Jump to content

Football Thread 2019/2020


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, bradigor said:

 

Maybe if Sheffield United had been the ones relegated. 

 

Well they did set a precedent when they threw their toys out the pram. I highly doubt anything will happen, but I'd be shocked if it wasn't being explored internally at both clubs.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Scruff said:

I wonder if there will be any legal proceedings over that Hawkeye fuck up? That point has kept them up and I doubt the Bournemouth and Watford lawyers will be sitting on their hands.

 

 

Absolutely not. If you are going to look at that, then why not have Villa challenge Man Utd over the Fernandes non-penalty when they were playing well and looking good, etc? Watford undid themselves today, if they hadn't been so rubbish defensively they could've probably beaten Arsenal - after all, Villa did.

 

And every team I'm sure can look at a moment of injustice that changed a game. It's a futile exercise and can only be used to deflect blame from the team's failings.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Todays VAR fuckup.

 

This was ruled out because Gudmunsson (next to the keeper) was offside.

 

clarets1.thumb.jpg.b4de54792096a89ce76bc50ff942bd97.jpg

 

This was allowed with Silva (next to the keeper) being offside.

 

clarets2.jpg.d25f75abb98e0dc34b91201e0c3de404.jpg

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Gabe said:

 

Absolutely not. If you are going to look at that, then why not have Villa challenge Man Utd over the Fernandes non-penalty when they were playing well and looking good, etc? Watford undid themselves today, if they hadn't been so rubbish defensively they could've probably beaten Arsenal - after all, Villa did.

 

And every team I'm sure can look at a moment of injustice that changed a game. It's a futile exercise and can only be used to deflect blame from the team's failings.

 

I completely agree with you. However, Sheff Utd sullied that argument and got £30 mill out of it and you just know that the lawyers will be rubbing their hands together.

 

I will say I'm glad Villa stayed up. I don't like Bournemoth. They're snidey bastards and how the media portray the 'little club' narrative when they spend loads every season I'll never know. Having Villa and Leeds in the Prem will feel good, even though we'll probably be get pasted by Leeds twice next season.

 

can't say I have any feelings on Watford.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Gabe said:

 

Absolutely not. If you are going to look at that, then why not have Villa challenge Man Utd over the Fernandes non-penalty when they were playing well and looking good, etc? Watford undid themselves today, if they hadn't been so rubbish defensively they could've probably beaten Arsenal - after all, Villa did.

 

And every team I'm sure can look at a moment of injustice that changed a game. It's a futile exercise and can only be used to deflect blame from the team's failings.

You’re right of course, but you expect United to get penalties, you don’t expect a system that has never failed in 7,000 matches to fuck up like this. 
 

Bournemouth Can count themselves unlucky and Villa lucky over that one. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Scruff said:

 

I completely agree with you. However, Sheff Utd sullied that argument and got £30 mill out of it and you just know that the lawyers will be rubbing their hands together.

 

Ha, I actually forgot they got the settlement. They were still relegated though - which I would imagine set a precedent - so even if a legal challenge was mounted, it wouldn't change that fact.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Gabe said:

 

Ha, I actually forgot they got the settlement. They were still relegated though - which I would imagine set a precedent - so even if a legal challenge was mounted, it wouldn't change that fact.

Who paid out? Was it West Ham or Someone else?

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Scruff said:

 

I completely agree with you. However, Sheff Utd sullied that argument and got £30 mill out of it and you just know that the lawyers will be rubbing their hands together.

 

That's a false equivalence. One is an on-field mistake, something that has always happened in football and is accepted as a part of the game. The other is a team flagrantly breaking the league's transfer rules, deliberately cheating in fact. Besides, West Ham were allowed to stay up and Sheffield United were relegated. Considering your team's shameful part in that episode, I'm surprised you're so keen to bring it up. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Plissken said:

Todays VAR fuckup.

 

This was ruled out because Gudmunsson (next to the keeper) was offside.

 

clarets1.thumb.jpg.b4de54792096a89ce76bc50ff942bd97.jpg

 

This was allowed with Silva (next to the keeper) being offside.

 

clarets2.jpg.d25f75abb98e0dc34b91201e0c3de404.jpg

 

 

I'm literally only going by the pictures you posted but isn't the Burnley guy blocking the keeper from moving towards the ball while Silva isn't quite doing that?

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, feltmonkey said:

 

That's a false equivalence. One is an on-field mistake, something that has always happened in football and is accepted as a part of the game. The other is a team flagrantly breaking the league's transfer rules, deliberately cheating in fact. Besides, West Ham were allowed to stay up and Sheffield United were relegated. Considering your team's shameful part in that episode, I'm surprised you're so keen to bring it up. 

 

Shameful :lol:

 

There was no cheating. The oversight was that something incredibly common in world football but hardly ever seen in British football (third party ownership) was swept under the carpet (except it wasn't when Sheff Utd did it with Steve Kabba and any club that loaned another player to a rival and forbade them playing against their parent club). We had a seriously shifty MD (who is now at Watford) who thought he could play fast and loose and bend a few rules. The whole issue with the third party ownership was that theoretically the owner could pull the player out of games to influence the decision. Considering Tevez didn't even get in the bloody team till the last third of the season (and was in the team when we got thumped 3-0 by Sheffield Utd) it wouldn't have mattered.

 

I bet you also think winning at Man Utd on the last day kept us up too?

 

*edit* Like everything else West Ham it was our Micky Mouse legal team that cost us a 5mil fine from the PL. You wouldn't have seen Man Utd, Liverpool or Man City copping it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Krul actually touches the ball as it goes in.  With the Burnley one, it actually hit the side netting, with Ryan standing on the opposite post. (He is being blocked by JBG, but isn't attempting to get the ball.)

 

Besides, it was disallowed for offside, not a foul.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Plissken said:

Besides, it was disallowed for offside, not a foul.

 

Being in the keeper's way would mean you're interfering.

 

That said, I'd rather see clips than stills. They could both be valid goals, they could both be bullshit. Can't really tell from pics.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

21 minutes ago, spork said:

 

I'm literally only going by the pictures you posted but isn't the Burnley guy blocking the keeper from moving towards the ball while Silva isn't quite doing that?

 

Yeah I'd argue that Ryan was impeded when I watched it, but I'm biased as a Brighton fan.

 

For a dead rubber game that was entertaining. Much better than our awful performance against Newcastle on Monday.  Five minutes of added time was screaming "94th minute Burnley equaliser" but we survived. Burnley are typically a well drilled team. Not really sure why they get the bad press.

 

Not sure about our new kit but it is distinctive, I'll give them that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Scruff said:

I wonder if there will be any legal proceedings over that Hawkeye fuck up? That point has kept them up and I doubt the Bournemouth and Watford lawyers will be sitting on their hands.

 

 

We'd just point to the Bruno Fernades thing which happened a week later, or the decision away at Palace which cost us a legitimate 96th minute equaliser.  It's too big a can of worms to open up.  Everybody has moments where things could have gone differently.  Would we have been half a dozen points better off if we hadn't lost John McGinn for 15 games a week before Xmas and then Wesley & Tom Heaton for the season in the same game on new years day?   What if that deflection today hadn't been so cruel?  What if we'd got the penalty against Arsenal we definitely should have had, or gone down on goal difference to a goal which the Premier League's dubious goals panel confirmed was offside?   We're staying up, fuck knows how, but we're staying up.  I'll enjoy that fact tonight and worry about the inevitable comings and goings tomorrow. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Naysonymous said:

 

We'd just point to the Bruno Fernades thing which happened a week later, or the decision away at Palace which cost us a legitimate 96th minute equaliser.  It's too big a can of worms to open up.  Everybody has moments where things could have gone differently.  Would we have been half a dozen points better off if we hadn't lost John McGinn for 15 games a week before Xmas and then Wesley & Tom Heaton for the season in the same game on new years day?   What if that deflection today hadn't been so cruel?  What if we'd got the penalty against Arsenal we definitely should have had, or gone down on goal difference to a goal which the Premier League's dubious goals panel confirmed was offside?   We're staying up, fuck knows how, but we're staying up.  I'll enjoy that fact tonight and worry about the inevitable comings and goings tomorrow. 

I was going to specifically mention the Palace debacle.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Pickford threw in another one today. The inevitibility of him still being England Number 1 next season because he's good with his feet is depressing. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, BabelRich said:

I was going to specifically mention the Palace debacle.

 

 

 

Just for reference.  Should embed at the incident. The TLDR is in second half injury time Gary Cahill takes Grealish to ground, Grealish successfully passes the ball to Lansbury who scores.  Grealish doesn't even appeal for a foul.  Ref disallows the goal and books him for diving.    The point remains that every club will have incidents like this throughout the season.  Some are forgotten about in a week or two, some become memes and get remembered. The Villa - Sheffield United one was big because it was the first game of football in the UK for a hundred days and lots of people were watching it, others which might have happened in a game which kicked off at 3pm on a Saturday afternoon get lost in the noise.  

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

From watching the highlights on Sky Sports YouTube channel

 

Bissoumas goal is a peach.

 

The VAR decision against JBG is bollocks.

 

It would have been absolutely gutting for Villa to go down to that equaliser.

 

Pickford has wrists of chocolate.

 

Amazing save by Martinez on a Welbeck (I think) backheel.

 

De Bruyne makes something very difficult look easy.  Twice.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Scruff said:

 

Shameful :lol:

 

There was no cheating. The oversight was that something incredibly common in world football but hardly ever seen in British football (third party ownership) was swept under the carpet (except it wasn't when Sheff Utd did it with Steve Kabba and any club that loaned another player to a rival and forbade them playing against their parent club). We had a seriously shifty MD (who is now at Watford) who thought he could play fast and loose and bend a few rules. The whole issue with the third party ownership was that theoretically the owner could pull the player out of games to influence the decision. Considering Tevez didn't even get in the bloody team till the last third of the season (and was in the team when we got thumped 3-0 by Sheffield Utd) it wouldn't have mattered.

 

I bet you also think winning at Man Utd on the last day kept us up too?

 

*edit* Like everything else West Ham it was our Micky Mouse legal team that cost us a 5mil fine from the PL. You wouldn't have seen Man Utd, Liverpool or Man City copping it.

 

That's quite the spin job.  :lol:

 

There was cheating.  Calling it an "oversight" is disingenuous.  Players owned by third parties was and still is clearly and specifically not allowed by the Premier League, it doesn't matter what the rules were elsewhere in the world.  Players on loan is not the same - "third party" refers to any organisation or individual that isn't a football club.  West Ham knew this, or thry wouldn't have tried to cover up the third party ownership.  They knew they were breaking the rules.  Not "bending" - breaking.  I know the win at Old Trafford didn't keep West Ham up, but that's irrelevant.  It always amuses me when West Ham fans try to claim that the addition of two players who have gone on to prove in their careers that they were world class had no baring on whether the team stayed up or not.  The Steve Kabba argument is whataboutery.  The issue there wasn't the same thing either, although it does seem dodgy in it's own way.  For the uninitiated, Sheffield United sold Kabba to Watford, and there was a clause in the transfer forbidding him from playing against them in a game later that season.  That is not the issue with third party ownership.

 

West Ham cheated, Sheffield United were right, West Ham should have had a points deduction and been relegated, and £30m is not much compensation for being relegated, particularly as it took twelve years for them to get back.

Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, bowser123 said:

If Wolves win the Europa does that mean 5 English teams in the CL or that Chelsea miss out?

 

5 teams, unless Man City also win the CL in which case Chelsea lose out. It's a 5 team maximum from any country.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Fry Crayola said:

 

5 teams, unless Man City also win the CL in which case Chelsea lose out. It's a 5 team maximum from any country.

 

Eh? Man City are in via 2nd place anyway, so surely it doesn't matter. 

Wouldn't it only matter if Wolves won the UEFA Cup and (for example) Tottenham* won the European Cup. 

 

Yes, I know they are out, just being hypothetical. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, bradigor said:

 

Eh? Man City are in via 2nd place anyway, so surely it doesn't matter. 

Wouldn't it only matter if Wolves won the UEFA Cup and (for example) Tottenham* won the European Cup. 

 

Yes, I know they are out, just being hypothetical. 

 

This!

 

There can be a max of 5 teams, and IF, the team that won the CL, was also outside the places AND the team that won the EL was also outside the places, then only the top 3 would qualify.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.