's worth of defenders available to you and have a defence that bad.

Missed that. Long day :p

100% agreed. You can feel sorry for teams who are struggling to make a balanced team, playing people out of position, etc., when their team costs a single city player. But for them to want it, just shows up Fraudiola IMO. Splash the money about, get in a few mercenaries, few worthy of making a team around, but not actually building a squad. The bubble always busts eventually.
 
Caporegime
Joined
4 Jan 2011
Posts
25,963
Ah reading the in match comments about the handball and definite offside are pretty funny, more so the complete lack of understanding of the handball one :D
 
Caporegime
Joined
6 Dec 2005
Posts
37,568
Location
Birmingham
According to the rules though the handball from Silva wasn't the reason, as he didn't gain control of the ball and gain an advantage e.g. a goal or goal scoring opportunity.

The reason they gave was that TAA arm was not in an unnatural position.
 
Caporegime
Joined
4 Jan 2011
Posts
25,963
According to the rules though the handball from Silva wasn't the reason, as he didn't gain control of the ball and gain an advantage e.g. a goal or goal scoring opportunity.

The reason they gave was that TAA arm was not in an unnatural position.

and it deflected off his thigh, they had no need to review Silva’s handball because city gained no advantage
 
Don
Joined
9 Jun 2004
Posts
46,288
According to the rules though the handball from Silva wasn't the reason, as he didn't gain control of the ball and gain an advantage e.g. a goal or goal scoring opportunity.

The reason they gave was that TAA arm was not in an unnatural position.
Oliver didn't award the penalty because he deemed it was too close and his arm wasn't in an unnatural position but even had he decided otherwise, the penalty would have been overturned because of the handball by Bernardo. Bobby Madley was clear about this.
 
Don
Joined
9 Jun 2004
Posts
46,288
Sissoko's arm was much higher. Both correct decisions @ThestigGT999. Sorry for forgetting you in my earlier post, your weekend has been ruined too. Hamilton the other week and Liverpool this week, tough times for you ;)

And the onfield refs gave both decisions, not VAR :)
 

Sui

Sui

Soldato
Joined
24 Sep 2005
Posts
4,346
Location
Brighton
ydjNNE0.jpg

hmmm interesting

What are your thoughts? @BaZ87
When you understand the rules life will be simpler for you. So many people/pundits fail to realise that Silva’s handball negates any play City has there. If they had scored it would have been ruled out, the only thing I’m not overly sure on is if an awarded penalty would also get overturned? I think so.
 
Don
Joined
9 Jun 2004
Posts
46,288
.....the only thing I’m not overly sure on is if an awarded penalty would also get overturned? I think so.
Correct. Bobby Madley explained this on Twitter yesterday and Clattenburg went one step further in an article today saying that the Bernardo handball meant a pen should not have been awarded, let alone awarded and then overturned.

This doesn't apply to stig, because the ball could have hit Trent's knee and he would have claimed a penalty, but this handball law has become a tad confusing. In normal circumstances Bernardo's handball wouldn't be an offence so the game has to continue until a goal or goal scoring opportunity arises - had Oliver then decided Trent's handball was intentional and been aware of the ball hitting Bernardo's arm, he would have then given us the free-kick and had he not been aware he'd have given a pen and then VAR would have overturned it.
 
Soldato
Joined
13 Jun 2009
Posts
5,884
Location
In the asylum
Correct. Bobby Madley explained this on Twitter yesterday and Clattenburg went one step further in an article today saying that the Bernardo handball meant a pen should not have been awarded, let alone awarded and then overturned.

This doesn't apply to stig, because the ball could have hit Trent's knee and he would have claimed a penalty, but this handball law has become a tad confusing. In normal circumstances Bernardo's handball wouldn't be an offence so the game has to continue until a goal or goal scoring opportunity arises - had Oliver then decided Trent's handball was intentional and been aware of the ball hitting Bernardo's arm, he would have then given us the free-kick and had he not been aware he'd have given a pen and then VAR would have overturned it.
So on this comment why was liverpool's goal allowed after hitting trents arm surely the same rule should apply as it led to liverpool's goal
 
Caporegime
Joined
26 Dec 2003
Posts
25,666
If that's a natural position we're never likely to see a handball ever again, he looks like he's signalling for a bus his hand isn't even in a natural position.

If VAR wants to later look at the Bernado handball and strike off the penalty then it would be a free kick to Liverpool and 0-0 which is still better for City than losing 1-0. You don't just ignore the two incidents under some belief that they cancel each other out, that's like not awarding two red cards after two players have a punch up.
 
Don
Joined
9 Jun 2004
Posts
46,288
So on this comment why was liverpool's goal allowed after hitting trents arm surely the same rule should apply as it led to liverpool's goal
This was also covered by Madley on twitter, it doesn't apply to goals scored from counter attacks, when there have been multiple passes after the handball and or large area of ground covered.
 
Soldato
Joined
13 Jun 2009
Posts
5,884
Location
In the asylum
This was also covered by Madley on twitter, it doesn't apply to goals scored from counter attacks, when there have been multiple passes after the handball and or large area of ground covered.
Ok now would you be happy if it was city who had scored from that situation as I wouldn't have been especially as the counter attack was started by a hand ball
 
Back
Top Bottom