Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

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

1107108110112113197

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 60,887 ✭✭✭✭Agent Coulson


    Lundstram also doesn't want to be at the club and has refused all contract talks and wants to join Rangers.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,972 ✭✭✭doc_17


    Lundstram also doesn't want to be at the club and has refused all contract talks and wants to join Rangers.

    He went on a wee run last year at the start of the season and it gave them a platform. A bad team, won’t miss them.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,550 ✭✭✭✭CSF


    Surely Wilder isn't going to last much longer?

    Would be insane to get rid. Who better for them if they do go down?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 31,988 ✭✭✭✭~Rebel~


    CSF wrote: »
    Would be insane to get rid. Who better for them if they do go down?

    Yeah, I think Bournemouth are the exact example to look at - look like coming straight back up with their old manager, fired on by a young ex-Liverpool striker who couldn't buy a goal in the premier league. Could easily see exactly the same story next season with Wilder instead of Howe, and Brewster instead of Solanke.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 60,887 ✭✭✭✭Agent Coulson


    ~Rebel~ wrote: »
    Yeah, I think Bournemouth are the exact example to look at - look like coming straight back up with their old manager, fired on by a young ex-Liverpool striker who couldn't buy a goal in the premier league. Could easily see exactly the same story next season with Wilder instead of Howe, and Brewster instead of Solanke.

    Howe is gone it's his assistant who is now the manger at Bournemouth.



    Howe is now favorite for the Celtic job, I wonder will get a Rodgers reinvention up there if does get the job.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,191 ✭✭✭✭Shanotheslayer


    CSF wrote: »
    Would be insane to get rid. Who better for them if they do go down?

    Big Sam to keep them up some might say


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 31,988 ✭✭✭✭~Rebel~


    Howe is gone it's his assistant who is now the manger at Bournemouth.



    Howe is now favorite for the Celtic job, I wonder will get a Rodgers reinvention up there if does get the job.

    Christ, that totally passed me by!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,972 ✭✭✭doc_17


    Sheffield Utd on course to finish on 4 points at their current rate, if you’re rounding up.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,191 ✭✭✭✭Shanotheslayer


    doc_17 wrote: »
    Sheffield Utd on course to finish on 4 points at their current rate, if you’re rounding up.

    Derby county creaming themselves thinking they won't have the record anymore :pac:


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 359 ✭✭plibige


    I agree with what you said above but thats not exactly what happened here,

    If Welbck had knock it past Robbo then i agree but he didnt he flicked onto Robbos standing foot and at the same time Robbo touched Welbeck foot m

    I think it was more of a coming together
    Two ex prem ref on tv (walton & cant remember the 2nd) both thought it was not a penalty

    But i understand its not black or white

    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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,123 ✭✭✭Rock77


    I agree with what you said above but thats not exactly what happened here,

    If Welbck had knock it past Robbo then i agree but he didnt he flicked onto Robbos standing foot and at the same time Robbo touched Welbeck foot m

    I think it was more of a coming together
    Two ex prem ref on tv (walton & cant remember the 2nd) both thought it was not a penalty

    But i understand its not black or white

    You agree that a defender can’t keep an attacker without it being a peno.

    But you don’t think Robbo kicked Wellbeck?

    I kinda see what your trying to get at.. if there was no var nobody would have even noticed it happened (me included) but there is var and in the replay it’s clear as day Robbo kicked him..


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,123 ✭✭✭Rock77


    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?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,239 ✭✭✭✭y0ssar1an22




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,239 ✭✭✭✭y0ssar1an22


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 359 ✭✭plibige


    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


  • Registered Users Posts: 359 ✭✭plibige


    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


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,123 ✭✭✭Rock77


    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?


  • Registered Users Posts: 359 ✭✭plibige


    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


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,191 ✭✭✭✭Shanotheslayer


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,550 ✭✭✭✭CSF


    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?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,239 ✭✭✭✭y0ssar1an22


    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?


  • Registered Users Posts: 359 ✭✭plibige


    That's not the law.

    What's the law?


  • Registered Users Posts: 359 ✭✭plibige


    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


  • Registered Users Posts: 359 ✭✭plibige


    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


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,123 ✭✭✭Rock77


    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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 31,988 ✭✭✭✭~Rebel~


    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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,191 ✭✭✭✭Shanotheslayer


    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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,550 ✭✭✭✭CSF


    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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,123 ✭✭✭Rock77


    ~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!!!


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 359 ✭✭plibige


    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


  • Registered Users Posts: 359 ✭✭plibige


    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


  • Registered Users Posts: 359 ✭✭plibige


    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?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,191 ✭✭✭✭Shanotheslayer


    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?


  • Registered Users Posts: 359 ✭✭plibige


    ~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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,123 ✭✭✭Rock77


    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?


  • Registered Users Posts: 359 ✭✭plibige


    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


  • Registered Users Posts: 359 ✭✭plibige


    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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,550 ✭✭✭✭CSF


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,550 ✭✭✭✭CSF


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 359 ✭✭plibige


    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


  • Registered Users Posts: 359 ✭✭plibige


    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?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,550 ✭✭✭✭CSF


    plibige wrote: »
    What have I lied about?

    You have said 2 different people said the tackle was not a penalty, neither whom have said that.


  • Registered Users Posts: 359 ✭✭plibige


    CSF wrote: »
    You have said 2 different people said the tackle was not a penalty, neither whom have said that.

    Dermot Gallagher said "I think its a very tough call, I think its a very harsh call"

    Peter Walton said "He’s taken the context of the challenge out of it and seen it in slow motion".

    I'll give you neither out and out said "no penalty" but they certainly suggested it.

    If you want to call me a liar based on that fine. But I think there is enough information from what both said to know neither seen it as a penalty.

    The clear and obvious thing is another thing all together


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,049 ✭✭✭Ikozma


    The Premier lge is absolutely ****ed and is at a critical stage I think unless var is dropped or a least that the rules are changed and refs know what the rules are, it's a complete mess and is turning an awful lot of people off the Premier lge altogether and I'm certainly one of them


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭happyoutscan


    As far as I'm concerned it was a penalty.

    A foul inside the penalty area equates to a penalty, nevermind all this 'context' crap. I'd be raging if the roles were reversed.

    I was more pissed off with Robinson's kick than anything.

    The two off-side calls were also correct, but the whole off-side measuring is a mess. The lack of focus on exactly when the ball is played forward along with the grainiest footage this side of Virgin Media (Tv3) is ridiculous.

    Those are the breaks, could be worse.


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Rants about refs, VAR, TV companies, fixture lists, injury lists, penalties, other managers, interviewers, offsides...everyone, let's all go out there today and hug a Liverpool fan, and tell them enjoy being top of the league because there will be bad days...


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,349 ✭✭✭✭super_furry


    Ikozma wrote: »
    The Premier lge is absolutely ****ed and is at a critical stage I think unless var is dropped or a least that the rules are changed and refs know what the rules are, it's a complete mess and is turning an awful lot of people off the Premier lge altogether and I'm certainly one of them

    Was actually just thinking that today. Maybe it's a combination of no fans and VAR but I've less interest in the Premier League than any other time I can remember.

    I'll watch Liverpool games still but I don't think I've watched a game not involving the club I support since September. I used to watch everything that was on TV. Up until last season really.

    I've been far more interested in the League of Ireland.

    Part or it too I think is all the staggered kick-offs. You'd miss the grouped Saturday 3pm games, it was nearly the focus of a weekend, now everything is all over the place.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,123 ✭✭✭Rock77


    plibige wrote: »
    Your definition of a foul and mine are far apart.

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

    I don’t like being accused of being anti anyone.. you accused me of it and when called on it you back tracked.

    As for the foul, two Liverpool supporters in here thought it wasn’t a foul.. one said he kicked him but that doesn’t matter, you said he didn’t kick him.

    Everyone else including Liverpool fans thought it was a foul. A harsh peno yes, but when you have var and you are slowing replays down to see if there’s contact you can’t say ‘he didn’t get the ball, he connected with the player, but I won’t give it anyway’


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,814 ✭✭✭✭yourdeadwright


    Rock77 wrote: »
    You agree that a defender can’t keep an attacker without it being a peno.

    But you don’t think Robbo kicked Wellbeck?

    I kinda see what your trying to get at.. if there was no var nobody would have even noticed it happened (me included) but there is var and in the replay it’s clear as day Robbo kicked him..

    As i said i think it was a coming together not a foul, the ball hitting Robbo standing foot at the same time as the contact os the game changer for me

    Kind of like when someone goes one and one and a keeper flys out to smother the shot and ball hits the keeper at the same time as the keeper comes in contact with the forward,

    I wonder if Welbck didnt dive after it would it have even been checked


  • Advertisement
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement