Other EPL games WK3 30/08-31/08
- Thread starter dee
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
I didn't see it but there appeared to have been a handball for the Chelsea's second goal. And it also seems like that particular incident hasn't been reviewed by the VAR. Again, when it comes to the VAR it is of the very, very most critical importance what things are reviewed. Not all things that could be reviewed are reviewed. The first big VAR decision easily may not have been reviewed. If Chelsea scored that goal the first instance easily wouldn't have been reviewed and nobody would've complained about it. And for the second big VAR decision, the first hand-ball incident could easily had been reviewed but hasn't. That is how cheating works in football. It is not just about making good decisions when things are reviewed. It is that not all things are equally reviewed. Some things are sometimes ignored while at other times they are made sure to be reviewed.
Both the Pedro handball and Caicedo incident were checked and cleared.
Pedro handball because the rules are now as long as the player doesn't score directly from an accidental handball, it's allowed to stand.
Caicedo because it was felt it was a natural coming together.
The second one is the kicker though, if thats a natural coming together. What was the Muniz one?
I thought the foul started outside the box, so shouldn't be a pen
Again, I missed the second VAR review. I didn't catch the whole thing. I just noticed later on that there were two instances of handballs. I saw the Chelsea handball and it very much looked like it could've been and even should've been called. The accidental handball rule doesn't make any sense. It is totally wrong. The Fulham handball too was accidental but the ref accepted it because the player "made himself bigger." And in the Chelsea handball instance, if the handball was accidental it is also the case that it happened because the player made himself bigger via his arm/hand. That logically makes no sense whatsoever. It doesn't matter if accidental or not. Other rules must be devised. As is, the rules allow for discretion. And discretion means that you can rule it one way or another.
Fulham handball is accidental but it is a penalty because the player's arm/hand made him bigger.
Chelsea handball is accidental but it is NOT a handball EVEN THOUGH the player's arm/hand made him bigger.
Whenever a player touches a ball with his arm/hand it is the case he did so while making himself bigger.
I heard the ref say that the Fulham player made himself bigger with his arm/hand. Again, the rules do not make logical sense. They have gaps and holes. They allow for the same situations to be differently decided.
Dont even think its a foul Mount threw himself
It's a soft one, but it's one that's given frequently (shouldn't be, mind)
But it's not given, so that's good
The opposite of accidental is intentional. That means that the rule they use now can also be read through that word. That would mean that only intentional handballs are called and that would be a very, very high standard. Very rare instances in football involve intentional handballs. That means that almost all instances in football involve accidental handballs. That means that you cannot use that standard. One cannot use the standard of accidental/non-accidental handball because in nearly all cases you are dealing with accidental handball incidents.
A ManU penalty overturned at Old Toilet? Who tore a hole in the space-time continuum?
Right at the start you could argue it was a foul.. but advantage was played and mount threw himself across Walker.
Can see why Utd wouldn't be happy with a drop ball.
Radio commentary said both players were pushing each other. If that's the case, no penalty.
And it started 10 yards outside the box.
😡
Similar threads
