This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
Palace vs Bournemouth Match Thread
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
 Littlebogreek  04 Dec 19 4.04pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by the silurian
you have got to be joking...if hes one of the best, the others must be totally s***e..we had 6 fouls 3 bookings (maybe 4) Bournemouth 16 fouls 1 booking and you think he was fair??? Edited by the silurian (04 Dec 2019 3.49pm) They actually had 3 bookings I think. But agree, thought he had a game best described as inconsistent. At the game I thought red card and no pen, watched the highlights and then thought both could have gone either way. For what it's worth, appaently the VAR report said that had either of those decisions gone the other way (a yellow card or a penalty) those decisions would also have been upheld, so effectively they were both 50/50 decisions that we were on the wrong end of but in real time understandably so. Had the referee have erred on the side of caution with the red and allowed VAR to do its job then he stays on the pitch. That said, it wasn't these that I disagreed with at the time, just felt he was very inconsistent in what he gave and what he didn't.
|
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
Sansbup  Norfolk 04 Dec 19 4.20pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by JRW2
I'll never come to terms with the notion that if a player is tripped or pushed, the determining factor as to whether it's a foul is whether he "goes down too easily". If a player trips or pushes an opponent, he does it with the aim of impeding his progress - which is illegal and should therefore be penalised, whatever happens to the fouled player (unless advantage is being played). You're quite right, unless the laws have changed (Willo?). It's all about the intent of the fouler, not the foulee. If a foul is committed with intent it shouldn't make any difference how the player fouled reacts. So, penalty for me, but by not giving it at least those herberts from tw4tford can pipe down about Wilf getting pens easily. Edited by Sansbup (04 Dec 2019 4.22pm)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| the silurian The garden of England.(not really) 04 Dec 19 4.23pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Littlebogreek
They actually had 3 bookings I think. But agree, thought he had a game best described as inconsistent. At the game I thought red card and no pen, watched the highlights and then thought both could have gone either way. For what it's worth, appaently the VAR report said that had either of those decisions gone the other way (a yellow card or a penalty) those decisions would also have been upheld, so effectively they were both 50/50 decisions that we were on the wrong end of but in real time understandably so. Had the referee have erred on the side of caution with the red and allowed VAR to do its job then he stays on the pitch. That said, it wasn't these that I disagreed with at the time, just felt he was very inconsistent in what he gave and what he didn't. If the push on the Livarpool player was enough to get our perfectly good goal chalked off, then the push on Zaha was most certainly enough to give us a penalty....no one expects perfection in referees, just consistency and not favouring VVD because he plays for Livarpool when ignoring loads of fouls onn Zaha because he plays for Palace.....Taylor was Bournmouths 12 th man last night, couldnt wait to get his red card out for Sakho while ignoring loads of fouls by Billings amongst others...no consistency at all, which leads people to believe there is favouritism and possibly corruption
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| the silurian The garden of England.(not really) 04 Dec 19 4.27pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Sansbup
You're quite right, unless the laws have changed (Willo?). It's all about the intent of the fouler, not the foulee. If a foul is committed with intent it shouldn't make any difference how the player fouled reacts. So, penalty for me, but by not giving it at least those herberts from tw4tford can pipe down about Wilf getting pens easily. They will be on his case from minute 1, and WILL influence Atkinsons decision making, Wilf will get nothing other than a booking as soon as he protests about being kicked all over the park.....remember the thug Deeney admitting they go out to kick Wilf out of the game, rotating fouls thus avoiding being booked
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| JRW2 Dulwich 04 Dec 19 4.29pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Sansbup
Edited by Sansbup (04 Dec 2019 4.22pm) Good luck with that!
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| CrazyBadger Ware 04 Dec 19 5.06pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by JRW2
I'll never come to terms with the notion that if a player is tripped or pushed, the determining factor as to whether it's a foul is whether he "goes down too easily". If a player trips or pushes an opponent, he does it with the aim of impeding his progress - which is illegal and should therefore be penalised, whatever happens to the fouled player (unless advantage is being played). I don't *think* the law has changed, but the 'Shoulder to Shoulder' Challenge as far as i'm aware is the only contact 'allowed' - i.e. stated in the rules - in a game of football.. So with this in mind this is where the strength comes in. With a fair Shoulder challenge you can knock your opponent off the ball. It's another murky area of the rules of football.
"It was a Team effort, I guess it took all players working together to lose this one" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| peterg Anerley 04 Dec 19 5.30pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Well, Wilf was pushed with an arm rather than shoulder to shoulder, and then he was tripped. So it should have been a pen. However I can still see why it wasn't given and why VAR didn't think it was wrong enough to be overturned.
The right place at the right time |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Ginger Pubic Wig Wickham de L'Ouest 04 Dec 19 6.11pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by JRW2
I'll never come to terms with the notion that if a player is tripped or pushed, the determining factor as to whether it's a foul is whether he "goes down too easily". If a player trips or pushes an opponent, he does it with the aim of impeding his progress - which is illegal and should therefore be penalised, whatever happens to the fouled player (unless advantage is being played). you can be knocked off the ball without being tripped or pushed.
If you want to live in a world full of kindness, respect and love, try to show these qualities. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Littlebogreek 04 Dec 19 6.13pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Absolutely agree - no one expects perfection but consistency in decision making during each game is a small thing to ask. It all does bring up a lot of questions on how VAR is used too - I think if the referee goes to a screen and sees the push, he changes his mind and awards a penalty Originally posted by the silurian
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Littlebogreek 04 Dec 19 6.20pm |
|
|---|---|
|
It's no coinicidence that VAR comes in and Watford are rock bottom. they can't use those tactics as much now and definitley not in the area. Originally posted by the silurian
They will be on his case from minute 1, and WILL influence Atkinsons decision making, Wilf will get nothing other than a booking as soon as he protests about being kicked all over the park.....remember the thug Deeney admitting they go out to kick Wilf out of the game, rotating fouls thus avoiding being booked
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| dynamicdick Dormansland 04 Dec 19 6.26pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Littlebogreek
They actually had 3 bookings I think. But agree, thought he had a game best described as inconsistent. At the game I thought red card and no pen, watched the highlights and then thought both could have gone either way. For what it's worth, appaently the VAR report said that had either of those decisions gone the other way (a yellow card or a penalty) those decisions would also have been upheld, so effectively they were both 50/50 decisions that we were on the wrong end of but in real time understandably so. Had the referee have erred on the side of caution with the red and allowed VAR to do its job then he stays on the pitch. That said, it wasn't these that I disagreed with at the time, just felt he was very inconsistent in what he gave and what he didn't. I personally thought that it was a red and a penalty. As the ref didn't give the latter then why didn't he book Wilf for diving. From where I was standing in the Holmesdale lower and right in line with his run this was as a blatant a penalty as there could be.
Bring back Brolin |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Spiderman Horsham 04 Dec 19 6.46pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Mapletree
From where I stood that was a heavily biased ref In the first half multiple fouls against us waved away. It looked like Wilf should have had a penalty late on. Frustrating Totally agree, he never gives Wilf a thing. Looked like more of a push (and stood on his ankle) than Ayew on Lovren.....oh wait that was for Liverpool
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / RegisterNew users
Registration is now on our new message board
Existing users
To login with your existing username you will need to convert your account over to the new message board.
Sponsors
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2024 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.