Eddie and Mad Dog's; Lost Their Intensity, Got No Identity Black & White Army v You Fill Up My Senses, Like A Greasy Chip Butty, Blades

[RobinRobin 10705]

3 hours ago, Dr Gloom said:

I said it was a pen too. Definitely more than the Brentford one but they’re both soft in the sense that Gordon won them. He can definitely stay on his feet on both occasions 

But Salah does it and it's genius. 

[Holden McGroin 6260]

32 minutes ago, RobinRobin said:

But Salah does it and it's genius. 

Thomas Frank also absolved Gordon of any wrong doing by saying his players would do it as well. 

[Kid Dynamite 6833]

12 hours ago, NJS said:

Plus the "shove" against Milan. 

 

(Which I think was the clichéd foul anywhere else on the pitch). 

Longstaff was chucking himself all over in the Milan game. I wondered whether Howe had talked to the team about the differences in refereeing/fouls on the continent and we tried to play Milan at their own game 

[Rayvin 5127]

7 minutes ago, Holden McGroin said:

Thomas Frank also absolved Gordon of any wrong doing by saying his players would do it as well. 

 

I actually respect that from him. It's a depressing indictment of the game (society?) that telling the truth is respect worthy rather than a bare minimum, but this is the world we live in I suppose.

[Holden McGroin 6260]

2 minutes ago, Kid Dynamite said:

Longstaff was chucking himself all over in the Milan game. I wondered whether Howe had talked to the team about the differences in refereeing/fouls on the continent and we tried to play Milan at their own game 

 

aye. Although it wasn’t a home tie so much more unlikely to get any borderline decisions. 

the refereeing seemed a lot less lenient in this game. Lots of fouls could have been yellows in the PL.

 

 

[Howay 12496]

The pen decisions I can accept some level of debate, although for me they’re both pens, but what I find fucking mental is the Sheffield United fans are pretty much all adamant the horrendous tackle on Longstaff wasn’t a foul . Yells of “proper tackle that” “nuffun wrong with that lad, if tha’ a foul t’game is gone”, mental for me, it was a fucking horrible challenge where the player absolutely intended to “leave one on him” they can fuck right off. 

[Holden McGroin 6260]

It would have been a lovely tackle in the 90s.

 

If I was them I'd be more annoyed with the first goal. Surely thats a handball? I'd be well fucked off if that happened to us. But then I have no idea what the handball rule is anymore and I think thats half the problem.

[Howay 12496]

4 minutes ago, Holden McGroin said:

It would have been a lovely tackle in the 90s.

 

If I was them I'd be more annoyed with the first goal. Surely thats a handball? I'd be well fucked off if that happened to us. But then I have no idea what the handball rule is anymore and I think thats half the problem.

Apparently if he had scored it was a handball, but if he assists it has to be an intentional handball. 
 

The one thing for the handball for me is their fans keep saying it kept the ball in play, but from what I remember it was actually a hinderance to him as he’d kept it in but it hit his hand and started going back out before he took his next touch. 

[Rayvin 5127]

7 minutes ago, Holden McGroin said:

It would have been a lovely tackle in the 90s.

 

If I was them I'd be more annoyed with the first goal. Surely thats a handball? I'd be well fucked off if that happened to us. But then I have no idea what the handball rule is anymore and I think thats half the problem.

 

Apparently the handball rule is that for a goal to be chalked off the infraction has to be intentional (which this wasn't) OR it has to be unintentional but committed by the same player who then scores (also wasn't). This is a new rule for this season apparently.

 

EDIT - beaten to it but aye, was the right call to permit it.

[Holden McGroin 6260]

That rule is pretty abysmal.   It definitely wasn't intentional but his pass lead to directly to a goal so I think the rule is a but flawed. Not that im complaining but I would be if it happened to us.

 

 

 

 

[wykikitoon 19326]

The one where it hit Schar then directed it to goal where the keeper knocked it over for a corner, which we then scored from.  According to Redknapp, Schar had ample time to take his arm off and throw it away so he didnt accidently handball it.  Fucking gimp

[The Fish 10430]

 

[Alex 34101]

45 minutes ago, Howay said:

Apparently if he had scored it was a handball, but if he assists it has to be an intentional handball. 
 

The one thing for the handball for me is their fans keep saying it kept the ball in play, but from what I remember it was actually a hinderance to him as he’d kept it in but it hit his hand and started going back out before he took his next touch. 

It definitely did not keep the ball in play. The deflection off the hand sent it towards going out after the previous touch kept it in. I’ve seen it more than once but it’s fairly obvious at first glance. 

[Howmanheyman 31634]

12 minutes ago, The Fish said:

 

 

I love Bez but he is a Sheffield United fan so err.....

[Gemmill 42681]

Denim clad badge kisser innit.

[The Fish 10430]

Bet he's got a grandkid too, the rat!

[Dr Gloom 21304]

54 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

 

Apparently the handball rule is that for a goal to be chalked off the infraction has to be intentional (which this wasn't) OR it has to be unintentional but committed by the same player who then scores (also wasn't). This is a new rule for this season apparently.

 

EDIT - beaten to it but aye, was the right call to permit it.

 

i only read about that rule change recently. this is what i meant when we were debating the handball shout from the brentford game. they change the rule so often, i don't think anyone can keep up. 

 

i wish they'd go back to the rule being about intent. it's still subjective, but it would simplify it. the ref and VAR dorks can go back to trying to to decide if the player used the hand to gain an advantage or not. 

[Dr Gloom 21304]

33 minutes ago, Howmanheyman said:

 

I love Bez but he is a Sheffield United fan so err.....

 

i saw another clip of him singing the tonali song in the concourse. he looks well lubricated and loving life tbf

[Howmanheyman 31634]

26 minutes ago, Dr Gloom said:

 

i saw another clip of him singing the tonali song in the concourse. he looks well lubricated and loving life tbf

 

He's definitely had a few. 

[spongebob toonpants 3859]

1 hour ago, Dr Gloom said:

 

i only read about that rule change recently. this is what i meant when we were debating the handball shout from the brentford game. they change the rule so often, i don't think anyone can keep up. 

 

i wish they'd go back to the rule being about intent. it's still subjective, but it would simplify it. the ref and VAR dorks can go back to trying to to decide if the player used the hand to gain an advantage or not. 

Hits your hand it's handball. Fuck intent. Slightest glance? Unlucky thems the breaks.

That's my solution and I'm stuck with it

[Kevin Carr's Gloves 3711]

3 hours ago, Dr Gloom said:

 

i only read about that rule change recently. this is what i meant when we were debating the handball shout from the brentford game. they change the rule so often, i don't think anyone can keep up. 

 

i wish they'd go back to the rule being about intent. it's still subjective, but it would simplify it. the ref and VAR dorks can go back to trying to to decide if the player used the hand to gain an advantage or not. 

You can’t prove intent hundreds of handballs would not be punished. We want to get rid of grey areas not bring in more. The law should be about gaining an advantage, fuck intent or where your hand is, did you gain an advantage.

[Monkeys Fist 41337]

3 hours ago, Howmanheyman said:

 

He's definitely had a few. 

I reckon somewhere between 0 and 8. 

[RobinRobin 10705]

11 hours ago, Howmanheyman said:

 

He's definitely had a few. 

But then again, too few to mention 

[The Fish 10430]

14 hours ago, Kevin Carr's Gloves said:

You can’t prove intent hundreds of handballs would not be punished. We want to get rid of grey areas not bring in more. The law should be about gaining an advantage, fuck intent or where your hand is, did you gain an advantage.

I see where you're coming from, but take Gordon's one as an example. It could be argued he didn't gain an advantage because his hand was actually knocking the ball out, or he did gain an advantage because it kept the ball closer to him and therefore easier to keep possession.

[Dr Gloom 21304]

14 hours ago, Kevin Carr's Gloves said:

You can’t prove intent hundreds of handballs would not be punished. We want to get rid of grey areas not bring in more. The law should be about gaining an advantage, fuck intent or where your hand is, did you gain an advantage.

I dunno. Feels like it was more straightforward when the question was: did the player deliberately handle the ball to gain an advantage? Ball to hand, when the player doesn’t know anything about it, shouldn’t be penalised.
 

Some decisions would still be debated because it is subjective but you could use some pretty basic criteria: did the player know anything about it? did the hand move towards the ball? Was the ball blasted at the player from short range or did he see it coming and have time to move his hand out of the way? Etc 

 

If the ref has a howler on any of the above the VAR nobs can intervene