Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

General Premier League Thread 2023-24 Mod Note in op 27/6/23 And 21/05/24

11314161819410

Comments

  • Posts: 19,923 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    I don't think you understand consistency if you think them dealing with similar issues the same way is inconsistent.

    I guess the difference between the likes of Wissa and the one of José Sá from last season is that in those cases the keeper actually hit the player who got the ball and a penalty wasn't given.



  • Posts: 14,734 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    In theory a penalty yes, by the laws of the game sure, but for years and as long as I'm watching football goalkeepers have been getting away with this and worse,.there has been plenty of times were goalkeepers have punched lads in the head missing the ball and nothing given and nothing said. Why the rules are reffed different in the box who knows.

    There was no new directive set at the start of the season I'm aware of like the time wasting, the level of interest in this incident is bizarre because of all that's happened before the refs being stood down even more so. You would presume given Webb's stance here we will see many penalties given this season, but I feel he is just doing this as it was a night time televised game.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,017 ✭✭✭✭noodler


    I can't believe the officials have been reprimanded, bosses apologizing and people are still defending it.

    Good oul tribalism



  • Posts: 19,923 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Well these particular referees were clearly scapegoated in order so that PGMOL were seen to get ahead of the issue.

    Question though. Why do you think they didn't give a penalty if it was so clear and obvious?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,017 ✭✭✭✭noodler


    Why do I think a Terrible mistake was made?

    I can only hope a lack of integrity or incompetence. I don't buy any concious bias.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 237 ✭✭DAngelo Bailey


    That's some leap they were stood down because they got a clear and obvious penalty wrong. They either didn't give it out of pure incompetence or because they bottled it.



  • Posts: 19,923 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    If you remove yourself from the outlook that it was "a terrible mistake".

    What process do you think was followed that allowed these people to review the incident and come up with "no penalty"? They seen the same thing we did. They had an opinion on it and came to that conclusion.

    Since it was so obvious to everyone bar the 3 or 4 people involved between the ref and VAR room that it was an open and shut case and we're not allowed to discuss it because 2 others have said it was a mistake. Almost like people can interpret different things from incidents.



  • Posts: 19,923 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    I agree United should have had a penalty for that handball and Wolves should have had a penalty for the Onana thing.

    But neither happened and it was down to interpretation of the rules.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 48,902 ✭✭✭✭Mitch Connor


    IMO they were stood down because United got the benefit of the call.

    There was zero talk of the officials at the Spurs - Brentford game being stood down. When the Wolves keeper punched the leeds player in the face and nothing was given the officials were not stood down.

    People like to think United get all the calls, but we are as much treated as an example as we are given favourable calls. I'm certain United will not get a few penalty claims given to them over the next month, and probably a couple of soft penalties agaisnt them - because the Refs are afraid of being publicly shamed if they give a call to United, following the outragous attack on them we have seen - 2 days later and we have David James bleating on Sky Sports about it, but nothing about the Brentford non-call. We have Dermot Gallagher amazed it wasn't given, after saying the Wolves keeper pucnhing the leeds player would never be a penalty and there would be uproar and penalties every week if they were given.

    But its United, so people froth and United will suffer for it



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,017 ✭✭✭✭noodler


    Does the sheer effort of the mental gymnastics ever make you wonder about the position you are trying to defend?



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 48,902 ✭✭✭✭Mitch Connor


    Likely the ref told the 4th official (or whomever) he saw Onana and the attacker come together after the ball was away, but didn't deem it a penalty.

    The other official then confirms yes - the ball was away and Onana and the attacker collided - matching what the ref saw - so the ref didn't miss the incident. On the understanding it is supposed to be a high bar to overturn the ref decision, the official didn't intervene because the events matched what the ref saw. His (the refs) interpretation is questionable, but the VAR official didn't over-rule his interpretation of the event he clearly saw.



  • Posts: 19,923 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    You have not engaged with what I've asked. I think it was probably a penalty. Can you really not see why it wasn't given or are you just here to take potshots and stifle the discussion?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,017 ✭✭✭✭noodler


    There's not really discussion.

    There's a clear unanimous view, it is shared by the broader media for once and has even been shared by officialdom.

    You are trying to backwards engineer a discussion. The fact someone made a mistake, and that the Var officials didn't have the integrity/courage/competence to correct it doesn't automatically mean the incident warrants further Poirot style investigation to see if it could be justified.



  • Posts: 19,923 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    When there are similar (worse actually as the player contacted actually had the ball, unlike this one where it was 2 players colliding off the ball) incidents that can be pointed to where there was nobody seeking officials being reprimanded and apologising is it not worth comparing like for like and asking why as big a deal is being made out of this when similar has gone off without an issue or a peep from the outside?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,278 ✭✭✭✭OmegaGene


    I think the two penalty issues need their own thread going by this convo

    The internet isn’t for everyone



  • Posts: 12,836 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    It's not your job to defend Manchester United in every situation on the internet



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,865 ✭✭✭✭Fitz*


    A disgraceful statement there from Man Utd, basically saying that they want to re-integrate Mason Greenwood into the squad, without using them words exactly, yet. The Athletic are reporting that "Manchester United chief exec Richard Arnold told senior staff two weeks ago the club were planning to bring back Mason Greenwood. He also intended to record a video explaining the decision."

    The official club statement includes lines such as;

    "we understand the strong opinions it has provoked based on the partial evidence in the public domain"

    "alleged victim"

    You can stick that pre-recorded PR video. I hope the player gets dogs abuse every time he steps onto a pitch wearing a jersey, be it Man Utd or not. We've all seen the videos and pictures, unfortunately. Been too many players that seem to get away with it, and even worse there is a culture that players don't care what they do as they know that their clubs will cover it up for them, along with money etc. They act like they have no conscience.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,424 ✭✭✭stesaurus


    I think everyone can see it should have been a penalty but there have been countless similar incidences over the years with nothing given and absolutely no furore over it. There's been no talk of cracking down before the season started so why the sudden issue? Simple, it's United. Hated, adored and never ignored comes to mind and its pretty apt here. United should have lost that game and the fact they held on to win pissed a lot of people off. Rivalry and bitterness at its best. Lots of media reaction and its a live game with the incident right at the death. Of course Sky are going to keep stoking the flames to drive media and fan reaction.

    I'll be more than happy to see some consistency and these issues being punished week in and out but I'm not holding my breath. What will happen is a spotlight on United/Onana and a number of soft penalties that won't be consistent with other games.




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,952 ✭✭✭✭TitianGerm



    He should be booked by all fans every minute he's on the bench and steps on the field.

    United have let themselves down here.



  • Moderators, Education Moderators, Sports Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 11,854 Mod ✭✭✭✭artanevilla


    Absolutely mind boggling.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,911 ✭✭✭✭whatawaster


    I cannot believe a) United would want to take him back, b) ETH would want to pick him, c) the United players would want to train or play with him.

    Cannot for the life of me understand why United didn't do what Ulster Rugby did to Paddy Jackson and Stuart Olding - they were found not guilty but the club terminated their contracts as they were bringing the club into disrepute. The evidence in Greenwood's case is even more damning.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,952 ✭✭✭✭TitianGerm


    They want to protect player value. Can't let him go for free.



  • Moderators, Education Moderators, Sports Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 11,854 Mod ✭✭✭✭artanevilla


    The player has no value. The damage he has done and will definitely do after this decision is worth more than any money they might get for him from some morally bankrupt Saudi team.

    I also don't understand the investigation, Manchester United are a football club/business not the courts. At the start they should have sat him down and asked one question "Is that you in video?" and sacked him there and then.

    What message does this send out to decent people?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,865 ✭✭✭✭Fitz*


    United have let themselves down here.

    And the thing is, they acted very correctly and promptly when the videos first surfaced. But have let themselves down big time here.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 912 ✭✭✭Infoseeker1975


    It will possible backfire on their hopes this year as it will bring a lot of negative attention to Utd.

    From the standards most people set in life for themselves, their families and friends; it is an abhorrent decision and only another example why women are afraid to report abuse.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,440 ✭✭✭✭Mushy


    I do.enjoy the bit about respecting lifelong anonymity, directed towards someone who plastered it all over social media



  • Moderators, Education Moderators, Sports Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 11,854 Mod ✭✭✭✭artanevilla


    My hope would be this decision has been leaked to The Athletic by someone senior at the club in the hope that it generates (correctly) a huge amount of outrage from fans, players, coaches, media, sponsors and humans that they have to reverse it now for any official announcement.

    The fact that it even has to be a hope is quite sad.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 237 ✭✭DAngelo Bailey


    They 100% want to bring him back if they didn't they'd have dealt with this by now. They are trying to figure out the least controversial way of bringing him back. I personally don't think there is one.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 237 ✭✭DAngelo Bailey


    The idea that there is a conspiracy against Manchester united is laughable. Your logic is mad refs are afraid to give calls to Manchester United so that's why they didn't give an absolutely blatant penalty to Wolves in the last minute.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,186 ✭✭✭✭rob316


    Statement definitely smacks as a teaser to bringing him back and seen what the mood is like. Why would United even risk this? They are a £6bn business, is he worth the negative press and possibility of sponsors pulling back. Maybe those recordings are edited but they can't be unheard.

    They were always going to bring him back though otherwise the investigation would of been simple. "Mason is that you on the recording?" Yes. Your sacked good luck



This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement