Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
urban.spaceman

Watford 2-0 Post Match Thread

Recommended Posts

43 minutes ago, Les-TA-Jon said:

I agree that the 2nd one was soft and shouldn't have been a pen. I increasingly think that VAR isn't the problem, it's the fact that they've chosen to implement it with the idea of not re-referring decisions. This means adhering to the 'clear and obvious' threshold, which itself has been set high. 

 

This means that the VAR review for the foul on Evans, isn't deciding on whether it's a penalty or not, they're instead deciding if the referee made a clear and obvious mistake in awarding a foul. The footage itself is conclusive. Masina pushed Evans in the face. You can argue that it was an accident, that it was soft, that it wasn't a pen. But it's very hard to argue that the ref made a clear and obvious mistake, because he didn't miss anything, so they have to defer to his judgement. 

 

I'd rather they simply use the technology + the view of the on pitch officials and come to the right decision, regardless of who gets overruled or not. 

For the first one, shouldn't this rule have meant the decision should have been revoked as booking Vardy was definitely a 'clear and obvious' error regardless of whether a penalty was given or not. I think VAR implementation is horrendous, they've come up with rules which sound intuitive but now won't admit their mistakes with some of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, egg_fried_rice said:

They were pitch-side rather than in the studio, but it was Graeme Le Saux & Owen Hargreaves. Probably even less insightful than you'd expect.

 

12 minutes ago, foxer said:

Neither of them thought the first one was a penalty having seen replays! Cue me yelling at the television.

 

This is why I was asking. 

 

Someone that watched the game last night on amazon has told me that a pundit was claiming Jamie Vardy got what he deserved for the first one because he had a reputation for always diving. 

 

I was like, what the sweet ****. 

 

Can someone please explain Rashford, Mane and Salah getting a thousand penalties a year then? 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, bmt said:

For the first one, shouldn't this rule have meant the decision should have been revoked as booking Vardy was definitely a 'clear and obvious' error regardless of whether a penalty was given or not. I think VAR implementation is horrendous, they've come up with rules which sound intuitive but now won't admit their mistakes with some of them.

The thing is, yes, there was contact. But that doesn't mean Vardy didn't simulate. So it's pretty hard to argue that the ref made a clear and obvious mistake in coming to the judgement of 'Vardy simulated'. 

 

If you watch again, you'll see 4 moments in the sequence of play:

 

1) Vardy gets there first and touches the ball

2) The defender steps on Vardy's foot

3) Vardy takes another step, then see's that the ball is running away

4) Vardy goes down

 

I think it's simulation, and well spotted by the ref (Vardy normally gets away with this sort of stuff, and on another day the ref would have missed it or given a penalty - and VAR probably would have also given a pen too, due to the contact). 

 

If Vardy was truly impeded he wouldn't have taken that additional step after the contact, but before going down. 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Les-TA-Jon said:

The thing is, yes, there was contact. But that doesn't mean Vardy didn't simulate. So it's pretty hard to argue that the ref made a clear and obvious mistake in coming to the judgement of 'Vardy simulated'. 

 

If you watch again, you'll see 4 moments in the sequence of play:

 

1) Vardy gets there first and touches the ball

2) The defender steps on Vardy's foot

3) Vardy takes another step, then see's that the ball is running away

4) Vardy goes down

 

I think it's simulation, and well spotted by the ref (Vardy normally gets away with this sort of stuff, and on another day the ref would have missed it or given a penalty - and VAR probably would have also given a pen too, due to the contact). 

 

If Vardy was truly impeded he wouldn't have taken that additional step after the contact, but before going down. 

I see the point with the 4 steps, but if you are moving, especially at pace, and feel yourself become unbalanced/impeded you will naturally but you leg/foot out to recover your balance.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Les-TA-Jon said:

The thing is, yes, there was contact. But that doesn't mean Vardy didn't simulate. So it's pretty hard to argue that the ref made a clear and obvious mistake in coming to the judgement of 'Vardy simulated'. 

 

If you watch again, you'll see 4 moments in the sequence of play:

 

1) Vardy gets there first and touches the ball

2) The defender steps on Vardy's foot

3) Vardy takes another step, then see's that the ball is running away

4) Vardy goes down

 

I think it's simulation, and well spotted by the ref (Vardy normally gets away with this sort of stuff, and on another day the ref would have missed it or given a penalty - and VAR probably would have also given a pen too, due to the contact). 

 

If Vardy was truly impeded he wouldn't have taken that additional step after the contact, but before going down. 

It is funny that Mane gets even softer penalties though.. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

 

 

This is why I was asking. 

 

Someone that watched the game last night on amazon has told me that a pundit was claiming Jamie Vardy got what he deserved for the first one because he had a reputation for always diving. 

 

I was like, what the sweet ****. 

 

Can someone please explain Rashford, Mane and Salah getting a thousand penalties a year then? 

That was actually the co-commentator who was a generic Scottish ex pro who I can't remember the name of. He was actually saying he thought it was a penalty and couldn't see why it wasn't overturned, and when asked for an explanation as to why it wasn't said that it could have been his reputation preceding him. He didn't say he got what he deserved at all.

Both Hargreaves and Le Saux said they didn't think it was a pen because he took a step before he went down, which is a load of old bollocks. They did say it wasn't worthy of a yellow though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Les-TA-Jon said:

The thing is, yes, there was contact. But that doesn't mean Vardy didn't simulate. So it's pretty hard to argue that the ref made a clear and obvious mistake in coming to the judgement of 'Vardy simulated'. 

 

If you watch again, you'll see 4 moments in the sequence of play:

 

1) Vardy gets there first and touches the ball

2) The defender steps on Vardy's foot

3) Vardy takes another step, then see's that the ball is running away

4) Vardy goes down

 

I think it's simulation, and well spotted by the ref (Vardy normally gets away with this sort of stuff, and on another day the ref would have missed it or given a penalty - and VAR probably would have also given a pen too, due to the contact). 

 

If Vardy was truly impeded he wouldn't have taken that additional step after the contact, but before going down. 

I understand what you are saying in that I think Vardy could have stayed on his feet if he wanted, but it was still a foul and you don't get those sort of fouls given in the box unless you go down. He was impeded, it just wasn't necessarily enough to send him to the ground. It was much more of a penalty than the one we were actually given in my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

simple really, are defenders  allowed to stand on attackers feet?

if they are not, it is a penalty.

 

Anything that comes after is irrelevant.

 

If it had  been at Anfield, and it involved Mane, they would have given for sure.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, egg_fried_rice said:

That was actually the co-commentator who was a generic Scottish ex pro who I can't remember the name of. He was actually saying he thought it was a penalty and couldn't see why it wasn't overturned, and when asked for an explanation as to why it wasn't said that it could have been his reputation preceding him. He didn't say he got what he deserved at all.

Both Hargreaves and Le Saux said they didn't think it was a pen because he took a step before he went down, which is a load of old bollocks. They did say it wasn't worthy of a yellow though.

Yep, the Scottish co-commentator was adamant that it was a penalty. And he was right, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, egg_fried_rice said:

I understand what you are saying in that I think Vardy could have stayed on his feet if he wanted, but it was still a foul and you don't get those sort of fouls given in the box unless you go down. He was impeded, it just wasn't necessarily enough to send him to the ground. It was much more of a penalty than the one we were actually given in my opinion.

Yeah I totally agree that within the confines of what fans, players and refs all 'agree' to be the principles of what's a foul/not a foul/a dive/not a dive - it should be a pen. But I'm just saying that by definition it's simulation - but they're never given. 

 

Players are incentivised to go down, because refs are incentivised to only give fouls when players go down and round and round we go...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Les-TA-Jon said:

The thing is, yes, there was contact. But that doesn't mean Vardy didn't simulate. So it's pretty hard to argue that the ref made a clear and obvious mistake in coming to the judgement of 'Vardy simulated'. 

 

If you watch again, you'll see 4 moments in the sequence of play:

 

1) Vardy gets there first and touches the ball

2) The defender steps on Vardy's foot

3) Vardy takes another step, then see's that the ball is running away

4) Vardy goes down

 

I think it's simulation, and well spotted by the ref (Vardy normally gets away with this sort of stuff, and on another day the ref would have missed it or given a penalty - and VAR probably would have also given a pen too, due to the contact). 

 

If Vardy was truly impeded he wouldn't have taken that additional step after the contact, but before going down. 

For me, if there's contact it should never be a yellow card. I don't think a penalty is always the right call if there's contact but to say going down easy is worth a yellow card is unfair.

 

I guess you're saying the contact and the fall were seperate movements (can't think of a better word), but with the speed that things occur you can see why others think the opposite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, bmt said:

For me, if there's contact it should never be a yellow card. I don't think a penalty is always the right call if there's contact but to say going down easy is worth a yellow card is unfair.

 

I guess you're saying the contact and the fall were seperate movements (can't think of a better word), but with the speed that things occur you can see why others think the opposite.

People need to move away from this concept of dives and contact. There's no such rule. The rule is for simulation and attempting to deceive the officials. It is possible to be touched and still simulate. Same way you can be missed and still fouled. It's just not a cut and dry thing. It's not as easy as saying 'well there was contact, so it's can't be a dive' 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, filbertway said:

Yet weirdly a boxer or MMA fighter can keep standing up after being punched with much more force and not roll on the floor. 

Pretty sure that boxers and MMA fighters expect to get punched in the face, I’ve heard rumours they even train so they know how to deal with it.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Les-TA-Jon said:

People need to move away from this concept of dives and contact. There's no such rule. The rule is for simulation and attempting to deceive the officials. It is possible to be touched and still simulate. Same way you can be missed and still fouled. It's just not a cut and dry thing. It's not as easy as saying 'well there was contact, so it's can't be a dive' 

 

That may be true, but by that standard surely every foul/coming together where they go rolling off after it should result in a yellow card for simulation -  footballers fake injury almost every time to deceive officials. Even staying on the floor a couple of seconds could be seen as simulation and attempting to deceive the officials to gain a time advantage. For me using 'there was contact so it shouldn't be a yellow card' seems a more sensible standard to stand by regardless of the wording of the rules, whether its simulation or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, bmt said:

 

That may be true, but by that standard surely every foul/coming together where they go rolling off after it should result in a yellow card for simulation -  footballers fake injury almost every time to deceive officials. Even staying on the floor a couple of seconds could be seen as simulation and attempting to deceive the officials to gain a time advantage. For me using 'there was contact so it shouldn't be a yellow card' seems a more sensible standard to stand by regardless of the wording of the rules, whether its simulation or not.

Well sure, that's why we rarely see decisions like the one last night - it's very hard for an official, even with replays, to determine the intent of a player, especially if there was contact. Hence why the idea of contact = no simulation has come about. But all I'm saying is that it's a convention, not the rule. So that's why there's always the potential for decisions like the one last night. 

 

Also I suppose simulating an injury is different to simulating to try and obtain a decision. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, hackneyfox said:

Pretty sure that boxers and MMA fighters expect to get punched in the face, I’ve heard rumours they even train so they know how to deal with it.

 

on the other hand, imagine evans out on the town one night and someone comes and sticks one on his face 

 

is he going straight down on the floor rolling about? nope. he's on his feet trying to dodge the next one or throwing a punch back.

 

nobody takes one little touch to the face and goes down like that, anywhere other than the football pitch.

 

you don't have to be MMA trained to take a lick to the face lol

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Think Rodgers did well to start rotating players early with early subs etc, will need to rotate over the xmas period.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, hackneyfox said:

Pretty sure that boxers and MMA fighters expect to get punched in the face, I’ve heard rumours they even train so they know how to deal with it.

 

Would that have made you fall over and clutch your face? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, filbertway said:

 

Would that have made you fall over and clutch your face? 

I have a glass jaw, that aside making a comparison with someone trained to take a beating is just ridiculous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, hackneyfox said:

I have a glass jaw, that aside making a comparison with someone trained to take a beating is just ridiculous.

My point is that someone touching your face won't make you fall over unless you're looking for attention. I find it astounding that any person would disagree with this. I believe it's called bias and being awkward :D

 

 

Pretty sure these lads aren't professional fighters training to take a beating either.

 

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Les-TA-Jon said:

Well sure, that's why we rarely see decisions like the one last night - it's very hard for an official, even with replays, to determine the intent of a player, especially if there was contact. Hence why the idea of contact = no simulation has come about. But all I'm saying is that it's a convention, not the rule. So that's why there's always the potential for decisions like the one last night. 

 

Also I suppose simulating an injury is different to simulating to try and obtain a decision. 

The fact of the modern game is that you simply will not get any decisions if you don't go down after being fouled.

 

You could be absolutely smashed in the face with a deliberate elbow but if you don't go down screaming it won't be awarded. So going down in this instance isn't simulation it's basically just holding up a flag to the referee saying "I was fouled, can I have a free kick/penalty, please - as per the laws of the game?".

 

If Vardy didn't go down last night he categorically would not have been awarded a penalty despite being fouled in the box.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought we played well for most part, albeit a bit lacklustre and slow at times.

Then again, we can‘t really tell how much of a strain three games in ten days are.

We also can‘t expect a goalscoring furioso every game, not with a changed starting eleven.

Most important thing is that we keep on piling up records or great stats AND corresponding results.

Seven wins in a row. Unheard of in modern times.

Fantastic defense - smart, swift, compact. As a consequence, best defensive record in the league.

Vardy‘s scoring streak.

And looking at the amount of changes, it‘s great to see fringe players being given a chance - and holding up this well. Keeps everyone happy (kudos to Rodgers).

Given the fact that this is a relatively young team, we‘ve made an enormeous progress in the space of only a few years. Which is remarkable.


However, coming back to yesterday‘s game, how bad were Watford? No leader, no punch, no precision. Their main aim was to prevent us from scoring (just like Everton), it‘s just that the Hornets are absolutely toothless and timid up front. @Super_horns: Going down, I‘m afraid...

Edited by MC Prussian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...