+-

+-User
Welcome, Guest.
Please login or register.
 
 
 

Login with your social network

Forgot your password?

+-Stats ezBlock
Members
Total Members: 966
Latest: Caro Bates
New This Month: 13
New This Week: 3
New Today: 1
Stats
Total Posts: 76139
Total Topics: 5613
Most Online Today: 154
Most Online Ever: 17046
(Mon 29 Mar 2021 19:08)
Users Online
Members: 6
Guests: 97
Total: 103
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3]

Author Topic: Rob Jones Leeds vs Burnley  (Read 1681 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

rustyref

  • RTR Veterans
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1,631
    • View Profile
Re: Rob Jones Leeds vs Burnley
« Reply #30 on: Mon 28 Dec 2020 11:23 »
Quote from: Ashington46 on Mon 28 Dec 2020 10:45
Proof if it were needed that, with the award of the first penalty, the ball does not matter at all because Pope shinned the ball, as could be seen with the direction of travel after had had played it which was away from the goal and into the field of play. Bamford was travelling at speed, however, his studs were showing as he challenged for the ball and could easily have been penalised for that. From the referees angle, he would not be able to see the incident clearly, however, he blew very quickly and pointed to the spot and was backed up by VAR. However, Pope did not receive a caution so what was the offence that was committed ---ah yes, he played the ball and that is not important any more.

The free kick given against Mee was a real puzzle because he had his back to the keeper and could not know that the keeper was coming for the ball. Suddenly, he was poleaxed by the keeper's knee into his back, even before the ball had arrived, however, the referee sees this as a foul by Mee and gives Leeds a free kick, he obviously never even considered that it may have been a penalty.

Another puzzle was when two players jumped with their feet up to compete for a ball, the Burnley player won the ball and was kicked by the Leeds player, however, the Leed player went down squealing and won the free kick. The Burnley player then said something and was booked, which he deserved, however, it was just another incident amongst many that, by that stage in the  game, had become very frustrating.

I am in the same boat as Sean Dyche in stating that, as far as physicality in the game is concernecd, I no longer have any idea what is and is not acceptable, however, I am of the opinion that they should start playing without a ball because the ball is obviously no longer important in a sport which used to be physical, combative and a joy to watch but is being changed beyond recognition.

The game has changed, the players generally accept it has changed, and it is only really supporters and pundits that are struggling to get their heads around it.  It used to be that you could chop a player in half and that was fine as long as the ball was won, now it is the other way round and winning the ball doesn't mean it isn't a foul.  On the penalty Pope wiped out Bamford, it really doesn't matter if he got the slightest touch on the ball, that is a clear penalty as quickly validated by VAR.
Logged

TVOS

  • RTR Veterans
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1,464
    • View Profile
Re: Rob Jones Leeds vs Burnley
« Reply #31 on: Mon 28 Dec 2020 12:43 »
Quote from: Acme Thunderer on Mon 28 Dec 2020 11:18
Quote from: TVOS on Mon 28 Dec 2020 10:21
Quote from: Acme Thunderer on Mon 28 Dec 2020 08:45
JUst caught up with this. Unlike the BBC pundits, I thought the early Leeds penalty award was quite correct, the Burnley goalie taking out the on-coming Leeds forward. Yes, he may have touched the ball first but the challenge was too heavy for play to be allowed to continue. I agree that Rob Jones was wrong to disallow the Burnley goal, but equally, I don't believe that it was a penalty incident, more the Leeds goalie going for the ball and the Burnley player getting in the way.

Eh? So if a defender is “going for the ball”, but misses his tackle and brings down the attacking player (who just happened to be “in the way”), it wouldn’t be a penalty?

Ok, not very well worded, let's leave it at - I didn't think it was a foul either way, and Rob Jones was wrong to whistle.

It certainly wasn't a foul by Mee - and I'm no lover of Burnley after their whingeing in 1987 about being founder members of the league, etc.
Logged

Ashington46

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 835
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: Ashington, Northumberland
    • View Profile
  • Referee Level: Retired for years!
Re: Rob Jones Leeds vs Burnley
« Reply #32 on: Mon 28 Dec 2020 13:22 »
Quote from: rustyref on Mon 28 Dec 2020 11:23
Quote from: Ashington46 on Mon 28 Dec 2020 10:45
Proof if it were needed that, with the award of the first penalty, the ball does not matter at all because Pope shinned the ball, as could be seen with the direction of travel after had had played it which was away from the goal and into the field of play. Bamford was travelling at speed, however, his studs were showing as he challenged for the ball and could easily have been penalised for that. From the referees angle, he would not be able to see the incident clearly, however, he blew very quickly and pointed to the spot and was backed up by VAR. However, Pope did not receive a caution so what was the offence that was committed ---ah yes, he played the ball and that is not important any more.

The free kick given against Mee was a real puzzle because he had his back to the keeper and could not know that the keeper was coming for the ball. Suddenly, he was poleaxed by the keeper's knee into his back, even before the ball had arrived, however, the referee sees this as a foul by Mee and gives Leeds a free kick, he obviously never even considered that it may have been a penalty.

Another puzzle was when two players jumped with their feet up to compete for a ball, the Burnley player won the ball and was kicked by the Leeds player, however, the Leed player went down squealing and won the free kick. The Burnley player then said something and was booked, which he deserved, however, it was just another incident amongst many that, by that stage in the  game, had become very frustrating.

I am in the same boat as Sean Dyche in stating that, as far as physicality in the game is concernecd, I no longer have any idea what is and is not acceptable, however, I am of the opinion that they should start playing without a ball because the ball is obviously no longer important in a sport which used to be physical, combative and a joy to watch but is being changed beyond recognition.

The game has changed, the players generally accept it has changed, and it is only really supporters and pundits that are struggling to get their heads around it.  It used to be that you could chop a player in half and that was fine as long as the ball was won, now it is the other way round and winning the ball doesn't mean it isn't a foul.  On the penalty Pope wiped out Bamford, it really doesn't matter if he got the slightest touch on the ball, that is a clear penalty as quickly validated by VAR.

As I correctly stated, the ball is no longer important and god help any goalkeeper trying to stop a goal by putting himself in more danger than the attacker just as happened yesterday. Just whose foot is the highest with stoods showing ---yes Patrick Bamford was really wiped out and where did the ball go?

https://www.lancs.live/sport/football/football-news/leeds-united-patrick-bamford-burnley-19526303
Logged
Referee's decision used to be final!

rustyref

  • RTR Veterans
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1,631
    • View Profile
Re: Rob Jones Leeds vs Burnley
« Reply #33 on: Mon 28 Dec 2020 14:48 »
Quote from: Ashington46 on Mon 28 Dec 2020 13:22
Quote from: rustyref on Mon 28 Dec 2020 11:23
Quote from: Ashington46 on Mon 28 Dec 2020 10:45
Proof if it were needed that, with the award of the first penalty, the ball does not matter at all because Pope shinned the ball, as could be seen with the direction of travel after had had played it which was away from the goal and into the field of play. Bamford was travelling at speed, however, his studs were showing as he challenged for the ball and could easily have been penalised for that. From the referees angle, he would not be able to see the incident clearly, however, he blew very quickly and pointed to the spot and was backed up by VAR. However, Pope did not receive a caution so what was the offence that was committed ---ah yes, he played the ball and that is not important any more.

The free kick given against Mee was a real puzzle because he had his back to the keeper and could not know that the keeper was coming for the ball. Suddenly, he was poleaxed by the keeper's knee into his back, even before the ball had arrived, however, the referee sees this as a foul by Mee and gives Leeds a free kick, he obviously never even considered that it may have been a penalty.

Another puzzle was when two players jumped with their feet up to compete for a ball, the Burnley player won the ball and was kicked by the Leeds player, however, the Leed player went down squealing and won the free kick. The Burnley player then said something and was booked, which he deserved, however, it was just another incident amongst many that, by that stage in the  game, had become very frustrating.

I am in the same boat as Sean Dyche in stating that, as far as physicality in the game is concernecd, I no longer have any idea what is and is not acceptable, however, I am of the opinion that they should start playing without a ball because the ball is obviously no longer important in a sport which used to be physical, combative and a joy to watch but is being changed beyond recognition.

The game has changed, the players generally accept it has changed, and it is only really supporters and pundits that are struggling to get their heads around it.  It used to be that you could chop a player in half and that was fine as long as the ball was won, now it is the other way round and winning the ball doesn't mean it isn't a foul.  On the penalty Pope wiped out Bamford, it really doesn't matter if he got the slightest touch on the ball, that is a clear penalty as quickly validated by VAR.

As I correctly stated, the ball is no longer important and god help any goalkeeper trying to stop a goal by putting himself in more danger than the attacker just as happened yesterday. Just whose foot is the highest with stoods showing ---yes Patrick Bamford was really wiped out and where did the ball go?

https://www.lancs.live/sport/football/football-news/leeds-united-patrick-bamford-burnley-19526303

The ball went to the left after Bamford got his foot to it just before he was taken out by Pope.  Its a stonewall penalty, hence why VAR backed it up.  I'm no Leeds fan, in fact as a Wednesday fan I would obviously want Burnley to win, but that is 100% a penalty.
Logged

ajb95

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,415
    • View Profile
Re: Rob Jones Leeds vs Burnley
« Reply #34 on: Mon 28 Dec 2020 14:50 »
Quote from: rustyref on Mon 28 Dec 2020 14:48
Quote from: Ashington46 on Mon 28 Dec 2020 13:22
Quote from: rustyref on Mon 28 Dec 2020 11:23
Quote from: Ashington46 on Mon 28 Dec 2020 10:45
Proof if it were needed that, with the award of the first penalty, the ball does not matter at all because Pope shinned the ball, as could be seen with the direction of travel after had had played it which was away from the goal and into the field of play. Bamford was travelling at speed, however, his studs were showing as he challenged for the ball and could easily have been penalised for that. From the referees angle, he would not be able to see the incident clearly, however, he blew very quickly and pointed to the spot and was backed up by VAR. However, Pope did not receive a caution so what was the offence that was committed ---ah yes, he played the ball and that is not important any more.

The free kick given against Mee was a real puzzle because he had his back to the keeper and could not know that the keeper was coming for the ball. Suddenly, he was poleaxed by the keeper's knee into his back, even before the ball had arrived, however, the referee sees this as a foul by Mee and gives Leeds a free kick, he obviously never even considered that it may have been a penalty.

Another puzzle was when two players jumped with their feet up to compete for a ball, the Burnley player won the ball and was kicked by the Leeds player, however, the Leed player went down squealing and won the free kick. The Burnley player then said something and was booked, which he deserved, however, it was just another incident amongst many that, by that stage in the  game, had become very frustrating.

I am in the same boat as Sean Dyche in stating that, as far as physicality in the game is concernecd, I no longer have any idea what is and is not acceptable, however, I am of the opinion that they should start playing without a ball because the ball is obviously no longer important in a sport which used to be physical, combative and a joy to watch but is being changed beyond recognition.

The game has changed, the players generally accept it has changed, and it is only really supporters and pundits that are struggling to get their heads around it.  It used to be that you could chop a player in half and that was fine as long as the ball was won, now it is the other way round and winning the ball doesn't mean it isn't a foul.  On the penalty Pope wiped out Bamford, it really doesn't matter if he got the slightest touch on the ball, that is a clear penalty as quickly validated by VAR.

As I correctly stated, the ball is no longer important and god help any goalkeeper trying to stop a goal by putting himself in more danger than the attacker just as happened yesterday. Just whose foot is the highest with stoods showing ---yes Patrick Bamford was really wiped out and where did the ball go?

https://www.lancs.live/sport/football/football-news/leeds-united-patrick-bamford-burnley-19526303

The ball went to the left after Bamford got his foot to it just before he was taken out by Pope.  Its a stonewall penalty, hence why VAR backed it up.  I'm no Leeds fan, in fact as a Wednesday fan I would obviously want Burnley to win, but that is 100% a penalty.

Do you think the famous incident when Howard Webb gave a penalty to Man United v Spurs in 2009 for a very similar incident was a penalty?? Or how is it different?
Logged

Uptheposh

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 6
    • View Profile
Re: Rob Jones Leeds vs Burnley
« Reply #35 on: Mon 28 Dec 2020 15:32 »
Does anybody think that the appointments hindered Rob Jones yesterday particularly with the disallowed goal. He has done so many games without VAR his instinct was to blow immediately when he thought the goalkeeper had been fouled rather than wait and use VAR
Logged

rustyref

  • RTR Veterans
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1,631
    • View Profile
Re: Rob Jones Leeds vs Burnley
« Reply #36 on: Mon 28 Dec 2020 16:00 »
Quote from: ajb95 on Mon 28 Dec 2020 14:50
Quote from: rustyref on Mon 28 Dec 2020 14:48
Quote from: Ashington46 on Mon 28 Dec 2020 13:22
Quote from: rustyref on Mon 28 Dec 2020 11:23
Quote from: Ashington46 on Mon 28 Dec 2020 10:45
Proof if it were needed that, with the award of the first penalty, the ball does not matter at all because Pope shinned the ball, as could be seen with the direction of travel after had had played it which was away from the goal and into the field of play. Bamford was travelling at speed, however, his studs were showing as he challenged for the ball and could easily have been penalised for that. From the referees angle, he would not be able to see the incident clearly, however, he blew very quickly and pointed to the spot and was backed up by VAR. However, Pope did not receive a caution so what was the offence that was committed ---ah yes, he played the ball and that is not important any more.

The free kick given against Mee was a real puzzle because he had his back to the keeper and could not know that the keeper was coming for the ball. Suddenly, he was poleaxed by the keeper's knee into his back, even before the ball had arrived, however, the referee sees this as a foul by Mee and gives Leeds a free kick, he obviously never even considered that it may have been a penalty.

Another puzzle was when two players jumped with their feet up to compete for a ball, the Burnley player won the ball and was kicked by the Leeds player, however, the Leed player went down squealing and won the free kick. The Burnley player then said something and was booked, which he deserved, however, it was just another incident amongst many that, by that stage in the  game, had become very frustrating.

I am in the same boat as Sean Dyche in stating that, as far as physicality in the game is concernecd, I no longer have any idea what is and is not acceptable, however, I am of the opinion that they should start playing without a ball because the ball is obviously no longer important in a sport which used to be physical, combative and a joy to watch but is being changed beyond recognition.

The game has changed, the players generally accept it has changed, and it is only really supporters and pundits that are struggling to get their heads around it.  It used to be that you could chop a player in half and that was fine as long as the ball was won, now it is the other way round and winning the ball doesn't mean it isn't a foul.  On the penalty Pope wiped out Bamford, it really doesn't matter if he got the slightest touch on the ball, that is a clear penalty as quickly validated by VAR.

As I correctly stated, the ball is no longer important and god help any goalkeeper trying to stop a goal by putting himself in more danger than the attacker just as happened yesterday. Just whose foot is the highest with stoods showing ---yes Patrick Bamford was really wiped out and where did the ball go?

https://www.lancs.live/sport/football/football-news/leeds-united-patrick-bamford-burnley-19526303

The ball went to the left after Bamford got his foot to it just before he was taken out by Pope.  Its a stonewall penalty, hence why VAR backed it up.  I'm no Leeds fan, in fact as a Wednesday fan I would obviously want Burnley to win, but that is 100% a penalty.

Do you think the famous incident when Howard Webb gave a penalty to Man United v Spurs in 2009 for a very similar incident was a penalty?? Or how is it different?

That is part of the problem here, it isn't 2009 and the game has changed massively since then.  My memory is rubbish anyway and I can't remember the details of that penalty, but comparing an incident from today to one from 2009 is all a bit pointless.
Logged
Disagree Disagree x 1 View List

Ashington46

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 835
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: Ashington, Northumberland
    • View Profile
  • Referee Level: Retired for years!
Re: Rob Jones Leeds vs Burnley
« Reply #37 on: Mon 28 Dec 2020 16:14 »
Quote from: rustyref on Mon 28 Dec 2020 14:48
Quote from: Ashington46 on Mon 28 Dec 2020 13:22
Quote from: rustyref on Mon 28 Dec 2020 11:23
Quote from: Ashington46 on Mon 28 Dec 2020 10:45
Proof if it were needed that, with the award of the first penalty, the ball does not matter at all because Pope shinned the ball, as could be seen with the direction of travel after had had played it which was away from the goal and into the field of play. Bamford was travelling at speed, however, his studs were showing as he challenged for the ball and could easily have been penalised for that. From the referees angle, he would not be able to see the incident clearly, however, he blew very quickly and pointed to the spot and was backed up by VAR. However, Pope did not receive a caution so what was the offence that was committed ---ah yes, he played the ball and that is not important any more.

The free kick given against Mee was a real puzzle because he had his back to the keeper and could not know that the keeper was coming for the ball. Suddenly, he was poleaxed by the keeper's knee into his back, even before the ball had arrived, however, the referee sees this as a foul by Mee and gives Leeds a free kick, he obviously never even considered that it may have been a penalty.

Another puzzle was when two players jumped with their feet up to compete for a ball, the Burnley player won the ball and was kicked by the Leeds player, however, the Leed player went down squealing and won the free kick. The Burnley player then said something and was booked, which he deserved, however, it was just another incident amongst many that, by that stage in the  game, had become very frustrating.

I am in the same boat as Sean Dyche in stating that, as far as physicality in the game is concernecd, I no longer have any idea what is and is not acceptable, however, I am of the opinion that they should start playing without a ball because the ball is obviously no longer important in a sport which used to be physical, combative and a joy to watch but is being changed beyond recognition.

The game has changed, the players generally accept it has changed, and it is only really supporters and pundits that are struggling to get their heads around it.  It used to be that you could chop a player in half and that was fine as long as the ball was won, now it is the other way round and winning the ball doesn't mean it isn't a foul.  On the penalty Pope wiped out Bamford, it really doesn't matter if he got the slightest touch on the ball, that is a clear penalty as quickly validated by VAR.



As I correctly stated, the ball is no longer important and god help any goalkeeper trying to stop a goal by putting himself in more danger than the attacker just as happened yesterday. Just whose foot is the highest with stoods showing ---yes Patrick Bamford was really wiped out and where did the ball go?

https://www.lancs.live/sport/football/football-news/leeds-united-patrick-bamford-burnley-19526303

The ball went to the left after Bamford got his foot to it just before he was taken out by Pope.  Its a stonewall penalty, hence why VAR backed it up.  I'm no Leeds fan, in fact as a Wednesday fan I would obviously want Burnley to win, but that is 100% a penalty.

The ball went to the left and was played by Pope who was on one knee as can be clearly seen in that still photo and the ball rebounded into the field of play and was about to be played away by the Burnley defender and this could not have happened before Pope touched the ball which was before Bamford ran into him.
Yes, I support Burnley, however, I am at a total loss as to the application of TLOG these days and I was mentoring until recently when I packed in because I can make neither rhyme nor reason of what is supposed to be happening with, seemingly, one set of Laws + VAR for some football but with a completely different set of Laws and their interpretation at a different level.

So what you are saying is that if they had been two outfield players and one had touched the ball to the left and the other had shinned it away, if the first player then ran into the other player it will ALWAYS be a free kick because that is what happened and whose foot is in danger of imjuring an opponent?
After 58 years playing and officiating I am totally confused with what exactly constitutes a foul these  days, perhaps you could explain just how much contact is allowed before an official deems that he should penalise someone.
Logged
Referee's decision used to be final!
Agree Agree x 1 View List

ajb95

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,415
    • View Profile
Re: Rob Jones Leeds vs Burnley
« Reply #38 on: Mon 28 Dec 2020 18:40 »
Quote from: rustyref on Mon 28 Dec 2020 16:00
Quote from: ajb95 on Mon 28 Dec 2020 14:50
Quote from: rustyref on Mon 28 Dec 2020 14:48
Quote from: Ashington46 on Mon 28 Dec 2020 13:22
Quote from: rustyref on Mon 28 Dec 2020 11:23
Quote from: Ashington46 on Mon 28 Dec 2020 10:45
Proof if it were needed that, with the award of the first penalty, the ball does not matter at all because Pope shinned the ball, as could be seen with the direction of travel after had had played it which was away from the goal and into the field of play. Bamford was travelling at speed, however, his studs were showing as he challenged for the ball and could easily have been penalised for that. From the referees angle, he would not be able to see the incident clearly, however, he blew very quickly and pointed to the spot and was backed up by VAR. However, Pope did not receive a caution so what was the offence that was committed ---ah yes, he played the ball and that is not important any more.

The free kick given against Mee was a real puzzle because he had his back to the keeper and could not know that the keeper was coming for the ball. Suddenly, he was poleaxed by the keeper's knee into his back, even before the ball had arrived, however, the referee sees this as a foul by Mee and gives Leeds a free kick, he obviously never even considered that it may have been a penalty.

Another puzzle was when two players jumped with their feet up to compete for a ball, the Burnley player won the ball and was kicked by the Leeds player, however, the Leed player went down squealing and won the free kick. The Burnley player then said something and was booked, which he deserved, however, it was just another incident amongst many that, by that stage in the  game, had become very frustrating.

I am in the same boat as Sean Dyche in stating that, as far as physicality in the game is concernecd, I no longer have any idea what is and is not acceptable, however, I am of the opinion that they should start playing without a ball because the ball is obviously no longer important in a sport which used to be physical, combative and a joy to watch but is being changed beyond recognition.

The game has changed, the players generally accept it has changed, and it is only really supporters and pundits that are struggling to get their heads around it.  It used to be that you could chop a player in half and that was fine as long as the ball was won, now it is the other way round and winning the ball doesn't mean it isn't a foul.  On the penalty Pope wiped out Bamford, it really doesn't matter if he got the slightest touch on the ball, that is a clear penalty as quickly validated by VAR.

As I correctly stated, the ball is no longer important and god help any goalkeeper trying to stop a goal by putting himself in more danger than the attacker just as happened yesterday. Just whose foot is the highest with stoods showing ---yes Patrick Bamford was really wiped out and where did the ball go?

https://www.lancs.live/sport/football/football-news/leeds-united-patrick-bamford-burnley-19526303

The ball went to the left after Bamford got his foot to it just before he was taken out by Pope.  Its a stonewall penalty, hence why VAR backed it up.  I'm no Leeds fan, in fact as a Wednesday fan I would obviously want Burnley to win, but that is 100% a penalty.

Do you think the famous incident when Howard Webb gave a penalty to Man United v Spurs in 2009 for a very similar incident was a penalty?? Or how is it different?

That is part of the problem here, it isn't 2009 and the game has changed massively since then.  My memory is rubbish anyway and I can't remember the details of that penalty, but comparing an incident from today to one from 2009 is all a bit pointless.

Blimey how much have the rules changed if those two incidents a decade apart can be classed as totally different. To me there is no difference between the two: neither are penalties.  CAn understand why Jones blew but he plays the ball first and then there is inevitable contact
Logged
Agree Agree x 1 View List

nemesis

  • RTR Veterans
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1,295
    • View Profile
Re: Rob Jones Leeds vs Burnley
« Reply #39 on: Mon 28 Dec 2020 23:16 »
Quote from: rustyref on Mon 28 Dec 2020 16:00
Quote from: ajb95 on Mon 28 Dec 2020 14:50
Quote from: rustyref on Mon 28 Dec 2020 14:48
Quote from: Ashington46 on Mon 28 Dec 2020 13:22
Quote from: rustyref on Mon 28 Dec 2020 11:23
Quote from: Ashington46 on Mon 28 Dec 2020 10:45
Proof if it were needed that, with the award of the first penalty, the ball does not matter at all because Pope shinned the ball, as could be seen with the direction of travel after had had played it which was away from the goal and into the field of play. Bamford was travelling at speed, however, his studs were showing as he challenged for the ball and could easily have been penalised for that. From the referees angle, he would not be able to see the incident clearly, however, he blew very quickly and pointed to the spot and was backed up by VAR. However, Pope did not receive a caution so what was the offence that was committed ---ah yes, he played the ball and that is not important any more.

The free kick given against Mee was a real puzzle because he had his back to the keeper and could not know that the keeper was coming for the ball. Suddenly, he was poleaxed by the keeper's knee into his back, even before the ball had arrived, however, the referee sees this as a foul by Mee and gives Leeds a free kick, he obviously never even considered that it may have been a penalty.

Another puzzle was when two players jumped with their feet up to compete for a ball, the Burnley player won the ball and was kicked by the Leeds player, however, the Leed player went down squealing and won the free kick. The Burnley player then said something and was booked, which he deserved, however, it was just another incident amongst many that, by that stage in the  game, had become very frustrating.

I am in the same boat as Sean Dyche in stating that, as far as physicality in the game is concernecd, I no longer have any idea what is and is not acceptable, however, I am of the opinion that they should start playing without a ball because the ball is obviously no longer important in a sport which used to be physical, combative and a joy to watch but is being changed beyond recognition.

The game has changed, the players generally accept it has changed, and it is only really supporters and pundits that are struggling to get their heads around it.  It used to be that you could chop a player in half and that was fine as long as the ball was won, now it is the other way round and winning the ball doesn't mean it isn't a foul.  On the penalty Pope wiped out Bamford, it really doesn't matter if he got the slightest touch on the ball, that is a clear penalty as quickly validated by VAR.

As I correctly stated, the ball is no longer important and god help any goalkeeper trying to stop a goal by putting himself in more danger than the attacker just as happened yesterday. Just whose foot is the highest with stoods showing ---yes Patrick Bamford was really wiped out and where did the ball go?

https://www.lancs.live/sport/football/football-news/leeds-united-patrick-bamford-burnley-19526303

The ball went to the left after Bamford got his foot to it just before he was taken out by Pope.  Its a stonewall penalty, hence why VAR backed it up.  I'm no Leeds fan, in fact as a Wednesday fan I would obviously want Burnley to win, but that is 100% a penalty.

Do you think the famous incident when Howard Webb gave a penalty to Man United v Spurs in 2009 for a very similar incident was a penalty?? Or how is it different?

That is part of the problem here, it isn't 2009 and the game has changed massively since then.  My memory is rubbish anyway and I can't remember the details of that penalty, but comparing an incident from today to one from 2009 is all a bit pointless.

If an incident relates to an area within the Laws which has not changed, I think it is far from pointless to consider why different decisions and interpretations are taken and made.

As referees seem to be propelling football down the path to non-contact sport it's worth asking why and for whom. Is it for the players, is it for the supporters or is it just to make their lives easier ?

All this nonsense about "there was contact so he was entitled to go down". Where has it come from and why ? Why is football prepared to tolerate systemic cheating encouraged by willing dupes of referees ?

I can see what's happening, I don't like it, but I can't for the life of me understand why.
Logged
Agree Agree x 3 View List
Pages: 1 2 [3]
« previous next »