+-

+-User

Welcome, Guest.
Please login or register.
 
 
 

Login with your social network

Forgot your password?

+-Stats ezBlock

Members
Total Members: 953
Latest: Yorksref
New This Month: 21
New This Week: 3
New Today: 0
Stats
Total Posts: 75107
Total Topics: 5527
Most Online Today: 129
Most Online Ever: 17046
(Mon 29 Mar 2021 19:08)
Users Online
Members: 0
Guests: 124
Total: 124

Author Topic: Mike Dean Wolves v Man United  (Read 1341 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Ashington46

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 831
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: Ashington, Northumberland
    • View Profile
  • Referee Level: Retired for years!
Re: Mike Dean Wolves v Man United
« Reply #15 on: Sun 29 Aug 2021 19:27 »
Having read the thoughts of Neves I am at a total loss as to how such a badly injured player managed to complete another 15 minutes, particularly as there was another substitution that could be made. According to him, he showed his leg to everyone who wanted to have a look and plenty who didn't ---just how did he carry on playing with an injury which resulted in his leg collapsing when he realised that the ball wasn't going to a Wolves player.
Never mind, having watched a couple of Under 23 games recently, I think that it is only a matter of time before every challenge or non-challenge will result in a foul one way or the other. It seems that this will appeal to the modern fan.
Referee's decision used to be final!
Agree Agree x 1 Winner Winner x 3 View List

Deanspen

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 132
    • View Profile
Re: Mike Dean Wolves v Man United
« Reply #16 on: Sun 29 Aug 2021 19:57 »
Hopefully Mike Dean’s colleagues on the Premier league will take the hint that dissent is still part of the laws of the game and if they take positive robust action by the appropriate and proportionate use of cards we can hopefully start to rid the game of something that too many referees have ignored in the past and continue to do so. That includes cards for managers who clearly overstep the mark as well as players. I know words have never broken a player’s leg, but in recent times I have felt that dissent ( not low level whinging), particularly mass dissent has been excused, glossed over and considered trivial or “ just part of the game”. The standard is set at the highest level and as we know what goes on in the Premier inevitability feeds it’s way down to grass roots.
Agree Agree x 1 View List

Affy_Moose

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 313
  • Scottish Match Official
    • View Profile
Re: Mike Dean Wolves v Man United
« Reply #17 on: Sun 29 Aug 2021 20:17 »
Yesterday it was put that still images should not be used to judge incidents and this is a good reason why, it was a glancing, momentary contact that is far less significant than it appears in that photo.

Let me be clear - I have no problem with this being a foul had Mr. Dean given it but VAR, in my opinion, are correct not to intervene. In real time there is minimal contact and it is very much a 50/50, impact on the game is minimal and would really have been nothing had Neves not behaved as he did going to ground when nothing was wrong with him. If Neves doesn't go down, and for me he definitely decides to go down and stay down, there wouldn't be any discussion IMO.

The Fernandes point raised by I think Charlieboy is an interesting one. I wonder is it that while he moans a lot he never says anything too bad? I don't buy into the "he is from a big club so gets away with it" argument personally, so I feel it must be something else (I am not saying Charlieboy or anyone else is advancing that theory, just that it does seem to exist).

I’ll politely disagree with you here. Whilst photos can make challenges look more/less serious as they lack context, that still image is perfectly useful.

With perhaps an inch or so more travel, we’re not talking foul/no foul we’re talking a serious injury and a red card offence for endangering an opponent.

That the contact was minimal was by sheer luck and not design. A studs-showing shin-high tackle is a cowardly challenge, and with the fortuitous lack of a severe contact, it was nevertheless a very obvious foul and very worthy of a caution for disregarding Neves’ safety.

Ultimately, these are the predictable results of a ‘light touch’ VAR and refereeing process.
Agree Agree x 2 Disagree Disagree x 2 View List

ajb95

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,391
    • View Profile
Re: Mike Dean Wolves v Man United
« Reply #18 on: Sun 29 Aug 2021 20:21 »
Yesterday it was put that still images should not be used to judge incidents and this is a good reason why, it was a glancing, momentary contact that is far less significant than it appears in that photo.

Let me be clear - I have no problem with this being a foul had Mr. Dean given it but VAR, in my opinion, are correct not to intervene. In real time there is minimal contact and it is very much a 50/50, impact on the game is minimal and would really have been nothing had Neves not behaved as he did going to ground when nothing was wrong with him. If Neves doesn't go down, and for me he definitely decides to go down and stay down, there wouldn't be any discussion IMO.

The Fernandes point raised by I think Charlieboy is an interesting one. I wonder is it that while he moans a lot he never says anything too bad? I don't buy into the "he is from a big club so gets away with it" argument personally, so I feel it must be something else (I am not saying Charlieboy or anyone else is advancing that theory, just that it does seem to exist).

I’ll politely disagree with you here. Whilst photos can make challenges look more/less serious as they lack context, that still image is perfectly useful.

With perhaps an inch or so more travel, we’re not talking foul/no foul we’re talking a serious injury and a red card offence for endangering an opponent.

That the contact was minimal was by sheer luck and not design. A studs-showing shin-high tackle is a cowardly challenge, and with the fortuitous lack of a severe contact, it was nevertheless a very obvious foul and very worthy of a caution for disregarding Neves’ safety.

Ultimately, these are the predictable results of a ‘light touch’ VAR and refereeing process.

Look at the photo and both players’ studs are high, one could argue it was by luck that Neves played the ball away from Pogba.

And from the video pogba barely touches his leg. So how can it be endangering a safety of an opponent (which is vague anyway) when the contact is minimal?? As I said on my earlier post, watch Neves’s reaction he plays on walks 3 yards and then falls over? Actions of an injured player?
Like Like x 1 Agree Agree x 1 Disagree Disagree x 1 View List

Joecphillips

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 295
    • View Profile
Re: Mike Dean Wolves v Man United
« Reply #19 on: Sun 29 Aug 2021 20:48 »
Yesterday it was put that still images should not be used to judge incidents and this is a good reason why, it was a glancing, momentary contact that is far less significant than it appears in that photo.

Let me be clear - I have no problem with this being a foul had Mr. Dean given it but VAR, in my opinion, are correct not to intervene. In real time there is minimal contact and it is very much a 50/50, impact on the game is minimal and would really have been nothing had Neves not behaved as he did going to ground when nothing was wrong with him. If Neves doesn't go down, and for me he definitely decides to go down and stay down, there wouldn't be any discussion IMO.

The Fernandes point raised by I think Charlieboy is an interesting one. I wonder is it that while he moans a lot he never says anything too bad? I don't buy into the "he is from a big club so gets away with it" argument personally, so I feel it must be something else (I am not saying Charlieboy or anyone else is advancing that theory, just that it does seem to exist).

I’ll politely disagree with you here. Whilst photos can make challenges look more/less serious as they lack context, that still image is perfectly useful.

With perhaps an inch or so more travel, we’re not talking foul/no foul we’re talking a serious injury and a red card offence for endangering an opponent.

That the contact was minimal was by sheer luck and not design. A studs-showing shin-high tackle is a cowardly challenge, and with the fortuitous lack of a severe contact, it was nevertheless a very obvious foul and very worthy of a caution for disregarding Neves’ safety.

Ultimately, these are the predictable results of a ‘light touch’ VAR and refereeing process.

Look at the photo and both players’ studs are high, one could argue it was by luck that Neves played the ball away from Pogba.

And from the video pogba barely touches his leg. So how can it be endangering a safety of an opponent (which is vague anyway) when the contact is minimal?? As I said on my earlier post, watch Neves’s reaction he plays on walks 3 yards and then falls over? Actions of an injured player?

Once again we can’t say we want players to stop throwing themselves to the floor and stop play acting and then say he doesn’t throw himself to the floor so no foul when it’s not minimal contact his shin pad didn’t move half way round his leg from a glancing blow.

guest320

  • Guest
Re: Mike Dean Wolves v Man United
« Reply #20 on: Sun 29 Aug 2021 20:54 »
Yesterday it was put that still images should not be used to judge incidents and this is a good reason why, it was a glancing, momentary contact that is far less significant than it appears in that photo.

Let me be clear - I have no problem with this being a foul had Mr. Dean given it but VAR, in my opinion, are correct not to intervene. In real time there is minimal contact and it is very much a 50/50, impact on the game is minimal and would really have been nothing had Neves not behaved as he did going to ground when nothing was wrong with him. If Neves doesn't go down, and for me he definitely decides to go down and stay down, there wouldn't be any discussion IMO.

The Fernandes point raised by I think Charlieboy is an interesting one. I wonder is it that while he moans a lot he never says anything too bad? I don't buy into the "he is from a big club so gets away with it" argument personally, so I feel it must be something else (I am not saying Charlieboy or anyone else is advancing that theory, just that it does seem to exist).

I’ll politely disagree with you here. Whilst photos can make challenges look more/less serious as they lack context, that still image is perfectly useful.

With perhaps an inch or so more travel, we’re not talking foul/no foul we’re talking a serious injury and a red card offence for endangering an opponent.

That the contact was minimal was by sheer luck and not design. A studs-showing shin-high tackle is a cowardly challenge, and with the fortuitous lack of a severe contact, it was nevertheless a very obvious foul and very worthy of a caution for disregarding Neves’ safety.

Ultimately, these are the predictable results of a ‘light touch’ VAR and refereeing process.

Look at the photo and both players’ studs are high, one could argue it was by luck that Neves played the ball away from Pogba.

And from the video pogba barely touches his leg. So how can it be endangering a safety of an opponent (which is vague anyway) when the contact is minimal?? As I said on my earlier post, watch Neves’s reaction he plays on walks 3 yards and then falls over? Actions of an injured player?

Once again we can’t say we want players to stop throwing themselves to the floor and stop play acting and then say he doesn’t throw himself to the floor so no foul when it’s not minimal contact his shin pad didn’t move half way round his leg from a glancing blow.

But Neves did throw himself on the floor so not sure what point you're making really. In YOUR opinion it was a clear and obvious error but in many others opinions it wasn't - and that in itself kind of proves it was a debatable one therefore making VAR correct in not intervening.
Agree Agree x 4 View List

Joecphillips

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 295
    • View Profile
Re: Mike Dean Wolves v Man United
« Reply #21 on: Sun 29 Aug 2021 21:07 »
Yesterday it was put that still images should not be used to judge incidents and this is a good reason why, it was a glancing, momentary contact that is far less significant than it appears in that photo.

Let me be clear - I have no problem with this being a foul had Mr. Dean given it but VAR, in my opinion, are correct not to intervene. In real time there is minimal contact and it is very much a 50/50, impact on the game is minimal and would really have been nothing had Neves not behaved as he did going to ground when nothing was wrong with him. If Neves doesn't go down, and for me he definitely decides to go down and stay down, there wouldn't be any discussion IMO.

The Fernandes point raised by I think Charlieboy is an interesting one. I wonder is it that while he moans a lot he never says anything too bad? I don't buy into the "he is from a big club so gets away with it" argument personally, so I feel it must be something else (I am not saying Charlieboy or anyone else is advancing that theory, just that it does seem to exist).

I’ll politely disagree with you here. Whilst photos can make challenges look more/less serious as they lack context, that still image is perfectly useful.

With perhaps an inch or so more travel, we’re not talking foul/no foul we’re talking a serious injury and a red card offence for endangering an opponent.

That the contact was minimal was by sheer luck and not design. A studs-showing shin-high tackle is a cowardly challenge, and with the fortuitous lack of a severe contact, it was nevertheless a very obvious foul and very worthy of a caution for disregarding Neves’ safety.

Ultimately, these are the predictable results of a ‘light touch’ VAR and refereeing process.

Look at the photo and both players’ studs are high, one could argue it was by luck that Neves played the ball away from Pogba.

And from the video pogba barely touches his leg. So how can it be endangering a safety of an opponent (which is vague anyway) when the contact is minimal?? As I said on my earlier post, watch Neves’s reaction he plays on walks 3 yards and then falls over? Actions of an injured player?

Once again we can’t say we want players to stop throwing themselves to the floor and stop play acting and then say he doesn’t throw himself to the floor so no foul when it’s not minimal contact his shin pad didn’t move half way round his leg from a glancing blow.

But Neves did throw himself on the floor so not sure what point you're making really. In YOUR opinion it was a clear and obvious error but in many others opinions it wasn't - and that in itself kind of proves it was a debatable one therefore making VAR correct in not intervening.

Anyone who believes going over the top of the ball into a players shin is not a foul has no business being a referee, it’s shocking the amount of people who think it’s not a foul.

My point is him trying to stay on his feet at first has no impact on the fact that pogba didn’t play the ball and made more than minor contact on a player whereas you seem to judge based off him trying to continue that no it’s not a foul.

DublinRef

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 653
    • View Profile
Re: Mike Dean Wolves v Man United
« Reply #22 on: Sun 29 Aug 2021 21:08 »
I think the discussion about foul or not is actually a very good smoke screen for the fact that mr deans dealing with dissent was not consistent, no I don’t think it’s the big club small club thing nor do I think it’s a conscious decision by mr Dean to not penalise certain players but the fact is there he did not deal with each situation consistently and thus leaves himself open to such accusations, if he let all dissent go or booked every incident then there can be no complaints but today for whatever reason mr Dean treated different players differently and that IMO was poor.

I agree with you Charlieboy he certainly did appear to be inconsistent. I felt it was incident to incident though rather than going one way or the other. For example I felt Cavani and Coady both deserved to be cautioned for dissent but weren't when players were for what appeared to be less severe dissent. My only guess can be that what was actually said by the players mentioned wasn't that bad? Regardless though looks like dissent by action to me.

The issue with dissent, IMO, is that as much as possible it should be treated like any other foul. I don't agree with giving too much leeway to players who are 'wound up' or 'frustrated'. Players from other sports get equally frustrated but wouldn't dream of taking it out on an official, so I don't feel passion is an excuse for dissenting to/abusing a referee.

I agree on your point Charlieboy that Mike Dean leaves himself open to accusations etc. perhaps this is something else a harder line on dissent could solve.
Agree Agree x 1 View List

DublinRef

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 653
    • View Profile
Re: Mike Dean Wolves v Man United
« Reply #23 on: Sun 29 Aug 2021 21:12 »
Yesterday it was put that still images should not be used to judge incidents and this is a good reason why, it was a glancing, momentary contact that is far less significant than it appears in that photo.

Let me be clear - I have no problem with this being a foul had Mr. Dean given it but VAR, in my opinion, are correct not to intervene. In real time there is minimal contact and it is very much a 50/50, impact on the game is minimal and would really have been nothing had Neves not behaved as he did going to ground when nothing was wrong with him. If Neves doesn't go down, and for me he definitely decides to go down and stay down, there wouldn't be any discussion IMO.

The Fernandes point raised by I think Charlieboy is an interesting one. I wonder is it that while he moans a lot he never says anything too bad? I don't buy into the "he is from a big club so gets away with it" argument personally, so I feel it must be something else (I am not saying Charlieboy or anyone else is advancing that theory, just that it does seem to exist).

I’ll politely disagree with you here. Whilst photos can make challenges look more/less serious as they lack context, that still image is perfectly useful.

With perhaps an inch or so more travel, we’re not talking foul/no foul we’re talking a serious injury and a red card offence for endangering an opponent.

That the contact was minimal was by sheer luck and not design. A studs-showing shin-high tackle is a cowardly challenge, and with the fortuitous lack of a severe contact, it was nevertheless a very obvious foul and very worthy of a caution for disregarding Neves’ safety.

Ultimately, these are the predictable results of a ‘light touch’ VAR and refereeing process.

Look at the photo and both players’ studs are high, one could argue it was by luck that Neves played the ball away from Pogba.

And from the video pogba barely touches his leg. So how can it be endangering a safety of an opponent (which is vague anyway) when the contact is minimal?? As I said on my earlier post, watch Neves’s reaction he plays on walks 3 yards and then falls over? Actions of an injured player?

Once again we can’t say we want players to stop throwing themselves to the floor and stop play acting and then say he doesn’t throw himself to the floor so no foul when it’s not minimal contact his shin pad didn’t move half way round his leg from a glancing blow.

But Neves did throw himself on the floor so not sure what point you're making really. In YOUR opinion it was a clear and obvious error but in many others opinions it wasn't - and that in itself kind of proves it was a debatable one therefore making VAR correct in not intervening.

Anyone who believes going over the top of the ball into a players shin is not a foul has no business being a referee, it’s shocking the amount of people who think it’s not a foul.

My point is him trying to stay on his feet at first has no impact on the fact that pogba didn’t play the ball and made more than minor contact on a player whereas you seem to judge based off him trying to continue that no it’s not a foul.

I don't think that is fair for you to adjudicate on who should be refereeing or not based on an incident that clearly is debatable as you yourself acknowledge. Perhaps the differences of opinion should suggest that what you are expressing is just that - an opinion that may be right or wrong, but not an empirical fact.
Agree Agree x 4 View List

Joecphillips

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 295
    • View Profile
Re: Mike Dean Wolves v Man United
« Reply #24 on: Sun 29 Aug 2021 21:24 »
Yesterday it was put that still images should not be used to judge incidents and this is a good reason why, it was a glancing, momentary contact that is far less significant than it appears in that photo.

Let me be clear - I have no problem with this being a foul had Mr. Dean given it but VAR, in my opinion, are correct not to intervene. In real time there is minimal contact and it is very much a 50/50, impact on the game is minimal and would really have been nothing had Neves not behaved as he did going to ground when nothing was wrong with him. If Neves doesn't go down, and for me he definitely decides to go down and stay down, there wouldn't be any discussion IMO.

The Fernandes point raised by I think Charlieboy is an interesting one. I wonder is it that while he moans a lot he never says anything too bad? I don't buy into the "he is from a big club so gets away with it" argument personally, so I feel it must be something else (I am not saying Charlieboy or anyone else is advancing that theory, just that it does seem to exist).

I’ll politely disagree with you here. Whilst photos can make challenges look more/less serious as they lack context, that still image is perfectly useful.

With perhaps an inch or so more travel, we’re not talking foul/no foul we’re talking a serious injury and a red card offence for endangering an opponent.

That the contact was minimal was by sheer luck and not design. A studs-showing shin-high tackle is a cowardly challenge, and with the fortuitous lack of a severe contact, it was nevertheless a very obvious foul and very worthy of a caution for disregarding Neves’ safety.

Ultimately, these are the predictable results of a ‘light touch’ VAR and refereeing process.

Look at the photo and both players’ studs are high, one could argue it was by luck that Neves played the ball away from Pogba.

And from the video pogba barely touches his leg. So how can it be endangering a safety of an opponent (which is vague anyway) when the contact is minimal?? As I said on my earlier post, watch Neves’s reaction he plays on walks 3 yards and then falls over? Actions of an injured player?

Once again we can’t say we want players to stop throwing themselves to the floor and stop play acting and then say he doesn’t throw himself to the floor so no foul when it’s not minimal contact his shin pad didn’t move half way round his leg from a glancing blow.

But Neves did throw himself on the floor so not sure what point you're making really. In YOUR opinion it was a clear and obvious error but in many others opinions it wasn't - and that in itself kind of proves it was a debatable one therefore making VAR correct in not intervening.

Anyone who believes going over the top of the ball into a players shin is not a foul has no business being a referee, it’s shocking the amount of people who think it’s not a foul.

My point is him trying to stay on his feet at first has no impact on the fact that pogba didn’t play the ball and made more than minor contact on a player whereas you seem to judge based off him trying to continue that no it’s not a foul.

I don't think that is fair for you to adjudicate on who should be refereeing or not based on an incident that clearly is debatable as you yourself acknowledge. Perhaps the differences of opinion should suggest that what you are expressing is just that - an opinion that may be right or wrong, but not an empirical fact.

It shouldn’t be a debate, it should be the ref and var coming out and saying we messed up, var especially has 0 excuse for missing this, you seem to want to referee based on players reactions rather than what actually happened.
Disagree Disagree x 1 View List

Ashington46

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 831
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: Ashington, Northumberland
    • View Profile
  • Referee Level: Retired for years!
Re: Mike Dean Wolves v Man United
« Reply #25 on: Sun 29 Aug 2021 21:37 »
We are getting back to the fact that we should get rid of onfield officials because a referee, who is within yards of the incident, is deemed to be unable to distinguish what is or isn't a 50/50 challenge, however, someone in a booth 124 miles away should intervene because it may have been a foul ----remember, that that is in his opinion! As I said, let's not rely on a very experienced referee actually in situ, instead let's rely on the opinion of someone nowhere near the insident. I wonder if Neves showed his leg to the VAR man --perhaps he would have got the decision.
Likewise with dissent, anyone who has officiated knows and hears a lot more of what is going on between players than any fan on the terraces or commentator, pundit or VAR official.

I do wonder just where this wonderful game is going, thank goodness for the Magic Weekend next week where I can watch players giving it their all and also respecting the officials or otherwise pay the price! 40 pound for 6 games --what's not to like?
Referee's decision used to be final!
Like Like x 3 Agree Agree x 1 View List

ARF

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 249
    • View Profile
Re: Mike Dean Wolves v Man United
« Reply #26 on: Sun 29 Aug 2021 21:39 »
Look at the photo and both players’ studs are high, one could argue it was by luck that Neves played the ball away from Pogba.

And from the video pogba barely touches his leg. So how can it be endangering a safety of an opponent (which is vague anyway) when the contact is minimal?? As I said on my earlier post, watch Neves’s reaction he plays on walks 3 yards and then falls over? Actions of an injured player?
A tackle can be endangering an opponent's safety without making any contact, so that argument doesn't really hold up here.

DublinRef

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 653
    • View Profile
Re: Mike Dean Wolves v Man United
« Reply #27 on: Sun 29 Aug 2021 21:42 »
Yesterday it was put that still images should not be used to judge incidents and this is a good reason why, it was a glancing, momentary contact that is far less significant than it appears in that photo.

Let me be clear - I have no problem with this being a foul had Mr. Dean given it but VAR, in my opinion, are correct not to intervene. In real time there is minimal contact and it is very much a 50/50, impact on the game is minimal and would really have been nothing had Neves not behaved as he did going to ground when nothing was wrong with him. If Neves doesn't go down, and for me he definitely decides to go down and stay down, there wouldn't be any discussion IMO.

The Fernandes point raised by I think Charlieboy is an interesting one. I wonder is it that while he moans a lot he never says anything too bad? I don't buy into the "he is from a big club so gets away with it" argument personally, so I feel it must be something else (I am not saying Charlieboy or anyone else is advancing that theory, just that it does seem to exist).

I’ll politely disagree with you here. Whilst photos can make challenges look more/less serious as they lack context, that still image is perfectly useful.

With perhaps an inch or so more travel, we’re not talking foul/no foul we’re talking a serious injury and a red card offence for endangering an opponent.

That the contact was minimal was by sheer luck and not design. A studs-showing shin-high tackle is a cowardly challenge, and with the fortuitous lack of a severe contact, it was nevertheless a very obvious foul and very worthy of a caution for disregarding Neves’ safety.

Ultimately, these are the predictable results of a ‘light touch’ VAR and refereeing process.

Look at the photo and both players’ studs are high, one could argue it was by luck that Neves played the ball away from Pogba.

And from the video pogba barely touches his leg. So how can it be endangering a safety of an opponent (which is vague anyway) when the contact is minimal?? As I said on my earlier post, watch Neves’s reaction he plays on walks 3 yards and then falls over? Actions of an injured player?

Once again we can’t say we want players to stop throwing themselves to the floor and stop play acting and then say he doesn’t throw himself to the floor so no foul when it’s not minimal contact his shin pad didn’t move half way round his leg from a glancing blow.

But Neves did throw himself on the floor so not sure what point you're making really. In YOUR opinion it was a clear and obvious error but in many others opinions it wasn't - and that in itself kind of proves it was a debatable one therefore making VAR correct in not intervening.

Anyone who believes going over the top of the ball into a players shin is not a foul has no business being a referee, it’s shocking the amount of people who think it’s not a foul.

My point is him trying to stay on his feet at first has no impact on the fact that pogba didn’t play the ball and made more than minor contact on a player whereas you seem to judge based off him trying to continue that no it’s not a foul.

I don't think that is fair for you to adjudicate on who should be refereeing or not based on an incident that clearly is debatable as you yourself acknowledge. Perhaps the differences of opinion should suggest that what you are expressing is just that - an opinion that may be right or wrong, but not an empirical fact.

It shouldn’t be a debate, it should be the ref and var coming out and saying we messed up, var especially has 0 excuse for missing this, you seem to want to referee based on players reactions rather than what actually happened.

But Joe in all fairness you don't set the standard for what is or isn't debatable and clearly lots of people have differing opinions. Fair enough if we have differing opinions but your attitude seems to be very much, 'I am laying out the facts, that is the end of it'. I respect and understand your opinion but that is all it is, it isn't worth more or less than anyone else's.
Like Like x 1 Agree Agree x 4 View List

Affy_Moose

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 313
  • Scottish Match Official
    • View Profile
Re: Mike Dean Wolves v Man United
« Reply #28 on: Sun 29 Aug 2021 23:45 »
Yesterday it was put that still images should not be used to judge incidents and this is a good reason why, it was a glancing, momentary contact that is far less significant than it appears in that photo.

Let me be clear - I have no problem with this being a foul had Mr. Dean given it but VAR, in my opinion, are correct not to intervene. In real time there is minimal contact and it is very much a 50/50, impact on the game is minimal and would really have been nothing had Neves not behaved as he did going to ground when nothing was wrong with him. If Neves doesn't go down, and for me he definitely decides to go down and stay down, there wouldn't be any discussion IMO.

The Fernandes point raised by I think Charlieboy is an interesting one. I wonder is it that while he moans a lot he never says anything too bad? I don't buy into the "he is from a big club so gets away with it" argument personally, so I feel it must be something else (I am not saying Charlieboy or anyone else is advancing that theory, just that it does seem to exist).

I’ll politely disagree with you here. Whilst photos can make challenges look more/less serious as they lack context, that still image is perfectly useful.

With perhaps an inch or so more travel, we’re not talking foul/no foul we’re talking a serious injury and a red card offence for endangering an opponent.

That the contact was minimal was by sheer luck and not design. A studs-showing shin-high tackle is a cowardly challenge, and with the fortuitous lack of a severe contact, it was nevertheless a very obvious foul and very worthy of a caution for disregarding Neves’ safety.

Ultimately, these are the predictable results of a ‘light touch’ VAR and refereeing process.

Look at the photo and both players’ studs are high, one could argue it was by luck that Neves played the ball away from Pogba.

And from the video pogba barely touches his leg. So how can it be endangering a safety of an opponent (which is vague anyway) when the contact is minimal?? As I said on my earlier post, watch Neves’s reaction he plays on walks 3 yards and then falls over? Actions of an injured player?

My post stated ‘disregarding safety’ which it very visibly does. Endangers would be a harder sell (as I note), and imo, he doesn’t reach that level. It should be stressed firmly that failure to achieve that level of seriousness is however, by sheer fortune alone.

Besides, seriousness of injury is not a pre-requisite of SFP. It can be an indication but plenty of challenges that endanger safety result in no injury whatsoever. If that’s your detector for a foul, it should be adjusted.
Agree Agree x 1 View List

Scally Bob

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 231
    • View Profile
Re: Mike Dean Wolves v Man United
« Reply #29 on: Mon 30 Aug 2021 07:48 »
Here’s a clip (scroll down from the Pogba’s one on the Twitter link) of a Wolves player pulling the ball back into the box and after the ball is gone a Manchester United defender wipes him out with a challenge. The defender is not in control and I think it’s a red card offence. The initial contact is I think on the pitch but even if it’s not it’s a stonewall penalty kick. Nothing happened.
https://twitter.com/Gavlar_LFC/status/1432055254569340932?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1432055254569340932%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=
« Last Edit: Mon 30 Aug 2021 08:10 by Scally Bob »
Like Like x 1 View List