General Premier League Thread 2020-21 - Mod Notes in 1st post. [Updated 17/12/20]

Rock77 · 28-11-2020 10:55PM

plibige wrote: »

Dermot Gallagher was the other one you were looking for.

Sure even Welbeck himself called it soft, which it was.

There's been a bit of group think and an echo chamber of anti Liverpool sentiment online, but being rational about it, it was a 50/50 challenge for the ball, both were entitled to go for it and nothing should have come of it.

Football is not a non contact sport, and Welbeck didn't have control of the ball.

Anti Liverpool sentiment to say it’s a pen when the Liverpool defender kicks the attacker in the box without getting the ball.. yeah right.

Yes it was 50/50, yes both were entitled to go for it. No, Wellbeck didn’t have control of it. Do you have any actual reasons it shouldn’t have been a penalty though?

y0ssar1an22 · 28-11-2020 10:57PM

Francie Barrett wrote: »

Worst start ever in the Premier League - https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/premier-league/saisonstarts/wettbewerb/GB1/plus/?sortierung=schlechteste&sortField=pkt&saisonIdVon=1992&saisonIdBis=2020&spieltag=10&eingrenzung=alle

swindon is where my money is on without looking.

y0ssar1an22 · 28-11-2020 11:03PM

plibige wrote: »

Dermot Gallagher was the other one you were looking for.

Sure even Welbeck himself called it soft, which it was.

There's been a bit of group think and an echo chamber of anti Liverpool sentiment online, but being rational about it, it was a 50/50 challenge for the ball, both were entitled to go for it and nothing should have come of it.

Football is not a non contact sport, and Welbeck didn't have control of the ball.

welbeck saying it was soft...thankfully completely irrelevant. .

its a foul or not. a swinging leg in the box that hits an opponent rather than the ball seems like a penalty.

plibige · 28-11-2020 11:05PM

Rock77 wrote: »

Anti Liverpool sentiment to say it’s a pen when the Liverpool defender kicks the attacker in the box without getting the ball.. yeah right.

Yes it was 50/50, yes both were entitled to go for it. No, Wellbeck didn’t have control of it. Do you have any actual reasons it shouldn’t have been a penalty though?

Yes your second part proved my point.

Contact doesn't mean a foul.

Yes very much anti Liverpool sentiment, plenty of your posts prove it. We're living rent free

plibige · 28-11-2020 11:08PM

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

welbeck saying it was soft...thankfully completely irrelevant. .

its a foul or not. a swinging leg in the box that hits an opponent rather than the ball seems like a penalty.

Welbeck saying its soft is far more relevant than you or me.

Seems to a biased perspective. But its not. Football isn't non contact. We are allowed go for 50/50 balls. We are allowed make contact with people who are not in control of possession to try gain possession. Welbeck wasn't taken out of it and acted up.

Two former refs disagreed with the decision straight away

Rock77 · 28-11-2020 11:21PM

plibige wrote: »

Yes your second part proved my point.

Contact doesn't mean a foul.

Yes very much anti Liverpool sentiment, plenty of your posts prove it. We're living rent free

So once it’s a 50/50 and the defender is entitled to go for it, it’s not a pen... okey dokey..

Which of my posts prove I’m anti Liverpool? Or did u just make that part up?

plibige · 28-11-2020 11:40PM

Rock77 wrote: »

So once it’s a 50/50 and the defender is entitled to go for it, it’s not a pen... okey dokey..

Which of my posts prove I’m anti Liverpool? Or did u just make that part up?

For a united fan you post an awful lot about Liverpool, I had a quick look at your recent posts, and we come up a lot even in the Man United thread. Not saying your posts aren't balanced or thought through but you are posting about a rival club a lot more than usual. I drew my conclusion from that rightly or wrongly.

I didn't say "If its 50/50 its not a pen" i said if its 50/50 you have a right to go for it. And if the attacker doesn't have control of it its not a penalty

Shanotheslayer · 28-11-2020 11:51PM

plibige wrote: »

I didn't say "If its 50/50 its not a pen" i said if its 50/50 you have a right to go for it. And if the attacker doesn't have control of it its not a penalty

That's not the law.

CSF · 28-11-2020 11:52PM

plibige wrote: »

For a united fan you post an awful lot about Liverpool, I had a quick look at your recent posts, and we come up a lot even in the Man United thread. Not saying your posts aren't balanced or thought through but you are posting about a rival club a lot more than usual. I drew my conclusion from that rightly or wrongly.

I didn't say "If its 50/50 its not a pen" i said if its 50/50 you have a right to go for it. And if the attacker doesn't have control of it its not a penalty

There’s no way you can fairly say that ‘it’s not a pen’. I mean you only need eyes to see he clumsily kicked him.

Surely the only question at play is whether it was too soft for a VAR overturn?

y0ssar1an22 · 28-11-2020 11:57PM

plibige wrote: »

Welbeck saying its soft is far more relevant than you or me.

Seems to a biased perspective. But its not. Football isn't non contact. We are allowed go for 50/50 balls. We are allowed make contact with people who are not in control of possession to try gain possession. Welbeck wasn't taken out of it and acted up.

Two former refs disagreed with the decision straight away

look at the foul. he hacked at the ball and hit a player.

was it a foul or not in your opinion?

plibige · 29-11-2020 12:01AM

Shanotheslayer wrote: »

That's not the law.

What's the law?

plibige · 29-11-2020 12:03AM

CSF wrote: »

There’s no way you can fairly say that ‘it’s not a pen’. I mean you only need eyes to see he clumsily kicked him.

Surely the only question at play is whether it was too soft for a VAR overturn?

I can and plenty have, including two former refs. And the player who was "fouled" suggested it wasn't one

plibige · 29-11-2020 12:03AM

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

look at the foul. he hacked at the ball and hit a player.

was it a foul or not in your opinion?

In my opinion, no

Rock77 · 29-11-2020 12:11AM

plibige wrote: »

For a united fan you post an awful lot about Liverpool, I had a quick look at your recent posts, and we come up a lot even in the Man United thread. Not saying your posts aren't balanced or thought through but you are posting about a rival club a lot more than usual. I drew my conclusion from that rightly or wrongly.

I didn't say "If its 50/50 its not a pen" i said if its 50/50 you have a right to go for it. And if the attacker doesn't have control of it its not a penalty

I post about the topic that’s being talked about. Liverpool are being talked about more often since they’ve become the best team in the Premiership. So my posts are balanced but they are anti Liverpool? Surely you should make your assumptions based on the content of my posts rather than the topic being discussed??

Even if the attacker doesn’t have the ball, if the defender kicks him, it’s a pen.

~Rebel~ · 29-11-2020 12:17AM

plibige wrote: »

What's the law?

In fairness, no matter who has control of what, I'd imagine the vast majority of people could agree with the reasonably simple premise that if you go for the ball, but don't get the ball and get the man instead, it's a foul.

Whether or not this is a pen doesn't have anything to do with Welbeck having or not having control of the ball - it really just comes down to how much contact was there. Touching someone isn't necessarily a foul, hitting someone is. So it's subjective... in this instance the ref/var decided that Robbo gave Welbeck enough of a kick that it was a foul. I don't like it, but it was enough contact that I can't really argue with it.

I think it's one where if you watched replays of it only in real time, you'd let it go, but once you get into slow-motion you lose perspective and it becomes very very easy to give it.

Shanotheslayer · 29-11-2020 12:17AM

plibige wrote: »

What's the law?

Look it up.

Also those two former refs I believe stated that it shouldn't have been a VAR review. Not that it wasn't a penalty I believe.

Player A aimed at Ball. Missed. Kicked Player B. Stonewall.

CSF · 29-11-2020 12:19AM

plibige wrote: »

I can and plenty have, including two former refs. And the player who was "fouled" suggested it wasn't one

He didnt. He said it was soft but that he was kicked and the referee made a decision. It was literally the interview with BT after the game.

Rock77 · 29-11-2020 12:24AM

~Rebel~ wrote: »

In fairness, no matter who has control of what, I'd imagine the vast majority of people could agree with the reasonably simple premise that if you go for the ball, but don't get the ball and get the man instead, it's a foul.

You would think that’s quite obvious.. but it’s amazing when it happens to ‘your team’ how biased fans can be. All teams fans do it. It’s hilarious!

My Granny is the worst, it doesn’t matter what’s happened, if the decision is against Utd IT’S FCKIN WRONG!!!

plibige · 29-11-2020 12:24AM

Rock77 wrote: »

I post about the topic that’s being talked about. Liverpool are being talked about more often since they’ve become the best team in the Premiership. So my posts are balanced but they are anti Liverpool? Surely you should make your assumptions based on the content of my posts rather than the topic being discussed??

Even if the attacker doesn’t have the ball, if the defender kicks him, it’s a pen.

No you post balanced but there is a liverpool centric focus to what you say. You can justify it whatever way you like but Liverpool are on your mind.

In a corner kick if two people come together is it a penalty automatically?

The intent wasn't there, he didn't set out to kick him. This is no different to the ball getting kicked at someone in the box and it hitting their arm.

And by using the word "kicked" you are making it out to be something it wasn't. He went for the ball and their was minimal contact with Welbecks boot. We see that stuff all game up and down the pitch. But its on pitch level so no one makes a deal out of it

plibige · 29-11-2020 12:26AM

Shanotheslayer wrote: »

Look it up.

Also those two former refs I believe stated that it shouldn't have been a VAR review. Not that it wasn't a penalty I believe.

Player A aimed at Ball. Missed. Kicked Player B. Stonewall.

Did you just say "look it up" hahaha

The "google it" defence.

You believe wrong, the refs said while it was being reviewed it wasn't.

Stonewall is just an opinion

plibige · 29-11-2020 12:28AM

CSF wrote: »

He didnt. He said it was soft but that he was kicked and the referee made a decision. It was literally the interview with BT after the game.

I'd say saying it was "soft" is suggesting it wasn't. Hence why I said it.

What are the other definitions of calling a foul soft?

Shanotheslayer · 29-11-2020 12:28AM

plibige wrote: »

Did you just say "look it up" hahaha

The "google it" defence.

You believe wrong, the refs said while it was being reviewed it wasn't.

Stonewall is just an opinion

Youve been told multiple times the refs didn't say that.

The fact you are the only one claiming this would indicate you're actually wrong. Can you quote these refs?

plibige · 29-11-2020 12:32AM

~Rebel~ wrote: »

In fairness, no matter who has control of what, I'd imagine the vast majority of people could agree with the reasonably simple premise that if you go for the ball, but don't get the ball and get the man instead, it's a foul.

Whether or not this is a pen doesn't have anything to do with Welbeck having or not having control of the ball - it really just comes down to how much contact was there. Touching someone isn't necessarily a foul, hitting someone is. So it's subjective... in this instance the ref/var decided that Robbo gave Welbeck enough of a kick that it was a foul. I don't like it, but it was enough contact that I can't really argue with it.

I think it's one where if you watched replays of it only in real time, you'd let it go, but once you get into slow-motion you lose perspective and it becomes very very easy to give it.

Very dystopian view of football described there. Something I don't want to see become the norm and won't encourage.

Rock77 · 29-11-2020 12:34AM

plibige wrote: »

No you post balanced but there is a liverpool centric focus to what you say. You can justify it whatever way you like but Liverpool are on your mind.

In a corner kick if two people come together is it a penalty automatically?

The intent wasn't there, he didn't set out to kick him. This is no different to the ball getting kicked at someone in the box and it hitting their arm.

And by using the word "kicked" you are making it out to be something it wasn't. He went for the ball and their was minimal contact with Welbecks boot. We see that stuff all game up and down the pitch. But its on pitch level so no one makes a deal out of it

Robbo swung a ‘kick’ at the ball and missed.. so he ‘kicked’ Wellbeck’s foot. There absolutely does not have to be intent for it to be a foul..

So now you have changed your story, two posts ago my posting history proved I was anti Liverpool, now it just proves everything I say is Liverpool centric..

Should I pm you the next time I wanna join a conversation about Liverpool or just stop straight away? Is there any other teams or subjects you would like me to not talk about?

plibige · 29-11-2020 12:44AM

Shanotheslayer wrote: »

Youve been told multiple times the refs didn't say that.

The fact you are the only one claiming this would indicate you're actually wrong. Can you quote these refs?

“He’s taken the context of the challenge out of it and seen it in slow motion," Walton told BT Sport. "He’s seen there’s contact - which we can all see - and has judged it just on that.

"The high bar the Premier League uses to intervene has been lowered in recent weeks. It certainly does to me (feels like the bar has been lowered). I’ve got to re-calibrate my thinking as well.

Peter Walton

plibige · 29-11-2020 12:47AM

Rock77 wrote: »

Robbo swung a ‘kick’ at the ball and missed.. so he ‘kicked’ Wellbeck’s foot. There absolutely does not have to be intent for it to be a foul..

So now you have changed your story, two posts ago my posting history proved I was anti Liverpool, now it just proves everything I say is Liverpool centric..

Should I pm you the next time I wanna join a conversation about Liverpool or just stop straight away? Is there any other teams or subjects you would like me to not talk about?

Your definition of a foul and mine are far apart.

Post about who you like. I'll interpret your posts how I see them.

CSF · 29-11-2020 01:04AM

plibige wrote: »

I'd say saying it was "soft" is suggesting it wasn't. Hence why I said it.

What are the other definitions of calling a foul soft?

I’ve just seen you say that the ref came out and said it wasn’t a penalty now also. The ref said it wasn’t clear and obvious enough to overturn. You appear to be outright lying quite a bit at this point.

CSF · 29-11-2020 01:05AM

plibige wrote: »

“He’s taken the context of the challenge out of it and seen it in slow motion," Walton told BT Sport. "He’s seen there’s contact - which we can all see - and has judged it just on that.

"The high bar the Premier League uses to intervene has been lowered in recent weeks. It certainly does to me (feels like the bar has been lowered). I’ve got to re-calibrate my thinking as well.

Peter Walton

Yeah that’s in reference to VAR overturns and the clear and obvious criteria. But you almost definitely already knew that.

plibige · 29-11-2020 01:13AM

CSF wrote: »

Yeah that’s in reference to VAR overturns and the clear and obvious criteria. But you almost definitely already knew that.

The first line is in relation to the context of the challenge. That's my point. He is saying that in real time the challenge is not a penalty.

That's all I'm saying

plibige · 29-11-2020 01:14AM

CSF wrote: »

I’ve just seen you say that the ref came out and said it wasn’t a penalty now also. The ref said it wasn’t clear and obvious enough to overturn. You appear to be outright lying quite a bit at this point.

What have I lied about?

General Premier League Thread 2020-21 - Mod Notes in 1st post. [Updated 17/12/20]

Comments