No it doesn't. When you play football, sometimes you tackle people and still make contact with them.
Manure (A)
- Thread starter Hansern
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Status
No it doesn't. When you play football, sometimes you tackle people and still make contact with them.
Spearing's entire body is off the ground, flying towards the opposition player, landing shin-height on his standing leg. I think that is a bit of a yellow/orange tackle. But it could've been dangerous.
It's not even comparable to Bailly's tackle last night.
So that contact either endangers the player or it does not. It is up to the defender to ensure it is the latter, otherwise it's a foul.
Having played football for nigh on 40 years, many of them as a fullback, I'm aware of that. Bumping shoulders or even shins is one thing. Coming through like an express train and knocking the opponent up in the air is another. It's foul play, full stop. Avoid it or take the consequences of not doing so.
I don't think it was anywhere near a sufficiently dangerous tackle to warrant a red card. If that's a red, you'll see about 6 a game.
I'm not sure it was a penalty but my biggest gripe is that the use of VAR would have had to do one of two things:
In addition - I would like to see MORE of that type of tackle. Get the ball and get the player after - absolutely go for it. If this starts become a mainstream foul it will a) see players stop taking on 50/50s and b) become easy to game by just getting in the way of follow throughs.
- Over turn a clear and obvious error - given the debate, you can be sure it wasn't a clear error
- Provide new evidence - did the referee say 'I didn't see any contact with the ball' and this disproved that? If he did - that would be a fair overturn. If it wasn't and he pointed to the spot because he thought the contact post tackle was too much, then nothing has changed.
In addition - I would like to see MORE of that type of tackle. Get the ball and get the player after - absolutely go for it. If this starts become a mainstream foul it will a) see players stop taking on 50/50s and b) become easy to game by just getting in the way of follow throughs.
Yeah, and I've played at semi-professional level since we're listing credentials, and I'd be mortified if that was given against me. It's a sore one, but that's the sport. As if you're get a red for that 40 years ago or whatever, let alone today.
It wasn't if, as I believe, Bailly didn't set out deliberately to commit the foul at the end of it. It would have to be if he did.
The clear and obvious thing is a major issue. It's never used in the way you're stating here. It's just a way for them to hide behind the wording of the law.
So, you don't think that's a foul at all? It doesn't have to be a leg-breaker to be given, and slight as it was there was contact on NVP's shin... Bailey's follow through after clearing the ball knocked NVP up into the air - By the letter of the current rules, that's a foul.
It's not a case of either, or though. He won the ball first (not always proof a foul hasn't been committed, granted), he won it fairly, he wasn't overly reckless or excessive with his force, and he was in control of his body. The follow through of his foot caught Phillips. It happens. It's not a foul in this instance.
I hate the refereeing in this league, I hate VAR, and it's the main reason I've stopped watching and all the enjoyment has been sucked out of the game for me. I'm always looking for reasons to shit on the officiating. But this isn't one of them.
I think it's very nuanced and open to interpretation. I can understand why some might argue it's a penalty, but no, I don't agree. It's a strong, robust - but fair - tackle, and in my opinion, that's how the game should be played. Otherwise you descend down this shitty rabbit hole where pens are given against Robertson for that joke of a decision against Brighton.
Almost correct. it's a foul and a red card anywhere on THAT pitch if committed by anybody not wearing red. 😉
So, do you not see the follow through that knocks NP into the air, or just not think it matters, as there's no intent to injure? Genuine question - Not being sarky...
I think there's always gonna be an element of follow through, in every single game, probably several times over. I don't think it's excessively forceful or dangerous enough to warrant a penalty.
That's the problem with football and trying to have black and white rules written into legislation. There's so many variables and context that needs to be applied. Every situation is different and needs to be looked at individually.
Fair enough. I don't disagree with your take on all of that. It's just that, by the letter of the law as I understand it, that's a foul, and there's no room in the rules for subjectivity. And fouls just like that have been given, week in and week out, for years now. I don't know why they changed things yesterday.
Oh, wait... Yes I do.
Yeah, given what has been given against us this season, it should've been a pen. It was well worse than the Robertson one I keep banging on about
That Robbo pen in the 93rd minute or something still winds me up. Cost us 2 points that might be the difference between champions league or not.
A complete cunt of a decision and nothing was made of it post-match by the media.
Ah you'd be here all day listing them. It's been absolute cunt of a season. Even little things like Leicester away, the foul on Mané (what's he done to the fucking refs by the way!?) in the build up to one of their goals.
There are so many things with football, so much resting on a knife-edge, particularly the confidence gained or lost due to a particular result that can affect the remainder of a season, that it's too simple to say "we shouldn't have lost those 6 at home", or whatever.
Yeah, we should've been better. But the officials shouldn't be absolved of their part in derailing our season.
Look at the slo-mo. I'm not saying it was the same as Spearing's at all, however Bailley was clearly studs up on Philips' shin. Penalty all day long - except when you have a Manc on VAR and a Manc as the ref.
Exactly.
The Robbo one doesn't keep me awake at night... As soft as it was, he did kick the lad's foot, and, as this poxy, bastardised version of our game is played now, that IS a penalty. I was far more annoyed at Salah's goal getting ruled out in that match.
The two things that I'll take to my grave if we don't scrape fourth are the everton match (just ALL of it , start to finish - Officials should be fired, Pickford should be in jail, and that Brazilian cunt...) and Aguerro's fucking panenka penalty last weekend... That would have been 2-0, and there's NO way that the chavs win from there. They may have drawn, but even that was unlikley from 0-2 down... If we lose 4th to the chavs by less than 3 points, I'll despise Aguerro for the rest of his days.
Still didn't look that bad and if it was the other way around I would have been livid if they got a pen.
Do you see Bailey's studs catch Nat's shin? That's all that matters... How 'bad' it looks doesn't come into it, under these rules. If you do, it's a foul. If you don't, that's another conversation.
No I don't see him catching Nat's shin, I see him grazing his shin.
So, you do see contact... Ok, cool.
I don't think it was a pen, but I didn't think TAA's one against Everton was one, or Robbo vs Brighton, or Fabinho vs Sheffield. But I do have some what of a high bar for what constitutes a pen.
However, what I think doesn't matter, by the letter of the law I think it could be given and we should refer to the referees on the field call.
He made it. He gave a pen.
Then we go to VAR. Did the referee make a clear and obvious mistake which required review? In my opinion, NO he didn't. It was a 50-50 call. Therefore, it should not even have gone to review.
Because once it did, and was slowed down to infinity, it no longer conveyed the actual forcefulness of the follow through or how rash/reckless Bailly was diving in, nor was there any sound to magnify the extent of the collision.
All it did was show Bailly "got something on the ball", and everything else was forgotten.
I think that's an incorrect, inconsistent use of VAR (trust United to get the benefit of the doubt here). And that annoyed me more than anything.
Had the ref simply said no penalty in the beginning, I would have not had any problems with his decision.
However, what I think doesn't matter, by the letter of the law I think it could be given and we should refer to the referees on the field call.
He made it. He gave a pen.
Then we go to VAR. Did the referee make a clear and obvious mistake which required review? In my opinion, NO he didn't. It was a 50-50 call. Therefore, it should not even have gone to review.
Because once it did, and was slowed down to infinity, it no longer conveyed the actual forcefulness of the follow through or how rash/reckless Bailly was diving in, nor was there any sound to magnify the extent of the collision.
All it did was show Bailly "got something on the ball", and everything else was forgotten.
I think that's an incorrect, inconsistent use of VAR (trust United to get the benefit of the doubt here). And that annoyed me more than anything.
Had the ref simply said no penalty in the beginning, I would have not had any problems with his decision.
- Status
