Two crucial differences. The first is that we’re winning 2-0. The second is that it’s the 93rd minute. It should be a foul and a red but ultimately it’s not changing the outcome of the game.
Plenty of people have taken issue with the decisions that went against us in that game. But arguing a decision that the ref clearly got right was actually wrong doesn’t really help anyone. It makes people appear blinkered rather than having a balanced view.
Very hard to tell the right time sequence as it’s edited highlights, but there doesn’t appear to be any disgust until he realises it’s not a foul? Or maybe it’s the card? But he’s only just got up from hitting the deck and tossed the ball so ref would need to have been very quick with the card - there is about 2 seconds from the ball toss to the look of disgust.
(Gah timestamp lost as it makes you go to YouTube - 78 seconds or 1 minute 18).
There’s that word again, ‘blinkered’.
The thing that confuses it for me is that 999 times out of a 1000 in these DOGSO red cards the foul comes after a defender is beaten. It is the foul that takes away the opportunity. In fact I genuinely dont think I’ve ever seen another red card situation like this one where there is no clear opportunity prior to the foul. If people think the distinction doesnt matter then fair enough but I think most people, including the ref are not even considering the distinction. It was notable to me how quickly he took out his red card, with no time at all for deliberation, which I think is indicative of bad refereeing in what is a somewhat unusual situation.
As for the distinction, I already described a thought experiment that I think illustrates why it has to be a consideration. Imagine we are chasing the game and send everyone up for a corner except 1 defender who is left to cover the 1 striker they leave up. They defend the corner well and hit a long ball up to the striker. He has his back to goal and attempts to hold off the defender to bring the ball down on his chest. The defender challenges for it but the ref calls it a foul for hands in the back. They are 10 yards inside our half and we dont have another defender within 20 yards of the incident. According to this reading of the rule we’d have to now imagine what that striker could do if we completely removed the defender from our scenario and determine that he’d then be able to bring the ball down unopposed, turn and run in on goal unopposed. So the defender has to go. Does that seem the right decision to you? I cannot imagine too many people would think so.
Thinly veiled insult, that word.
Blinkered means not agreeing with the narrative that it all evens out.
[ bling-kerd ]SHOW IPA
adjective
Firstly
It’s a red for Lascelles irrespective of the time in the match. The non decision means no suspension for him. No surprise there.
Secondly the “clearly got right” decision with Virgil isn’t as clear as you are saying.
Plenty of non blinkered people are questioning whether its a foul, whether its a goal scoring opportunity, whether its a red card offense.
You saying it is doesn’t make it so, its open for discussion. Constantly seeing things as equitable is short sighted ( blinkered isn’t a nice description)
Oh good lord, the commentary: “it’s outside the box. It should be a free kick”. No you dipshit. It’s also a red card. I guess thats Mcmanaman?
With all the last man back calls that could and should be made each season, its just so incredibly fucking frustrating that this implementation of it is the hill that the ref’s want to die on.
Fuck them and damn them to hell. (I’m not a believer so its not offensive so there).
We have truly turned from the game being related to the working class or the masses.
The SKY Sanitisation of football is complete.
Please behave like cricketers.
Dont swear Virgil, not the done thing old boy.
Anyone know when VVD’s hearing is?
I think in that case I’d place the cunt at the door of the media. It revealed how much of a bad faith actor they are in the discourse over ref decisions. They banged on every week about the need for consistency, always ignoring small but important differences between different incidents that justifiably mean they have different outcomes. So the authorities responded by changing the guidance to ensure more consistency. The flip side of that coin is less room for judgement and using “common sense”. It is a necessary trade off. Yet the second the interpretation was changed the same shitbags were up un arms about being given exactly what they’d been demanding and winding up the public about not getting.
Like we get every season, a few shit calls against us, we wait to see if they will be consistent through the season, then they change the fucking rules mid season because they don’t want the game to go in that direction. Think the dodgy handball calls a couple of seasons ago where they changed the implementation a few weeks after we got fucked over by their calls. Cunts.
I think most of us can see how one of these calls can be a red, or not a red. But there is no consistency, no transparency, nothing. Mostly, we know we’ll get a retired ref a couple of years later saying in an interview “hahaha! Yeah I got that wrong. And the VAR at the time popped out to the loo and so we all pretended that the VAR had checked it! Har har har har. What a laugh that was!”
You perpetuate a horrible stereotype. Because the working class are all animals? Pitiful. If you don’t swear you’re not working class? If you’re working class you can’t act with grace, sportsmanship and class? The concept of acting with decorum is beyond the working class? The common man? I’ve read some nonsense on here over the years but you can have a trophy for this:
I am not sure how overt racism would help?
It’s like Fox News claiming Trump just helped himself with the black vote by getting arrested because they can all related to that 
Perfect
Lets collect our trophies together.
You get two…
One for deliberately misconstruing my post. You are a master of that.
And the second for comparing the passion of football with cricket.
Ever played either? I do, regularly. The difference is that cricketers don’t swear at the umpire.
You never answered any of my points and I quoted YOUR words directly. That can’t be misconstrued.
Yes I played both.
No such undertones intended.