The key difference between those incidents, and the Luiz Diaz one, is that the Diaz one is objective - it’s either offside, or, onside.
The others were a judgement - did Bowen commit a foul? Did Willock commit a foul?
I normally take on board what Gallagher says,although i don’t always agree but in this case something seems a bit off with what he has said today.I haven’t been able to find the full version of ref watch to go over it again but speaking about our games he says he asked what happened and was told by someone(i presume in pgmol) the flow of what happened,yet speaking later in the segment about another game i’m fairly certain he says he listened to the ref/var conversation of that other game.If he can listen to the conversation on another game then why not on ours.
I’ve seen some of it, and he really had the look of man eating a shit.
Dear Gary Neville,
You are an idiot. Please shut-up.
Regards,
TAN
6 Likes
His heart is in the right place. Refereeing is difficult, and the abuse they take is way over the top, at all levels of football. So careful scrutiny needs to be done. That’s the angle he is now probably going for.
Neville is the most known football pundit in the premier league, so his words carry a lot of sway over many casual fans. So he can, and should, also use his platform to ask for transparency.
But by this tweet, he is now trying to stem this talk about poor refereeing - he is playing the role of the quintessential useful idiot.
In the 1930s, Gary Neville would be the naïve and credulous person in the west with a huge following, using his platform to argue that the starvation of millions in Ukraine is bad and something needs to be done, but it’s not the fault of the Soviets. So keep the status quo.
TLDR Gary Neville is an idiot
3 Likes
To someone wholly unfamiliar with the feasibility of such a thing, it sounds like they’re preparing to get litigious…
Funny that you’re using the Soviets as an example, not the more obvious example. Kudos for avoiding Godwin’s Law (and sorry for invoking it) though.
If the FA or PGMOL have been dismissing sitting around the table in the past to thrash out explanations because of their arrogance… Looks like they got no other choice but to do so, and smartish, this time round - Keep the pressure on them LFC
1 Like
There was a case a few years ago where the MHRC challenged the PGMOL’s position arguing that the refs were employees not independent contractors and lost. You would think there would still be very strict COI rules in place to avoid this sort of freelancing that produces such bad options though
EDIT: As I see RER has also pointed out
You have Spurs fans arguing its not about intent but outcome. Yet the outcome of the tackle on Gapko is going to be several weeks to months out with an injury and YB played the whole game.
The arguments being made ARE very definitely bad. But the red for Jones is still defensible given the way YB’s bent with this being something the refs specifically for in determining excessive force. The Gapko incident is different because it was carelessness of his trailing leg not excessive force that caused that issue.
This incident had nothing to do with England. He was prevented from applying VAR because of a blind spot in the calibrated cameras. A pathetic outcome no doubt, but not one caused by the people in the VAR booth.
Just an utterly diabolical decision, and likely part of the same gut feeling/vibes nonsense that saw the refs respond to the Wolves penalty appeal by saying “we dont give those, that’s just a coming together.”
Excessive force has nothing to do with being careless in nature, both challenges were careless as neither had intent.
For me using excessive force, with that kind of contact on Bissouma would have resulted in the player leaving the field of play injured, which happened to Cody, btw I don’t even think it was a foul on Cody never mind a yellow.
As I said Jones was on his feet, his challenge played the ball and was low and it was only the contact on the ball that caused his foot to ride over and cause the stud contact.
Accidents happen and in the work place when accidents happen they always look at why accidents happen, whereas in this circumstance they just looked at the freeze frame last photo of the contact to ascertain the decision and not the how and why
I don’t know what you’re trying to say, but to clarify why I used those terms its because they are, respectively, (part of) the standards in the rules as to whether a challenge is a red or yellow card. Often applicable even when the tackle is otherwise fair. The relevance to Jones is the refs will view a challenge that results in the player’s leg being bent by the impact as defacto being done with excessive force.
Turncoats…somethings turned their heads…frightened of sticking up for LFC…
Looks like it’s a house of cards they’re all desperately trying to keep up. Integrity of the game at stake, and hence all their jobs. Keeping the illusion of their perfect Premier League wonderland
What business is it to the journos and pundits what course of action we take?
If we want to request the audio recording after they’ve admitted a mistake then we’re well within our rights to do that. What are they scared we’re gonna hear? The sound of Neville making sex noises or something?
1 Like
Protecting the “Greatest show on earth”.
FIFY
5 Likes