[Football] MOTD - 22:30 BBC One

[Bodian]

That did seem a little odd. But I wondered if he was just doing a generic indication to the ref.

He must know the rules. I hope he does anyway.

What makes you think he does??

 

[Eeyore]

What makes you think he does??

Well, I'm guessing he wouldn't be an EPL linesman if he didn't.

Same for anyone on VAR.

Oh...

 

[GT49er]

Having seen Stellini's post match interview on MOTD, I fully endorse any decision RDZ might make to punch his lights out!

 

[Randy McNob]

Just saw the highlights and man, you were robbed, royally. 2 clear penalties.

The VAR deflected goal was a correct decision, however. It's not clear beyond doubt whether it was a hand or not, plus, the deflection changed the direction, albeit minor, and it did change the course of the ball so you cannot be sure if the keeper would have saved it otherwise. So, albeit harsh, it was correct

 

[Eeyore]

Having seen Stellini's post match interview on MOTD, I fully endorse any decision RDZ might make to punch his lights out!

It's annoying that he might miss Wembley though. I think the club will appeal.

 

[GT49er]

Well, I'm guessing he wouldn't be an EPL linesman if he didn't.

Same for anyone on VAR.

Oh...

They know the rules. They just skipped the training session on how to apply them.

 

[GT49er]

Just saw the highlights and man, you were robbed, royally. 2 clear penalties.

The VAR deflected goal was a correct decision, however. It's not clear beyond doubt whether it was a hand or not, plus, the deflection changed the direction, albeit minor, and it did change the course of the ball so you cannot be sure if the keeper would have saved it otherwise. So, albeit harsh, it was correct

No it wasn't correct. It was not clear beyond doubt, so VAR has no business going there!

 

[Bodian]

Just saw the highlights and man, you were robbed, royally. 2 clear penalties.

The VAR deflected goal was a correct decision, however. It's not clear beyond doubt whether it was a hand or not, plus, the deflection changed the direction, albeit minor, and it did change the course of the ball so you cannot be sure if the keeper would have saved it otherwise. So, albeit harsh, it was correct

So - not correct by your definition.

The ref awarded the goal. VAR over-ruled it. If it was 'not clear beyond doubt whether it was a hand or not' - they should have stayed with the ref's decision. They can only overrule if it is a 'clear and obvious error' - if it is not clear, they should not overrule.

 

[jackalbion]

That did seem a little odd. But I wondered if he was just doing a generic indication to the ref.

He must know the rules. I hope he does anyway.

The refs don’t know the rules, they’re all shit, nothing else needs to be said, they’ve given up and they don’t care, they get their pay check.

They’re like the government, everything they say and do is fine and have 0 consequence for it, they’re a disgrace.

 

[Eeyore]

They know the rules. They just skipped the training session on how to apply them.

The Mitoma stamp was just such a game changer that the usual apology will just not wash over. That could be huge come the end of the season.

 

[tstanbur]

And the push on Mitoma as the ball came in Awful, awful decisions.

Not enough has been made of this. The only reason the ball was anywhere near Mitoma’s arm was because of the two handed push by Romero.

 

[AstroSloth]

Utterly convinced we have been done by incompetence (again) and the 'clear and obvious error' travesty rule!

It's funny how the Mitoma goal decision isn't a clear and obvious error but the Welbeck/Mac Allister one is.

Both of them perfectly good goals, one controlled with Mitoma's shoulder, the other came off Mac Allister's hip but both decisions go against us.

 

[AstroSloth]

Reasonably scathing but measured. From what Shearer says, Welbs goal should have stood and we should have had at least 2 penalties. Mitoma handball marginal, but if the rule is the the shirt line, it was not handball. Daylight robbery

They said the Mitoma goal was a legal goal but because the on field ref (linesman) gave handball it wasn't clear and obvious so wasn't overturned.

Then the Welbeck goal was perfectly legal but was apparently such a clear and obvious error they overturned it without the ref needing to see.

The Welbeck goal was apparently a more clear error than the Mitoma non penalty.

 

[AstroSloth]

Yes - especially as it was given on the pitch.

Bear in mind that was given a goal originally but overturned.

Apparently that was a bigger mistake by the on field ref than him missing Mitoma being stamped on.

 

[AstroSloth]

For me, that analysis just makes it worse. The only one that can be defended is the Mitoma goal. The others are all obvious errors. If we were playing in Red or Sky Blue and came from the North West, there is no way that all of those decisions would have gone against us. 1 maybe, 2 possibly but all of them? Never.

The game is crooked.

The Mitoma goal was a fair goal though.

Literally the only defence MOTD came up with was "because it was given as handball by the on field ref, it was inconclusive whether that was a clear and obvious error, therefore they stick with the original decision."

Meanwhile the Welbeck goal is given, replays show it came off Mac Allister's hip and that's a "clear and obvious" error and ruled out.

 

[AstroSloth]

For me, not strong enough! Because of VAR we are potentially down 5/6 pts. In European football and league placing that costs us 10's of millions.

Not even 5/6 at this point. It's about 10 points.

Palace, Bournemouth, Leicester being clear decisions going against us.

About the only decision we got was Sanchez not being sent off against Grimsby.

 

[METALMICKY]

Not enough has been made of this. The only reason the ball was anywhere near Mitoma’s arm was because of the two handed push by Romero.

Indeed. Absurdly it might have been better if he fails to control it and/or blasts wide or even hits the deck. We then get to surround the ref and suggest he looks for the push. With respect to Mitoma I'm not sure his reaction helps us much. He looks a bit sheepish as if almost an admission that he thinks he did handball it.

 

[origigull]

They said the Mitoma goal was a legal goal but because the on field ref (linesman) gave handball it wasn't clear and obvious so wasn't overturned.

Trouble is the assistant ref was holding his arm above the shirt sleeve line indicating where in his opinion from 35-40 yards away the ball hit Mitoma. On the slomo replay the ball hits Mitoma above the t-shirt line, so for me the goal should have been given.

 

[AstroSloth]

Trouble is the assistant ref was holding his arm above the shirt sleeve line indicating where in his opinion from 35-40 yards away the ball hit Mitoma. On the slomo replay the ball hits Mitoma above the t-shirt line, so for me the goal should have been given.

Yeah but the problem is the on field team had ruled the goal out. That in itself is a problem as they're not supposed to do that with offsides/fouls as they should let play continue and then rule out based on VAR.

As the on field team had ruled the goal out that had to be a clear and obvious error for it to stand. The fact the ball might have hit his arm (it didn't) means it wasn't clear and obvious.


Where I have an issue is the on field team deciding the Welbeck goal was fine, VAR showing the ball hit his hip and there's a very small chance it hit his hand so therefore it's a clear and obvious error apparently.

 

[Sarisbury Seagull]

MOTD didn’t show the replay angle that VAR used to rule out Welbeck/Max Allister’s goal. That one did look like it grazed his hand and the law states that if that’s the case, accidental or not, then the goal has to be ruled out. It’s an absolute farce of a rule but that is why the incompetent and corrupt VAR justified disallowing it.

There is absolutely no justification for the corrupt calls made on the Mitoma ‘handball’ or Mitoma and Dunk penalties. Cheating ****s. I’m still seething over 7 hours on, this feeling is going to take a long time to subside.

And as for that that ugly, snide **** Kane!