Porto (H) Champions League 9/4/19

[Oh Buoy]

Take it to the VAR thread you crossbreeding cunts.

[liverpoolsno9]

4 hours ago, Scooby Dudek said:

I think the Mo tackle when seen in slow motion looks bad but in real time it is nothing. As was said, the reaction of the defender says it all, there is no way that is dangerous in that they was no speed and IMO Mo was always in control. If he had gone through the defender, then it was a red but football is still a contact sport. 

 

It is possible for contact to be made but it not be a dangerous/reckless challenge.

 

4 hours ago, JustTosh said:

Yes. And he's quicker to the ball because the other defender holds Mo's arm back.

 

The ref might even have given Mo a free kick for the pull back, but probably correct didn't.  The second incident with Mo stamping on defender's foot is a result of the holding back, however. Freekick Porto - no card - is probably the right decision.

 

 

 

Contact sport? No way was it dangerous? It it was a sending off, plain and simple. No amount of denial will change that. Mo was a lucky boy. The stamp was a result of the holding back? It’s ok for a player to lose his head for a split second because he was getting held back doesn’t downgrade the offence. Why are some fans so one eyed and precious. If that foul was against us and Virg was on the receiving end, I’m sure you’d change your opinion. We got away with one. Admit it. You look silly denying it. 

[TheHowieLama]

Worst stamp ever.

[liverpoolsno9]

3 minutes ago, TheHowieLama said:

Worst stamp ever.

 I sense the sarcasm but it wasn’t me that called it a stamp, i’d call it a mistimed challenge, over the top of the ball with studs showing myself.

 

   4 hours ago,  JustTosh said: 

Yes. And he's quicker to the ball because the other defender holds Mo's arm back.

 

The ref might even have given Mo a free kick for the pull back, but probably correct didn't.  The second incident with Mo stamping on defender's foot is a result of the holding back, however. Freekick Porto - no card - is probably the right decision

[TheHowieLama]

Not sure an admittedly mistimed challenge, light enough so a PORTO PLAYER is not rolling around in agony whilst 4 or 5 of his hirsute brethren surround the ref waving imaginary card wildly is a straight red -- that is what you suggested.

[liverpoolsno9]

Just now, TheHowieLama said:

Not sure an admittedly mistimed challenge, light enough so a PORTO PLAYER is not rolling around in agony whilst 4 or 5 of his hirsute brethren surround the ref waving imaginary card wildly is a straight red -- that is what you suggested.

 

Top marks for realising I thought it was a red. I Didn’t so much as suggest it, I stated it.

Has a player got to be rolling around in a agony for it to be deemed a red? Yeah, it’s ok, no card, he’s not broke his leg!  That’s a ridiculous argument. You yourself say it was mistimed, add to that over the top with studs showing.

Some have said on here he was only trying to put his foot on top of the ball and he’s not that sort of player. Regardless of what he was trying to do, it was mistimed and he missed it, most players that end up with bad injuries are down to mistimed challenges where the offender was ‘only’ trying to win the ball. Does that make it ok? There was certainly no malice in the challenge but it was dangerous. Obviously not dangerous enough in your eyes to get sent off as the defender didn’t seem to be hurt enough. 

[TheHowieLama]

I am saying that the usual barometer for, and to be honest the gents who probably know what is and what isn't a cardable offence of any kind are on the field - especially playing Porto - known for theatrics.

 

It was not dangerous enough to get sent off because it wasn't violent/using excessive force - that is what a straight red card is for. Not my opinion - the rules.

Not a split second camera angle in slow motion.

 

Your opinion is valid either way.

[Anubis]

4 hours ago, Spring said:

Take it to the VAR thread you crossbreeding cunts.

 

VARt are you crying about?

[AngryOfTuebrook]

6 hours ago, Anubis said:

The only way forward for VAR is for the ref to be able to address the stadium like they do in the NFL. But then you may have language barrier problems that will require an interpreter in international and CL fixtures.

When they go to the video ref in rugby league, the referee traces a square in the air, to signal to everyone what he's doing.  That's all that's needed.

[Pidge]

1 minute ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

When they go to the video ref in rugby league, the referee traces a square in the air, to signal to everyone what he's doing.  That's all that's needed.

Plus it should be clear what question the ref is asking, or exactly what the VAR guys are suggesting.  I'd like it if it went so far as to state the rationale for the final decision, but fans will moan regardless so I don't think they'll do that. 

[thegreatelephant]

56 minutes ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

When they go to the video ref in rugby league, the referee traces a square in the air, to signal to everyone what he's doing.  That's all that's needed.

 

I think the referee should imitate eating a packet of Cheetoos

[aws]

If they're looking at a foul in the box, the ref should trace a big square, touch his ear and then mime drying himself. 

[Dr Nowt]

My proposal would be, every time it goes to VAR this is played on the big screen with accompanying music.

 

Nobody leaves this show empty-handed.

 

 

[A_S]

7 hours ago, liverpoolsno9 said:

 

 

Contact sport? No way was it dangerous? It it was a sending off, plain and simple. No amount of denial will change that. Mo was a lucky boy. The stamp was a result of the holding back? It’s ok for a player to lose his head for a split second because he was getting held back doesn’t downgrade the offence. Why are some fans so one eyed and precious. If that foul was against us and Virg was on the receiving end, I’m sure you’d change your opinion. We got away with one. Admit it. You look silly denying it. 

It wasn't that he retaliated to being held back, but that being held back meant he had to stretch his leg more to win the ball, which led to his rash challenge. It actually contributed to Mo's action. 

[s(k)aturation]

7 hours ago, liverpoolsno9 said:

 

Some have said on here he was only trying to put his foot on top of the ball 

 

That's right, I think he was only trying to put his foot on top of the ball... as opposed to tackling the other player for it.  

 

That's why I don't think it's a red.

 

At the moment below when both are trying to get the ball, the Porto bloke is actually on the ground with studs up too.

 

For once, I think VAR was pretty sensible.

 

But hey, if a red was given, well I guess to strict letters of the law it would have been justifiable, but harsh.

 

If we're talking about room for reason and interpretation though, I think the call made was a good one.

 

 

[VladimirIlyich]

19 hours ago, Scooby Dudek said:

Isn't handball deliberate to gain an advantage ? I think they are removing deliberate from next season. 

 

What possible advantage was TAA attempting to gain ? The ball was out/just in play and the safest thing to do was leave it and let it go behind. 

It can also be given if it denies an advantage to the attacking team,such as a shot on goal hits an outstretched arm when the shot is on target. There is always going to be some interpretation involved which needs common sense applied to it.

[Anubis]

9 hours ago, Pidge said:

Plus it should be clear what question the ref is asking, or exactly what the VAR guys are suggesting.  I'd like it if it went so far as to state the rationale for the final decision, but fans will moan regardless so I don't think they'll do that. 

Exactly. Which is why the US way is the only way I can see it working properly because then everyone knows exactly what is being looked at.

[Code]

9 hours ago, Lizzie Birdsworths Wrinkled Chopper said:

My proposal would be, every time it goes to VAR this is played on the big screen with accompanying music.

 

Nobody leaves this show empty-handed.

 

 

Two questions.

How is it possible to not just love Meireles, the crasy bastard?

But more importantly, who is this?

[General Dryness]

11 hours ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

When they go to the video ref in rugby league, the referee traces a square in the air, to signal to everyone what he's doing.  That's all that's needed.

Same in proper rugby too.

[Dr Nowt]

29 minutes ago, Code said:

Two questions.

How is it possible to not just love Meireles, the crasy bastard?

But more importantly, who is this?

He’s fucking ace isn’t he.

 

I presumed it was his missus due to the adoring looks. If it isn’t he can grab his coat as he’s pulled.

 

His garish, comedy, looks like fancy dress coat.

[Numero Veinticinco]

15 minutes ago, Lizzie Birdsworths Wrinkled Chopper said:

He’s fucking ace isn’t he.

 

I presumed it was his missus due to the adoring looks. If it isn’t he can grab his coat as he’s pulled.

 

His garish, comedy, looks like fancy dress coat.

Alright, alright, you've had your fun. It's now time to change your 'ham hock' avatar

[Dr Nowt]

13 minutes ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

Alright, alright, you've had your fun. It's now time to change your 'ham hock' avatar

I’ll get right to it, cap.

[Numero Veinticinco]

9 minutes ago, Lizzie Birdsworths Wrinkled Chopper said:

I’ll get right to it, cap.

I don't like the feeling that you're going to rape me every time I read one  of your posts. 

[Dr Nowt]

11 minutes ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

I don't like the feeling that you're going to rape me every time I read one  of your posts. 

You’re not my type. I like them butch.

[TheBitch]

5 minutes ago, Lizzie Birdsworths Wrinkled Chopper said:

You’re not my type. I like them butch.

Thought I was in for a minute here.