Utd v Motherwell

[kingjoey]

3 minutes ago, ropy said:

I think there is an overlap where one ref would give a yellow and another a red.  No one would have had a problem with a yellow.

Likewise no one should have a problem with the red.

[ropy]

1 minute ago, kingjoey said:

Likewise no one should have a problem with the red.

My problem with the red was that it signalled the point that Motherwell fell out the game.  Quite comfortable before that.

[RostokMcSpoons]

I don't know if the VAR guy had different views than the telly...  certainly the gif of the tackle makes it look to me like Watt was trying his best to swerve his leg out of the contact, and I laughed out aloud for him getting red carded for it.

But the pic on the BBC site gives an entirely different complexion to it... the red card would be absolutely nailed-on if you'd only seen it like this:

 

[Pull My Strings]

Ffs, there's no intent whatsoever. Football is becoming increasingly mental but an accident is still just an accident. If you must impose a yellow for a tiny infraction then  .. so be it, yellows have been flashed and non-flashed for a great variety of non events for some years now .. but the notion that a genuine effort to play the ball with no malice or recklessness by the letter (not the actual letter) of the law should be a red is just too much. 

Any player trying to kick a ball can potentially hurt another player if they happen to get there first or poke a foot in or come in from an oblique angle. You can't be seriously thinking of sending someone off just because of the outcome (especially when the outcome is more likely than not to be mostly contrived by a cynical opponent) with no intent or sensible interpretation of recklessness.

Players might be well advised to remove their arms and footwear before entering the pitch  just in case someone blooters the ball against them or gets in the way of an entirely innocent effort to play the ball.

[mishtergrolsch]

6 minutes ago, RostokMcSpoons said:

I don't know if the VAR guy had different views than the telly...  certainly the gif of the tackle makes it look to me like Watt was trying his best to swerve his leg out of the contact, and I laughed out aloud for him getting red carded for it.

But the pic on the BBC site gives an entirely different complexion to it... the red card would be absolutely nailed-on if you'd only seen it like this:

 

You can have all the angles in the world but if an idiot is interpreting it then you're going to get idiotic decisions.

[Pull My Strings]

8 minutes ago, RostokMcSpoons said:

I don't know if the VAR guy had different views than the telly...  certainly the gif of the tackle makes it look to me like Watt was trying his best to swerve his leg out of the contact, and I laughed out aloud for him getting red carded for it.

But the pic on the BBC site gives an entirely different complexion to it... the red card would be absolutely nailed-on if you'd only seen it like this:

 

Sorry, I just red dotted you for posting that ridiculous still without reading the text.  

The BBC match report is cheeky as f**k considering that every single one of their pundits was in agreement that the red was bullshit.

[kdyteejay]

18 minutes ago, kingjoey said:

Likewise no one should have a problem with the red.

Still smarting from the 4-0 grubbing I see. Pleasing.

Edited October 29, 2022 by kdyteejay
.

[mishtergrolsch]

2 minutes ago, Pull My Strings said:

Ffs, there's no intent whatsoever. Football is becoming increasingly mental but an accident is still just an accident. If you must impose a yellow for a tiny infraction then  .. so be it, yellows have been flashed and non-flashed for a great variety of non events for some years now .. but the notion that a genuine effort to play the ball with no malice or recklessness by the letter (not the actual letter) of the law should be a red is just too much. 

Any player trying to kick a ball can potentially hurt another player if they happen to get there first or poke a foot in or come in from an oblique angle. You can't be seriously thinking of sending someone off just because of the outcome (especially when the outcome is more likely than not to be mostly contrived by a cynical opponent) with no intent or sensible interpretation of recklessness.

Players might be well advised to remove their arms and footwear before entering the pitch  just in case someone blooters the ball against them or gets in the way of an entirely innocent effort to play the ball.

I think the problem is that football is fucked and past the point of no return.

I was initially up for VAR in the hope it wouldn't give referees the ability to make a complete c**t of things after an initial mistake but, well, here we are.

[Dundee Hibernian]

11 minutes ago, RostokMcSpoons said:

I don't know if the VAR guy had different views than the telly...  certainly the gif of the tackle makes it look to me like Watt was trying his best to swerve his leg out of the contact, and I laughed out aloud for him getting red carded for it.

But the pic on the BBC site gives an entirely different complexion to it... the red card would be absolutely nailed-on if you'd only seen it like this:

 

The picture you have posted appears to show Watt's foot missing the shin of Goss, to my eyes. It's a still image, something the VAR officials don't utilise, and if that's the best proof anyone can give supporting a red card, it's rather flimsy. 

The point being made, maybe, is why VAR officials decided this was one incident they felt they should dominate, yet more contentious stuff in this game (eg Slattery on Harkes) and in other matches have been passed by. 

If VAR hadn't got involved in the Watt sending off, that wee phase of the match would have been forgotten about 20 seconds later.

[welldaft]

For fuxsake. It could have been a yellow. It could have been a red. 

United are bottom of the league despite having a top 6 budget. 

Perhaps you should reflect on that rather than a dubious decision.

I hope Yankee boy has deep pockets. 

Edited October 29, 2022 by welldaft

[Bigmouth Strikes Again]

50 minutes ago, RostokMcSpoons said:

I don't know if the VAR guy had different views than the telly...  certainly the gif of the tackle makes it look to me like Watt was trying his best to swerve his leg out of the contact, and I laughed out aloud for him getting red carded for it.

But the pic on the BBC site gives an entirely different complexion to it... the red card would be absolutely nailed-on if you'd only seen it like this:

 

Need to get that last bit of leg coloured in Tony. IMO.

Thank you.

Edited October 29, 2022 by Bigmouth Strikes Again

[Derry Alli]

48 minutes ago, RostokMcSpoons said:

Are shin guards not a requirement at all anymore?

From the behind the goal view, you'd understand a red being given. The side on view, a yellow. To go to replay and have that latter one available and yet decide red is a rib tickler of a decision.

[boozyBJ]

6 hours ago, capt_oats said:

Can you double greenie this?

[Twinkle]

11 hours ago, Bigmouth Strikes Again said:

Need to get that last bit of leg coloured in Tony. IMO.

Thank you.

You have been posting your shite patter all day yet you sit 6h in the Championship. Behave

Edited October 30, 2022 by Twinkle

[Virtual Insanity]

Not a foul. Play on.

[kingjoey]

11 hours ago, kdyteejay said:

Still smarting from the 4-0 grubbing I see. Pleasing.

Could have been yellow, could have been red. No one should have any real complaints.

[thisGRAEME]

It's a red card for me, simply because that's a very funny outcome.

[Sarto Mutiny]

19 minutes ago, thisGRAEME said:

It's a red card for me, simply because that's a very funny outcome.

I respect that tbh

[Granny Danger]

10 hours ago, Twinkle said:

You have been posting your shite patter all day yet you sit 6h in the Championship. Behave

You’re assuming a level of self-awareness that doesn’t exist.

[Sarto Mutiny]

By the way, can we stop using still images to prove that a tackle should or shouldn't be a red card? Please...?