geordiesteve710

The rule hasn't changed, I don't think, it's the application of it. Essentially for fouls that continue into the box the ref is giving advantage until the attacker enters the box at which point there is no advantage to the attacker in playing on vs the award of a penalty.

Posted in the other games thread, so I'll not repeat myself at length here, but overturning Bournemouths penalty was a very shoddy decision. And I don't understand why the defender didn't get a card of either colour for what was a pretty cynical foul. Although I don't agree with the Man Utd penalty I can understand why it was given and don't think it can be said to be a "clear and obvious" error in my understanding of those words.

Having decided that it's not a penalty then double jeopardy doesn't apply. Shouldn't VAR at least chek to see if he was the last man?? I don't think Maguire is getting back to cover. Nope, VAR not so keen to check on that are they 🙄

I understand what you mean, and also why you have that view. For me I've always seen it as part of the skill of defending, if you can produce a tackle so precise in a pressure situation where the risk is if you get it even slightly wrong you're in the shit, that you even feather the ball before (safely) wiping out the opponent then the law would reward that skill by deeming it not to be a foul regardless of whether you change the direction of the ball by xx degrees/ mph/rotations per second/ any other measure. I don't think either of our interpretations are so nonsensical as to be stupid, but if we were looking at it on VAR we would come to very different conclusions. So why send that kind of decision for VAR to review in the first place?

Yep. A lot of football officiating seems to be by "convention" rather than strict application of the law. Prime example- a sliding defender wiping out a striker after they've got a shot off is nearly always seen as fair game, whether or not the ball is still in play. Mark Hughes or Alan Shearer doing the same to a defender just after they've cleared the ball was always* punished with a yellow card (similarly, these days, any slight contact with a defender after jumping to try to block their clearance.) *not necessarily "always" for Hughes, but that was more to do with the badge on his shirt than anything.

See, this goes to highlight how subjective a lot of these decisions are. I've always been of the view that if you make any contact whatsoever on the ball before (NOT after) contact with an opponent then it isn't a foul (as long as not going over the top of the ball, endangering opponent etc.) If we're saying that a slight touch on the ball isn't enough to make it a legal tackle then how much of a touch is needed, how is it measured and how do we get a consistent approach as to where the line is? My point isn't to start an argument with you about what is or isn't a foul tackle, I'm trying to highlight that a lot of decisions in football are extremely subjective indeed. It's the nature of the game. Which is why I think that VAR should only really be used for anything matter of fact and the absolute howlers, not to open another can of worms at every slightly debatable decision.

I honestly think the ref didn't want to give the Dummett foul because he knew they had been doing similar (just not as bad) all half. When var brought his attention to it he had to really. Midds post above makes a great point about consistency with how the ref on duty handles similar incidents throughout the match. Also has to be said that Young was clever and insistent on bringing the incident to the attention of the ref and var. Without Gordon on the pitch Tuesday we had nobody similar-minded to make such a fuss and pressure the officials, for example the 2nd pen vs west ham.

Couldn't agree more with this.

I'd love to understand what Burn did so badly today that Evertons defence did so correctly when wrestling him down every time we had a corner on Tuesday like. The other thing from Tuesday was after Everton were given a penalty for wrestling in the box he realised he couldn't keep on ignoring it in our box. So every corner he stops, takes his time telling them to watch themselves which they of course ignored. The worst one was when the corner taker was already on his run up, Schar moves away from his marker who hauls him back by the shirt so he blows the whistle a nano-second before the corner is taken so he can remind the Everton player he's not allowed to do that. Spineless- you're a referee not his fucking social worker man. Let the corner be taken and if he's still got Schars shirt give the penalty.

It's never been a good idea to grab an opponent in a headlock when they're nowhere near the ball like. I get what you mean that they were rarely given pre-VAR but when they were it was always, always against us. Dummett has enough experience to know better than that.

I could understand if Dummett got done for pace, but it's a pretty daft penalty to give away. Fwiw Burn had his shirt nearly pulled off 10 minutes earlier but without Gordon on the pitch we're far too naive about putting pressure on the referee.

Should have taken our chances. Only ourselves to blame.

This is the best example I have seen of why the while concept of "value" is a complete misnomer to begin with when it comes to players. I have added to it below. The "value" of a player is hard to define as players have (at least) two values at any time, the value to a potential buyer -lets call this value A and value to the club he is registered to (i.e. the potential seller) value B in this scenario. A transfer will only happen when circumstances dictate that value A exceeds, or at least reaches, value B and the clubs then come to a figure that is acceptable to both. There are several variables to this. Off the top of my head you'd have: - how good the player is - how reliable is his temperament - injury record - length remaining on contract - age and associated potential for inprovement/ resale value - do they qualify as homegrown for uefa rules? - any international caps? If so, what nation and how good are they? - what are his personal circumstances (eg is he settled where he lives or on the other hand agitating for a move) - what strength in depth does the club (buying or selling) have in that position? - where is the club on the table (eg pushing for Europe/fighting relegation or comfortably midtable - ironically, another consideration would now be what is the club's FFP position? Eg do they need to sell? How much headroom does the buyer have to splash out? - is the buyer needing to retain funds to revamp the squad in several areas or is this the only signing they will make in a window? - another consideration when selling to clubs in Saudi or other countries with no FFP restrictions (like we did with ASM) then it is fairly well understood that the player will be hugely remunerated for making that move, already pricing other potential suitors out of even making a move and reducing the leverage a selling would theorerically have to demand a large fee in an arms-length transaction with a value-driven buyer. Footballer transfers are rare in occurence (compared to say people going to the shop and buying a loaf of bread) so there is a limited sample to benchmark against. Given the vast array of variables how do you reliably/accurately demonstrate what the hypothetical FMV of a transfer would be? I can understand it for sponsorships and commercial deals (even if I don't agree) but trying to apply fmv to player transfers is a fools errand.

We parked on Marlborough Street in December. Quiet, wide, reasonably leafy residential street. We parked next to a little pedestrian cut to Lansdowne Road.

Castle Leazes stadium being turned down feels like a big one, back in an era when gates receipts from non-corporate seats made up a much bigger proportion of a football club's overall revenue. But as someone has said above, there is the likelihood that it would already be outdated now. The biggest sliding door moment for me was Abramovich buying Chelsea. That doesn't happen and Newcastle would finish top 4 in 2003/4 at the point when the four teams that did were able to pull the ladder up and put distance between themselves for a good 8 years. Would also mean no Souness fucking us up financially and maybe no Ashley, who knows. Chelsea would have been absolutely fucked for a long time as well, their finances were a complete mess at the time.