Premier League 2020/21 Season

Kellfire

Tour Winner
Joined
Jul 11, 2009
Messages
6,409
Location
Leeds
Pete asked me some direct questions! Are you suggesting I should ignore him?

P.S. Were on the pitch it happened is irrelevant if VVD was offside in build up and Officials don’t see it as violent conduct......keep up!
The offside doesn’t matter. Do you accept that?
 

Liverbirdie

Ryder Cup Winner
Joined
Jul 14, 2011
Messages
12,196
Location
liverpool
Tried to be honest with all my answers, and as you put earlier James was looking for cards etc, and I agree it’s another area that needs clamping down on.

1. Should Mane have been booked for diving?

2. Should Mane of been given a Red Card for kicking Mina.

3. Were was VAR when TAA clearly pulled Richarlison’s shirt when he hit the post with a header?
1. Yes.
2. Yes.
3. Dont know, maybe having a cup of tea like he was for the VVD challenge.

Answers qualified by subjectivity / do we want VAR to look at every bit of contact and do we want to games finish 7 a side, if every indiscretion is booked / equalled by Gomez's deliberate foul on Fabinho, Richarlison's weekly dive fest etc - all of these are not glaringly bad decisions and can be talked about in every single premiership game. I was talking about the MASSIVE mistakes. MASSIVE vs Whataboutery are on different levels to each other.

Now the meaty stuff:-


1. Is a player allowed to take a player out at the knee, even if the ref has blown his whistle.
Again, it’s not black and white, it’s subjective if a tackle is deemed serious foul play, if you are asking can a Red Card be given after the Ref has blown his whistle the answer is Yes for Violent Conduct. OK, but 99.9% of journalists, pundits, neutrals and even a large body of blues have said it was, unconditionally.
2. Nowadays, is intent (or lack of) a good enough defence when a reckless or dangerous tackle has been committed?
As above, it comes down to how the Ref or in this case Ref and VAR Official view it. When a tackle is that bad, for a good few years intent has been taken out of it and replaced by "was he in control". If you think JP was in control, well, wow.
3. Was Pickford "in control".
If by “in control” you mean “was his movement intentional” then yes, imo he was, and imo, his intent was to spread himself and block the ball. No-one intends to give a penalty away, they intend to tackle tha ball, but many times they take the man - what happens when a defender intends to take the ball but takes the man instead. I'll tell you now a foul/penalty is given. If the tackle is dangerous and out of control, he is also sent off. He took the opponent out, knee high, with knees and boots approx 2 foot off the ground, and with the ball approx 2 foot away. Why do you keep pushing the intent angle?
4. 2 frames on, and Ive seen moving pictures, Pickford's knees are level with VVD on impact (you can see JP's boot is equally as high on your still picture, the other boot is also that high by the time contact is made, btw.
You also see in the pictures VVD’s foot is planted. Whether VVD's foot is planted or not,JP takes him out at the knee. Irrelavent.
5. You class this contact as "low" - my god, what would you class as high - throat level?
Misunderstanding or bad explanation from me, I mean low as in he’s going from an upright/standing position to the ground. So you mean lower, again irrelevant, he misses the ball by some distance with both legs, and takes out the man.
6. Would you class JP as a Rash keeper, or at least rash on many occasions? Rash may not necessarily mean dirty or malicious, but rash can be dangerous, btw.
I don’t rate Pickford, but in all honesty I’ve never seen him injure or do something dangerous involving another player, I have seen a picture today of an incident with him and Alli, but don’t remember it. As I said not necessarily meaning dirty or malicious, I asked is he Rash? Rash can mean getting involved in general play or close to his own defenders more than he should etc. Just look at the England game during the week, should he have even got close to walker at the time. To me he is a rash keeper.
7. Do you think Richarlison's was a red? Absolute stone wall. This was a tackle that, luckily, was a glancing blow by Richarlison, but it was a straight leg tackle at the knee and was rightly a red card. To indulge you in your intent angle, I dont think Richarlison intended to do him or will give him the benefit of the doubt, but again irrelavent. Richarlison hits Thiago's knee with one boot, JP hits VVD either side of his knee and follows fully through with his groin onto VVD's knee, and you dont think it's a red? Its twice a red that Richarlison's was.

I dont expect any sympathy from blues, because I agree, we have had more decisions go our way over the years than against us in derbies, although we've also had some shockers against us as well, but 100% NOT a red. Come on?
For it to be a Red for me there has to be intent and with it happening so fast I genuinely believe he did what I’d expect any keeper to do and attempt to block the ball, it was clumsy and momentum took him into VVD, I’d give a penalty and at most a yellow card, but believe a penalty was enough punishment. Your not in charge of PGMOL and neither am I. I'm sure we would both like many rules and laws of the game different, but we dont have that luxury. Under the rules intent has been taken out of it for dangerous out of control tackles, so ignore the intent malarkey.

My main problem is 3 VAR's went against us yesterday, and all 3 were shockers, not subjective ones.
You keep saying 3 shockers, I haven’t seen any mention, by anyone else but you of 3 instances, everywhere else it’s 2.

Hardly anyone has mentioned it, but before Keane heads it in he pulls Thiagos shirt by approx 1 foot. If another Everton player had done it not a problem, but for the goalscorer to be allowed to pull someones shirt less than a second before he heads it in is a foul for me.

The VAR offside is a joke, next week the same margin will go the other way.

The VVD/Pickford incident they claim (VAR lot) was not seen as Violent Conduct and that is the only offence considered after a whistle has been blown. One minute they are saying they didnt look at it, not sure if they are changing their mind now. If thats not violent conduct, what is?

Keane’s goal, I still haven’t seen, after watching it back, any offence by him. shirtpull.
 
Last edited:

clubchamp98

Journeyman Pro
Joined
Jan 23, 2014
Messages
7,836
Location
Liverpool
Pete asked me some direct questions! Are you suggesting I should ignore him?

P.S. Were on the pitch it happened is irrelevant if VVD was offside in build up and Officials don’t see it as violent conduct......keep up!
You managed to ignore my direct question in post 1492.

Keep up.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Joined
Oct 1, 2013
Messages
5,078
Location
Four miles too far!
A totally neutral viewpoint.

Yes Pickford should have been sent off. His intent is irrelevant, he has recklessly endangered another player and he was most certainly not in control .

The disallowed "goal" was rightly disallowed under the current offside rule (T-shirt rule means a goal can be scored by the upper arm) and how offside has been judged by VAR since its introduction.

So two big decisions and one was wrong and the other correct. 50% is not exactly a ringing endorsement for the use of technology.
 

pauldj42

Money List Winner
Joined
Nov 13, 2012
Messages
13,876
Location
Seaham
1. Yes.
2. Yes.
3. Dont know, maybe having a cup of tea like he was for the VVD challenge.

Answers qualified by subjectivity / do we want VAR to look at every bit of contact and do we want to games finish 7 a side, if every indiscretion is booked / equalled by Gomez's deliberate foul on Fabinho, Richarlison's weekly dive fest etc - all of these are not glaringly bad decisions and can be talked about in every single premiership game. I was talking about the MASSIVE mistakes. MASSIVE vs Whataboutery are on different levels to each other.

Now the meaty stuff:-


1. Is a player allowed to take a player out at the knee, even if the ref has blown his whistle.
Again, it’s not black and white, it’s subjective if a tackle is deemed serious foul play, if you are asking can a Red Card be given after the Ref has blown his whistle the answer is Yes for Violent Conduct. OK, but 99.9% of journalists, pundits, neutrals and even a large body of blues have said it was, unconditionally.
2. Nowadays, is intent (or lack of) a good enough defence when a reckless or dangerous tackle has been committed?
As above, it comes down to how the Ref or in this case Ref and VAR Official view it. When a tackle is that bad, for a good few years intent has been taken out of it and replaced by "was he in control". If you think JP was in control, well, wow.
3. Was Pickford "in control".
If by “in control” you mean “was his movement intentional” then yes, imo he was, and imo, his intent was to spread himself and block the ball. No-one intends to give a penalty away, they intend to tackle tha ball, but many times they take the man - what happens when a defender intends to take the ball but takes the man instead. I'll tell you now a foul/penalty is given. If the tackle is dangerous and out of control, he is also sent off. He took the opponent out, knee high, with knees and boots approx 2 foot off the ground, and with the ball approx 2 foot away. Why do you keep pushing the intent angle?
4. 2 frames on, and Ive seen moving pictures, Pickford's knees are level with VVD on impact (you can see JP's boot is equally as high on your still picture, the other boot is also that high by the time contact is made, btw.
You also see in the pictures VVD’s foot is planted. Whether VVD's foot is planted or not,JP takes him out at the knee. Irrelavent.
5. You class this contact as "low" - my god, what would you class as high - throat level?
Misunderstanding or bad explanation from me, I mean low as in he’s going from an upright/standing position to the ground. So you mean lower, again irrelevant, he misses the ball by some distance with both legs, and takes out the man.
6. Would you class JP as a Rash keeper, or at least rash on many occasions? Rash may not necessarily mean dirty or malicious, but rash can be dangerous, btw.
I don’t rate Pickford, but in all honesty I’ve never seen him injure or do something dangerous involving another player, I have seen a picture today of an incident with him and Alli, but don’t remember it. As I said not necessarily meaning dirty or malicious, I asked is he Rash? Rash can mean getting involved in general play or close to his own defenders more than he should etc. Just look at the England game during the week, should he have even got close to walker at the time. To me he is a rash keeper.
7. Do you think Richarlison's was a red? Absolute stone wall. This was a tackle that, luckily, was a glancing blow by Richarlison, but it was a straight leg tackle at the knee and was rightly a red card. To indulge you in your intent angle, I dont think Richarlison intended to do him or will give him the benefit of the doubt, but again irrelavent. Richarlison hits Thiago's knee with one boot, JP hits VVD either side of his knee and follows fully through with his groin onto VVD's knee, and you dont think it's a red? Its twice a red that Richarlison's was.

I dont expect any sympathy from blues, because I agree, we have had more decisions go our way over the years than against us in derbies, although we've also had some shockers against us as well, but 100% NOT a red. Come on?
For it to be a Red for me there has to be intent and with it happening so fast I genuinely believe he did what I’d expect any keeper to do and attempt to block the ball, it was clumsy and momentum took him into VVD, I’d give a penalty and at most a yellow card, but believe a penalty was enough punishment. Your not in charge of PGMOL and neither am I. I'm sure we would both like many rules and laws of the game different, but we dont have that luxury. Under the rules intent has been taken out of it for dangerous out of control tackles, so ignore the intent malarkey.

My main problem is 3 VAR's went against us yesterday, and all 3 were shockers, not subjective ones.
You keep saying 3 shockers, I haven’t seen any mention, by anyone else but you of 3 instances, everywhere else it’s 2.

Hardly anyone has mentioned it, but before Keane heads it in he pulls Thiagos shirt by approx 1 foot. If another Everton player had done it not a problem, but for the goalscorer to be allowed to pull someones shirt less than a second before he heads it in is a foul for me.

The VAR offside is a joke, next week the same margin will go the other way.

The VVD/Pickford incident they claim (VAR lot) was not seen as Violent Conduct and that is the only offence considered after a whistle has been blown. One minute they are saying they didnt look at it, not sure if they are changing their mind now. If thats not violent conduct, what is?

Keane’s goal, I still haven’t seen, after watching it back, any offence by him. shirtpull.
Never going to agree on the Pickford/VVD challenge.

The mistakes you highlight are “MASSIVE” in your words, yet 2 of the same offences done by your players are dismissed as “whataboutery” your third mistake is even more “whataboutery” as you agreed Mane should of been sent off and then he wouldn’t of been offside.

Isn’t this whole discussion based on opinions and what ifs?

Do I want VAR to look at every single decision? No, it’s ruined the game enough, but I don’t understand how you can pick and choose which sending off offences it ignores or which shirt pull it ignores.
 

Liverbirdie

Ryder Cup Winner
Joined
Jul 14, 2011
Messages
12,196
Location
liverpool
Never going to agree on the Pickford/VVD challenge.

The mistakes you highlight are “MASSIVE” in your words, yet 2 of the same offences done by your players are dismissed as “whataboutery” your third mistake is even more “whataboutery” as you agreed Mane should of been sent off and then he wouldn’t of been offside.

Isn’t this whole discussion based on opinions and what ifs?

Do I want VAR to look at every single decision? No, it’s ruined the game enough, but I don’t understand how you can pick and choose which sending off offences it ignores or which shirt pull it ignores.
Refer back to do you want games to finish 8 a side.

If you would have asked 100 neutrals should mane have been sent off, I think 99 would wonder what your on about. Pure deflection.

Ive had my say, if you want to polish the blue spectacles go ahead.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Nov 18, 2008
Messages
10,015
Location
Liverpool
Refer back to do you want games to finish 7 a side.

If you would have asked 100 neutrals should mane have been sent off, I think 99 would wonder what your on about. Pure deflection.

Ive had my say, if you want to polish the blue spectacles go ahead.
Pssst, its against the rules for that to happen, you must have a minimum of 8 players per side😉

As you were.....
 
Joined
Nov 1, 2016
Messages
11,330
Location
Watford
Pickford should definitely have had a red, for 'serious foul play' as per the laws. I don't think it matters that it technically wasn't in play because of the offside. If you're reckless and endanger a player the card should still stand. I also don't believe he's done him on purpose, he's just throwing all his limbs out trying to make a point blank save, but he's made an absolute mess of it and endangered the player.
 

pauldj42

Money List Winner
Joined
Nov 13, 2012
Messages
13,876
Location
Seaham
Pickford should definitely have had a red, for 'serious foul play' as per the laws. I don't think it matters that it technically wasn't in play because of the offside. If you're reckless and endanger a player the card should still stand. I also don't believe he's done him on purpose, he's just throwing all his limbs out trying to make a point blank save, but he's made an absolute mess of it and endangered the player.
Tell me again how you felt over Son breaking Gomes’s leg tackling from behind, nowhere near the ball, by accident.:rolleyes:
 

pauldj42

Money List Winner
Joined
Nov 13, 2012
Messages
13,876
Location
Seaham
Refer back to do you want games to finish 8 a side.

If you would have asked 100 neutrals should mane have been sent off, I think 99 would wonder what your on about. Pure deflection.

Ive had my say, if you want to polish the blue spectacles go ahead.
You crack on Pete, I’ve made my feelings quite clear on VAR and what I don’t want to see.

Amazing the nuetrals would question if Mane should be sent off, yet you’re the only red that has mentioned Keane, I wonder how the nuetrals would comment on that.

As for blue spectacles, please, said all along it was a foul and a penalty, just not a red card, but mention the Lpool moments and I get accussed of deflection.

Maybe the shop we bought our glasses sell both red & blue.🤷‍♂️
 
Joined
Apr 1, 2016
Messages
6,607
Location
Havering
Thought it was a great Merseyside derby ..

Liverpool didn't win

Their team weakened again ... (Not celebrating his injury ofc very sad for the league losing the best defender however we will now see how "amazing" Liverpool are with some injuries to deal with... Just like laporte being out last season ..)
 

pauldj42

Money List Winner
Joined
Nov 13, 2012
Messages
13,876
Location
Seaham
Pickford should definitely have had a red, for 'serious foul play' as per the laws. I don't think it matters that it technically wasn't in play because of the offside. If you're reckless and endanger a player the card should still stand. I also don't believe he's done him on purpose, he's just throwing all his limbs out trying to make a point blank save, but he's made an absolute mess of it and endangered the player.
If a player can be red carded after the final whistle has been blown, why can’t Pickford have been carded?
if an outfield player had done that they would have been red carded straight away regardless of where and when.
Can we just clarify this, before I start I DO NOT agree with it, but it’s the current laws of the game:

If VVD had been onside, all options etc were available to the Ref/VAR.

As he was judged offside the only decision that can be considered after that is Violent Conduct, all other decisions are off the table.

Therefore, serious foul play was/is not an option.

Again, I am not saying this is fair, just explaining why it didn’t happen.

Whether we agree or not the PGMOL have stated the VAR Official did consider Violent Conduct and believed it wasn’t.
 

Lord Tyrion

Money List Winner
Joined
Sep 9, 2014
Messages
15,783
Location
Northumberland
Can we just clarify this, before I start I DO NOT agree with it, but it’s the current laws of the game:

If VVD had been onside, all options etc were available to the Ref/VAR.

As he was judged offside the only decision that can be considered after that is Violent Conduct, all other decisions are off the table.

Therefore, serious foul play was/is not an option.

Again, I am not saying this is fair, just explaining why it didn’t happen.

Whether we agree or not the PGMOL have stated the VAR Official did consider Violent Conduct and believed it wasn’t.
I did not know that. Interesting (y). Every day a learning day and all that. You want to memo that to Alan Shearer as he got it wrong on MotD as well :LOL:

On that basis I'd agree, I have previously said it should be a red but I see that was now based on all options being open to the ref. It is was reckless and clumsy but it was not violent conduct.
 

pauldj42

Money List Winner
Joined
Nov 13, 2012
Messages
13,876
Location
Seaham
I did not know that. Interesting (y). Every day a learning day and all that. You want to memo that to Alan Shearer as he got it wrong on MotD as well :LOL:

On that basis I'd agree, I have previously said it should be a red but I see that was now based on all options being open to the ref. It is was reckless and clumsy but it was not violent conduct.
Best put your tin hat on!;)
The Law is an ass in this case, unfortunately it won’t be the only “stupid” law.
 
Top