Jump to content
Bert

Did Vardy Mean It?

Did Vardy Mean It?   

483 members have voted

  1. 1. So, did he mean to connect with Mustafi’s face?

    • Yes
      67
    • No
      415


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, HighPeakFox said:

Don't get me started.

 

It's funny that you bring Goebbels up because I thought that recent Mount Rushmore gig seemed a bit, well, Nuremburg-y. Only needed Leni Riefenstahl and a few burning crosses to complete the effect. God knows what happens when Trump burns down the Riechstag/White House, just before the election.

 

Anyway, it's the wrong thread for this, dirty Arsenal need to get their own house in order, poor Jamie barely touched him. :whistle:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everything looks worse in slow motion which is the problem with VAR.

 

It's not comparable to Nketiah's challenge, as Vardy is rolling over and his foot has to go somewhere. In fact I don't know why I'm having to explain this, Arsenal can just **** off - they want to blame it on someone.

 

We have more than our fair share of plain weird fans, but they are something else. Absolute victims.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, HighPeakFox said:

He'll understand your point better if you finish your initial sentence like this!!!!

...you just will not let it go!!!!

 I stand by my comment, it was a deliberate act and as such warranted a red card.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, jayfox26 said:

Its irrelevant whether he did it on purpose or not. If the fa are seriously going to look into it, we all know what the outcome will be...

...is it not the reason for this topic!!!

How is it irrelevant if the action was deliberate or not. If it was deliberate therefore it should have been subject to a red card for Vardy and the Arsenal supporters are correct in respect of this incident.

  It seems some people are quite happy to accept a blatant act such as this to be viewed as just part of the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, sacreblueits442 said:

..We are discussing one incident!!!!

For me it is quite clear that he attempted to make some kind of contact with Mustafi by his action.

  The other incidents stand on their own and as such have no part in this discussion.


I don’t think he did.  When you are continually clattered by a big lump of a defender you ‘clatter’ back ..   in anyway you can within the rules of the game  ... self defence ! ...   :)

 

Not a red for me ..  but if you think otherwise, well,  that’s your opinion ...  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Countryfox said:


I don’t think he did.  When you are continually clattered by a big lump of a defender you ‘clatter’ back ..   in anyway you can within the rules of the game  ... self defence ! ...   :)

 

Not a red for me ..  but if you think otherwise, well,  that’s your opinion ...  

...in a previous post you stated that he flailed his legs deliberately, for what reason would he have done this?

 You are now saying if that was the case he was right to do so. There is a contradiction in your statements trying to justify the unjustifiable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, sacreblueits442 said:

...in a previous post you stated that he flailed his legs deliberately, for what reason would he have done this?

 You are now saying if that was the case he was right to do so. There is a contradiction in your statements trying to justify the unjustifiable.


No ..  you said he attempted to make to contact ...   I said he deliberately flailed his legs ..  it’s not the same.  

Share this post


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


No ..  you said he attempted to make to contact ...   I said he deliberately flailed his legs ..  it’s not the same.  

..my question was, for what reason did he choose to do that!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, sacreblueits442 said:

..my question was, for what reason did he choose to do that!!!


To try and protect himself from being continually clattered by a much bigger aggressive defender ...  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, sacreblueits442 said:

..so a preemptive strike!!!

No ...  cus he could only do it whilst being clattered ..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, sacreblueits442 said:

....I think we should leave this here!!!


Why ...   it’s better than watching some bleedin cookery programme with the mrs ...   :)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Part of me hopes he did do it on purpose after all the pant sniffing from Arteta, AFTV etc.

 

Pretty sure he didn’t though. Wouldn’t have rushed to apologise if it wasn’t accidental.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, sacreblueits442 said:

...is it not the reason for this topic!!!

How is it irrelevant if the action was deliberate or not. If it was deliberate therefore it should have been subject to a red card for Vardy and the Arsenal supporters are correct in respect of this incident.

  It seems some people are quite happy to accept a blatant act such as this to be viewed as just part of the game.

My point is, that regardless of whether he did it on purpose or not (personally I dont think he did), the fa will no doubt try and ban him anyway. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, jayfox26 said:

My point is, that regardless of whether he did it on purpose or not (personally I dont think he did), the fa will no doubt try and ban him anyway. 

Surely too late now 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, RonnieTodger said:

Everything looks worse in slow motion which is the problem with VAR.

 

It's not comparable to Nketiah's challenge, as Vardy is rolling over and his foot has to go somewhere. In fact I don't know why I'm having to explain this, Arsenal can just **** off - they want to blame it on someone.

 

We have more than our fair share of plain weird fans, but they are something else. Absolute victims.

Yeah, I've never been a fan of replay's in slow motion. The game isn't played in slow motion and I think things looks worse in slow motion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Fox92 said:

Yeah, I've never been a fan of replay's in slow motion. The game isn't played in slow motion and I think things looks worse in slow motion.

This is one of the issues with the use of VAR. Football doesn’t work in slow motion. If you’ve played the game of football, you know these things happen (the occasional stray elbow when turning for example). The thing is you do actually glance because your brain know it’s going to happen but at a speed, it’s simply to quick to process. 
 

For example in slow motion, you could argue last night that Fernandes Penalty was a crude stamp on Konsa’s foot. It wasn’t but it can looked like 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Fox92 said:

Yeah, I've never been a fan of replay's in slow motion. The game isn't played in slow motion and I think things looks worse in slow motion.

You were lucky enough to miss the Watford and Brighton games, I guess?

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Ted Maul said:

I'm guessing we would have heard something by now if the FA were investigating?

The cynic in me says they will wait until after the Bournemouth game, that way a three match ban will include the United game.

This of course is based on nothing at all, other than conspiracy theories and a pro united agenda. Once the full round of games has been completed and the next one started no action should be taken.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure this is the absolutely the most up to date version, but must be close if not as VAR is taken into account.

RETROSPECTIVE ACTION If video evidence clearly shows that a player has committed a dismissal offence that was not seen at the time it occurred by the match officials, or reviewed in time by VAR, The FA may take retrospective disciplinary action. Retrospective action was originally introduced to address ‘off-the-ball’ incidents of violent conduct or serious foul play that were committed out of the match officials’ eye line and to put the player in the same position as if the incident had been seen at the time. It has since evolved to include acts of violent conduct that happen secondary to a challenge for the ball where the match officials were concentrating on the challenge for the ball, or if the match officials’ view of the incident meant that they did not have the opportunity to make a decision on the specific act of misconduct. Whilst increased use of VAR may reduce the number of incidents where retrospective disciplinary action is possible or required because incidents ‘not seen’ by the match officials can be reviewed at the time, The FA may still initiate proceedings if it believes there may be a case to answer. PROCESS: • The FA can become aware of a potential ‘not seen’ incident in a variety of ways; • A match referee may file an extraordinary incident report detailing that the incident was not seen by the match officials, or reviewed at the time by VAR; • Before considering whether to initiate proceedings for retrospective action, the match referee is asked whether they or any of the match officials saw the incident at the time; • If VAR was in operation, it is also necessary to establish from the match referee or VAR whether the incident was reviewed at the time; • If it is confirmed that the specific act of misconduct was seen or reviewed at the time it occurred, no further action is taken in almost all cases; Essential Information For Media 2019/20 The FA’s women’s and girls’ football strategy || 1313 TIMELINE Incident: Saturday or Sunday Charge issued: Monday or Tuesday Deadline by which the player must reply: By 18:00 on the day following the charge Deadline by which the player must submit any evidence: By 18:00 on the day following the charge Hearing: Prior to the offending player’s next match

It says on the timeline where possible before the players next game. As this happened on Tuesday I would have thought it would be initiated by now.

 

Edited by Motty

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...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...