[Albion] So, was it a red?

[Herr Tubthumper]

Lot ifs and buts there, to claim that was a clear goal scoring opportunity is really a bit of a stretch.

I will need to watch again but that was my feeling last night. It’s subjective, I agree.

 

[zefarelly]

very subjective and loads of variables.

Assuming you'd shoot somewhere round the 18 yard line with an oncoming keeper, I think you'd get there for a clear shot before Webster interfered.

any further and AW would have slid through, with the ball and walked off whilst the Manure cockjuggler was laying there crying Ronaldo style, pressing his var emergency button in his sock.

 

[Creaky]

very subjective and loads of variables.

Assuming you'd shoot somewhere round the 18 yard line with an oncoming keeper, I think you'd get there for a clear shot before Webster interfered.

any further and AW would have slid through, with the ball and walked off whilst the Manure cockjuggler was laying there crying Ronaldo style, pressing his var emergency button in his sock.

View attachment 145180

The point is that Elanga would have been far closer to the ball had he not been pulled back. Webster would have got nowhere near him before he had a clear shot.

Stupid challenge.

https://www.skysports.com/watch/video/sports/football/12543084/should-dunk-have-seen-red

 

[Stat Brother]

The point is that Elanga would have been far closer to the ball had he not been pulled back. Webster would have got nowhere near him before he had a clear shot.

Stupid challenge.

https://www.skysports.com/watch/video/sports/football/12543084/should-dunk-have-seen-red

Not too sure why posters think Webster can make the covering challenge.
T'other fella is nearer the ball and about 5 times faster than Webbo.

 

[Arthur]

Tough one, probably (probably being the important word) was the correct decision in the end. Was it a clear and obvious error by the ref....no ****ing way!

Don't know which way to vote, so haven't.

Obviously had it been the other way round it probably wouldn't have even been a foul.

 

[Wrong-Direction]

Nope

Sent from my SM-A326B using Tapatalk

 

[Wrong-Direction]

I do think Biss was lucky with his elbow though

Sent from my SM-A326B using Tapatalk

 

[Bozza]

Tough one, probably (probably being the important word) was the correct decision in the end. Was it a clear and obvious error by the ref....no ****ing way!

I think that's where I am. Dunk stopped a clear 1-on-1 goalscoring opportunity, as I don't believe Webster would have been able to get a challenge in.

However it was marginal enough that for me, with a yellow given on the field, VAR prompting that to be bumped up to a red feels a bit rough.

However, it all comes down to Dunk being caught in possession which was neither the ref's nor the VAR ref's fault. We played a very risky game in the first half, and then into the second in terms of allowing United's frontline to be on top of us before we released the ball. Both Sanchez and our defenders did this repeatedly to the point I can only assume it was an intentional tactic. Most of the time we got by that press and advanced, very quickly, into the United half and found ourselves in a good attacking position.

If you live by the sword, you die by the sword...

 

[Hastings gull]

Tough one, probably (probably being the important word) was the correct decision in the end. Was it a clear and obvious error by the ref....no ****ing way!

Don't know which way to vote, so haven't.

Obviously had it been the other way round it probably wouldn't have even been a foul.

I wonder if anyone has ever done any research into how many penalties/red cards etc are issued at grounds of the so-called top 6 compared to other grounds. And perhaps correlate it with individual refs?! I am sure that such a thing would meet with much understandable opposition by the football authorities and the ref's union, but it would be fascinating nonetheless and might put to bed the criticism that the top 6 are given favourable treatment -or otherwise! ITo be fair those teams at home would more than likely be on top and thuse penalties given against them might reasonably be statistically less? However,I recall Maguire's "foul" on Welbeck last year which went unpunished and we were not given a penalty. The bigger the ground the louder the abuse, and pressure on the ref is thus so much greater to placate the locals.In the interest of fairness, my neighbour is a spurs fan and he says that the refs of late have been shocking with regard to Spurs' pleas for fouls etc. Balance that ,however,with what I read last year that bias may be subconscious -a PL player of a team recently promoted playing one of the top 6 said that the ref called the PL regulars by their christian names, as has was so used to them, but the new team was addressed as number 8 etc.
I really don't know but it would be good to have some accurate info/data on the ever present comment that the bigger clubs get preferential treatment and whether this view is justified or not. Officialdom will of course deny it, understandably, but refs are at the end of the day only human.
Rant over!

 

[Commander]

The point is that Elanga would have been far closer to the ball had he not been pulled back. Webster would have got nowhere near him before he had a clear shot.

Stupid challenge.

https://www.skysports.com/watch/video/sports/football/12543084/should-dunk-have-seen-red

I'm not sure it's a stupid challenge. If he doesn't make it then it's 2-0 and game (almost certainly) over. There is an argument to say it was too early in the game to make a decision like that, but I get why he made it.

 

[Nobby Cybergoat]

I wonder if anyone has ever done any research into how many penalties/red cards etc are issued at grounds of the so-called top 6 compared to other grounds. And perhaps correlate it with individual refs?! I am sure that such a thing would meet with much understandable opposition by the football authorities and the ref's union, but it would be fascinating nonetheless and might put to bed the criticism that the top 6 are given favourable treatment -or otherwise! ITo be fair those teams at home would more than likely be on top and thuse penalties given against them might reasonably be statistically less? However,I recall Maguire's "foul" on Welbeck last year which went unpunished and we were not given a penalty. The bigger the ground the louder the abuse, and pressure on the ref is thus so much greater to placate the locals.In the interest of fairness, my neighbour is a spurs fan and he says that the refs of late have been shocking with regard to Spurs' pleas for fouls etc. Balance that ,however,with what I read last year that bias may be subconscious -a PL player of a team recently promoted playing one of the top 6 said that the ref called the PL regulars by their christian names, as has was so used to them, but the new team was addressed as number 8 etc.
I really don't know but it would be good to have some accurate info/data on the ever present comment that the bigger clubs get preferential treatment and whether this view is justified or not. Officialdom will of course deny it, understandably, but refs are at the end of the day only human.
Rant over!

I heard some stat about Man U only conceding 3 pens at home between 1993 at 2003 (all missed)

Yes they were good during this time and yes it was a good time ago, but 3 in ten years? The Man U effect is still there. Especially against teams like Brighton and especially when there are big name players surrounding the ref

 

[Commander]

I wonder if anyone has ever done any research into how many penalties/red cards etc are issued at grounds of the so-called top 6 compared to other grounds. And perhaps correlate it with individual refs?! I am sure that such a thing would meet with much understandable opposition by the football authorities and the ref's union, but it would be fascinating nonetheless and might put to bed the criticism that the top 6 are given favourable treatment -or otherwise! ITo be fair those teams at home would more than likely be on top and thuse penalties given against them might reasonably be statistically less? However,I recall Maguire's "foul" on Welbeck last year which went unpunished and we were not given a penalty. The bigger the ground the louder the abuse, and pressure on the ref is thus so much greater to placate the locals.In the interest of fairness, my neighbour is a spurs fan and he says that the refs of late have been shocking with regard to Spurs' pleas for fouls etc. Balance that ,however,with what I read last year that bias may be subconscious -a PL player of a team recently promoted playing one of the top 6 said that the ref called the PL regulars by their christian names, as has was so used to them, but the new team was addressed as number 8 etc.
I really don't know but it would be good to have some accurate info/data on the ever present comment that the bigger clubs get preferential treatment and whether this view is justified or not. Officialdom will of course deny it, understandably, but refs are at the end of the day only human.
Rant over!

It would be interesting to see.

In a strange way though, I'm almost not sure I want it to be completely fair. A large, vociferous crowd SHOULD be able to give you an advantage. If the Amex is full and angry and contesting every decision the ref makes in a big game, I want the crowd to be able to influence the ref enough to get one marginal decision that can change the course of game in our favour. It's part of football, and I'm not completely sure I want it to go away.

The players surrounding the ref thing, however, is bullshit, and should be stamped out immediately. It's absolutely easy to sort that problem if the authorities wanted to. Literally couldn't be any simpler.

 

[Brian Fantana]

I think that's where I am. Dunk stopped a clear 1-on-1 goalscoring opportunity, as I don't believe Webster would have been able to get a challenge in.

However it was marginal enough that for me, with a yellow given on the field, VAR prompting that to be bumped up to a red feels a bit rough.

However, it all comes down to Dunk being caught in possession which was neither the ref's nor the VAR ref's fault. We played a very risky game in the first half, and then into the second in terms of allowing United's frontline to be on top of us before we released the ball. Both Sanchez and our defenders did this repeatedly to the point I can only assume it was an intentional tactic. Most of the time we got by that press and advanced, very quickly, into the United half and found ourselves in a good attacking position.

If you live by the sword, you die by the sword...

This is where I am, too. We're on the cusp of being good enough to employ those risky tactics regularly against even the best teams, but both Webster and Dunk still have the odd error not far from the surface (AW was lucky to get away with his in the first half. If he hadn't, I suspect we might be talking about that incident rather than Dunky's).

 

[mejonaNO12 aka riskit]

Playing debbie's avocado here, but I wonder whether the 'goal scoring opportunity' doesn't necessarily mean the player on the ball had to be the one through on goal.

I've not watched it back but I think I remember Ronaldo being up with Elanga as well. If the VAR has determined that they felt Elanga would have been in possession of the ball if it wern't for Dunk then, arguably, it doesn't matter if Webster would still have been a potential obstacle to goal. You could argue that Elanga could simply roll it to Ronaldo and there's your clear shot on goal.

Therefore, Dunk has denied a clear goal scoring opportunity.

Again, this isn't my opinion, it's more a question of whether this would count or is it only if the player in possession of the ball would have been through had it not been for the foul.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Playing debbie's avocado here, but I wonder whether the 'goal scoring opportunity' doesn't necessarily mean the player on the ball had to be the one through on goal.

Deleted.

Edit:

I just looked up the laws and

• denying the opposing team a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity by
a handball offence (except a goalkeeper within their penalty area)

• denying a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity to an opponent whose
overall movement is towards the offender’s goal by an offence punishable by
a free kick

The laws switches between opposing team and opponent depending on whether it was handball or not. So, in Dunk's case only the play he fouled is considered. I wonder why there is this switch?

 

[Hastings gull]

It would be interesting to see.

In a strange way though, I'm almost not sure I want it to be completely fair. A large, vociferous crowd SHOULD be able to give you an advantage. If the Amex is full and angry and contesting every decision the ref makes in a big game, I want the crowd to be able to influence the ref enough to get one marginal decision that can change the course of game in our favour. It's part of football, and I'm not completely sure I want it to go away.

The players surrounding the ref thing, however, is bullshit, and should be stamped out immediately. It's absolutely easy to sort that problem if the authorities wanted to. Literally couldn't be any simpler.

Yes, I fully understand what you are saying in that we would have to be consistent -if we want to sway the ref at home, then we have to accpet that others do.as well, which count against us. But I do wonder if there is another element at play, namely the increased coverage surrounding the Man U's of this world, whereby the ref's decisions are analysed that shade more widely. Fully agree with what you write about the ref being surrounded and there again if it by those whom he has known over the years as opposed to newcomers, might that also have an effect on his eventual decision?
,

 

[Iggle Piggle]

The United players were a disgrace last night surrounding the ref in the way that they did. The fact VAR then made the Ref go to the monitor for a borderline incident is utterly bizarre. It's almost encouraging more of that represhensible behaviour that then gets repeated from U10 to U18 games every week up and down the country. Well done all.

And just on [MENTION=2095]Commander[/MENTION] s point about a vociferous crowd influencing the game, I get the point you are making. My counter would be that crowd at OT last night was more akin to the centre court at Wimbledon. Tourists, Half and Halfers, grown men in CR7 tops saying Siu. A crowd of 70,000 odd virgins. God help that ref at Millwall if he is influenced by that lot.

 

[KZNSeagull]

I said on the match thread that it was hardly a foul and for VAR not to even look at the foul was ridiculous. It was a typical Man Utd pressure the Ref into making a decision and it worked. Disgraceful cheats the lot of them, but then as we know from past experience the rules of the game do not apply to Man United.

 

[Rookie]

The fact GPott commented on it the way he did shows what a bad decision it was

 

[Hastings gull]

I said on the match thread that it was hardly a foul and for VAR not to even look at the foul was ridiculous. It was a typical Man Utd pressure the Ref into making a decision and it worked. Disgraceful cheats the lot of them, but then as we know from past experience the rules of the game do not apply to Man United.

I don't know what happens after the match but it could well be that at Man Utd the ref who has earned their displeasure gets it in the neck far more than in other venues and it would be understandable of sorts if the poor old ref took what might be described as the easier way out, knowing the agony that was coming his way!! But at the end of the day this is purely conjecture.