Not sure I totally agree with that, but you can’t compare it to the Azpi situation I’d say.
Only reason that got reviewed to start with was because it was a goal. If Krul had the ball and Giroud ran into him to dislodge it, then it’s the right call 🤷♂️
Not sure I totally agree with that, but you can’t compare it to the Azpi situation I’d say.
Only reason that got reviewed to start with was because it was a goal. If Krul had the ball and Giroud ran into him to dislodge it, then it’s the right call 🤷♂️
Of course you can compare it to the Azpi situation. It’s a possible penalty that is reviewable by VAR. Azpi is kicked in the leg and goes down. Maybe the ref misses it, but surely VAR doesn’t...
Not sure I totally agree with that, but you can’t compare it to the Azpi situation I’d say.
Only reason that got reviewed to start with was because it was a goal. If Krul had the ball and Giroud ran into him to dislodge it, then it’s the right call 🤷♂️
Of course you can compare it to the Azpi situation. It’s a possible penalty that is reviewable by VAR. Azpi is kicked in the leg and goes down. Maybe the ref misses it, but surely VAR doesn’t...
For me I didn’t think there was enough there. Might have been the same thing with VAR, not enough evidence to say for sure.
Do feel the Zouma goal getting overturned was a bit rough, but again if Krul had the ball before Giroud ran into him than it’s the right call 🤷♂️
I'm all for VAR. No doubt when used correctly it makes a much fairer game. Inconsistincies with VAR definitely need looked into and CLEAR guidelines need to be written. Not guidelines that promote ambiguity.
Great result, we needed to win today. Still a lot of work to be done but the second half was a massive improvement. We controlled the game while looking dangerous & secure in defence which is something we've struggled with.
Not sure I totally agree with that, but you can’t compare it to the Azpi situation I’d say.
Only reason that got reviewed to start with was because it was a goal. If Krul had the ball and Giroud ran into him to dislodge it, then it’s the right call 🤷♂️
Of course you can compare it to the Azpi situation. It’s a possible penalty that is reviewable by VAR. Azpi is kicked in the leg and goes down. Maybe the ref misses it, but surely VAR doesn’t...
For me I didn’t think there was enough there. Might have been the same thing with VAR, not enough evidence to say for sure.
Do feel the Zouma goal getting overturned was a bit rough, but again if Krul had the ball before Giroud ran into him than it’s the right call 🤷♂️
@Wyojasond The ref saw the Zouma incident clearly so VAR shouldn't have been challenging the decision, also if you watch it back Giroud doesn't commit a foul. Giroud has every right to be in that position, as did Krul. Keepers get far too much protection.
There's no way the ref could of seen what happened with Azpi clearly due to how quickly it happened and the nature of the challenge. VAR then didn't award a penalty as the foul didn't meet a certain threshold. Its either a foul or not in this situation. The idea of using a threshold is plain stupid. How can you judge where a threshold ends and how is that clear for anyone involved or watching!?
With regards to the stamp on Moult, I don't believe the ref saw it clearly, so VAR has to step in. Whether that was intentional and deserves a red or yellow is up for debate but definitely needs reviewed. Personally I believe he left his foot in there intentionally and a red should be shown.
Then there's the foul on Abraham in the build up to Norwich's goal that VAR didn't get involved in due to it being part of another attacking play. What a load of nonsense, a foul is a foul. And anyway just because Norwich moved the ball backwards once, how can you say that was the attacking play ending!?
Not sure I totally agree with that, but you can’t compare it to the Azpi situation I’d say.
Only reason that got reviewed to start with was because it was a goal. If Krul had the ball and Giroud ran into him to dislodge it, then it’s the right call 🤷♂️
Of course you can compare it to the Azpi situation. It’s a possible penalty that is reviewable by VAR. Azpi is kicked in the leg and goes down. Maybe the ref misses it, but surely VAR doesn’t...
For me I didn’t think there was enough there. Might have been the same thing with VAR, not enough evidence to say for sure.
Do feel the Zouma goal getting overturned was a bit rough, but again if Krul had the ball before Giroud ran into him than it’s the right call 🤷♂️
@Wyojasond The ref saw the Zouma incident clearly so VAR shouldn't have been challenging the decision, also if you watch it back Giroud doesn't commit a foul. Giroud has every right to be in that position, as did Krul. Keepers get far too much protection.
There's no way the ref could of seen what happened with Azpi clearly due to how quickly it happened and the nature of the challenge. VAR then didn't award a penalty as the foul didn't meet a certain threshold. Its either a foul or not in this situation. The idea of using a threshold is plain stupid. How can you judge where a threshold ends and how is that clear for anyone involved or watching!?
With regards to the stamp on Moult, I don't believe the ref saw it clearly, so VAR has to step in. Whether that was intentional and deserves a red or yellow is up for debate but definitely needs reviewed. Personally I believe he left his foot in there intentionally and a red should be shown.
Then there's the foul on Abraham in the build up to Norwich's goal that VAR didn't get involved in due to it being part of another attacking play. What a load of nonsense, a foul is a foul. And anyway just because Norwich moved the ball backwards once, how can you say that was the attacking play ending!?
VAR reviews every goal. Whether the ref sees something or not.
Giroud has the right to be there for sure, but VAR makes the right call because Krul catches the ball and then is ran into by Giroud....that’s a foul leading to the goal. Just like the handball called on City.
Again not VARs fault there. They are just following the rules.
Not sure I totally agree with that, but you can’t compare it to the Azpi situation I’d say.
Only reason that got reviewed to start with was because it was a goal. If Krul had the ball and Giroud ran into him to dislodge it, then it’s the right call 🤷♂️
Of course you can compare it to the Azpi situation. It’s a possible penalty that is reviewable by VAR. Azpi is kicked in the leg and goes down. Maybe the ref misses it, but surely VAR doesn’t...
For me I didn’t think there was enough there. Might have been the same thing with VAR, not enough evidence to say for sure.
Do feel the Zouma goal getting overturned was a bit rough, but again if Krul had the ball before Giroud ran into him than it’s the right call 🤷♂️
@Wyojasond The ref saw the Zouma incident clearly so VAR shouldn't have been challenging the decision, also if you watch it back Giroud doesn't commit a foul. Giroud has every right to be in that position, as did Krul. Keepers get far too much protection.
There's no way the ref could of seen what happened with Azpi clearly due to how quickly it happened and the nature of the challenge. VAR then didn't award a penalty as the foul didn't meet a certain threshold. Its either a foul or not in this situation. The idea of using a threshold is plain stupid. How can you judge where a threshold ends and how is that clear for anyone involved or watching!?
With regards to the stamp on Moult, I don't believe the ref saw it clearly, so VAR has to step in. Whether that was intentional and deserves a red or yellow is up for debate but definitely needs reviewed. Personally I believe he left his foot in there intentionally and a red should be shown.
Then there's the foul on Abraham in the build up to Norwich's goal that VAR didn't get involved in due to it being part of another attacking play. What a load of nonsense, a foul is a foul. And anyway just because Norwich moved the ball backwards once, how can you say that was the attacking play ending!?
VAR reviews every goal. Whether the ref sees something or not.
Giroud has the right to be there for sure, but VAR makes the right call because Krul catches the ball and then is ran into by Giroud....that’s a foul leading to the goal. Just like the handball called on City.
Again not VARs fault there. They are just following the rules.
@Wyojasond fair enough about VAR reviewing every goal. Wasn't so sure on that.
I don't believe Giroud runs into Krul though. I would say Krul actually jumps into him. Look at the direction of Krul's jump, he's going to hit Giroud no matter what Giroud does. Giroud makes no intention of trying to knock the keeper or the ball. Both had the right to do what they did in that situation. So overall no foul in my opinion.
Not sure I totally agree with that, but you can’t compare it to the Azpi situation I’d say.
Only reason that got reviewed to start with was because it was a goal. If Krul had the ball and Giroud ran into him to dislodge it, then it’s the right call 🤷♂️
Of course you can compare it to the Azpi situation. It’s a possible penalty that is reviewable by VAR. Azpi is kicked in the leg and goes down. Maybe the ref misses it, but surely VAR doesn’t...
For me I didn’t think there was enough there. Might have been the same thing with VAR, not enough evidence to say for sure.
Do feel the Zouma goal getting overturned was a bit rough, but again if Krul had the ball before Giroud ran into him than it’s the right call 🤷♂️
@Wyojasond The ref saw the Zouma incident clearly so VAR shouldn't have been challenging the decision, also if you watch it back Giroud doesn't commit a foul. Giroud has every right to be in that position, as did Krul. Keepers get far too much protection.
There's no way the ref could of seen what happened with Azpi clearly due to how quickly it happened and the nature of the challenge. VAR then didn't award a penalty as the foul didn't meet a certain threshold. Its either a foul or not in this situation. The idea of using a threshold is plain stupid. How can you judge where a threshold ends and how is that clear for anyone involved or watching!?
With regards to the stamp on Moult, I don't believe the ref saw it clearly, so VAR has to step in. Whether that was intentional and deserves a red or yellow is up for debate but definitely needs reviewed. Personally I believe he left his foot in there intentionally and a red should be shown.
Then there's the foul on Abraham in the build up to Norwich's goal that VAR didn't get involved in due to it being part of another attacking play. What a load of nonsense, a foul is a foul. And anyway just because Norwich moved the ball backwards once, how can you say that was the attacking play ending!?
VAR reviews every goal. Whether the ref sees something or not.
Giroud has the right to be there for sure, but VAR makes the right call because Krul catches the ball and then is ran into by Giroud....that’s a foul leading to the goal. Just like the handball called on City.
Again not VARs fault there. They are just following the rules.
@Wyojasond fair enough about VAR reviewing every goal. Wasn't so sure on that.
I don't believe Giroud runs into Krul though. I would say Krul actually jumps into him. Look at the direction of Krul's jump, he's going to hit Giroud no matter what Giroud does. Giroud makes no intention of trying to knock the keeper or the ball. Both had the right to do what they did in that situation. So overall no foul in my opinion.
I agree to an extent but that’s the rule. Can’t dislodge the ball from the keeper once he’s caught it.
As frustrating as VAR has been for some, they have been the right calls. The penalty calls seem to be the most judged calls thus far. I have a feeling we won’t see it used much for that except for obvious missed red cards 🤷♂️
Not sure I totally agree with that, but you can’t compare it to the Azpi situation I’d say.
Only reason that got reviewed to start with was because it was a goal. If Krul had the ball and Giroud ran into him to dislodge it, then it’s the right call 🤷♂️
Of course you can compare it to the Azpi situation. It’s a possible penalty that is reviewable by VAR. Azpi is kicked in the leg and goes down. Maybe the ref misses it, but surely VAR doesn’t...
For me I didn’t think there was enough there. Might have been the same thing with VAR, not enough evidence to say for sure.
Do feel the Zouma goal getting overturned was a bit rough, but again if Krul had the ball before Giroud ran into him than it’s the right call 🤷♂️
@Wyojasond The ref saw the Zouma incident clearly so VAR shouldn't have been challenging the decision, also if you watch it back Giroud doesn't commit a foul. Giroud has every right to be in that position, as did Krul. Keepers get far too much protection.
There's no way the ref could of seen what happened with Azpi clearly due to how quickly it happened and the nature of the challenge. VAR then didn't award a penalty as the foul didn't meet a certain threshold. Its either a foul or not in this situation. The idea of using a threshold is plain stupid. How can you judge where a threshold ends and how is that clear for anyone involved or watching!?
With regards to the stamp on Moult, I don't believe the ref saw it clearly, so VAR has to step in. Whether that was intentional and deserves a red or yellow is up for debate but definitely needs reviewed. Personally I believe he left his foot in there intentionally and a red should be shown.
Then there's the foul on Abraham in the build up to Norwich's goal that VAR didn't get involved in due to it being part of another attacking play. What a load of nonsense, a foul is a foul. And anyway just because Norwich moved the ball backwards once, how can you say that was the attacking play ending!?
VAR reviews every goal. Whether the ref sees something or not.
Giroud has the right to be there for sure, but VAR makes the right call because Krul catches the ball and then is ran into by Giroud....that’s a foul leading to the goal. Just like the handball called on City.
Again not VARs fault there. They are just following the rules.
@Wyojasond fair enough about VAR reviewing every goal. Wasn't so sure on that.
I don't believe Giroud runs into Krul though. I would say Krul actually jumps into him. Look at the direction of Krul's jump, he's going to hit Giroud no matter what Giroud does. Giroud makes no intention of trying to knock the keeper or the ball. Both had the right to do what they did in that situation. So overall no foul in my opinion.
I agree to an extent but that’s the rule. Can’t dislodge the ball from the keeper once he’s caught it.
As frustrating as VAR has been for some, they have been the right calls. The penalty calls seem to be the most judged calls thus far. I have a feeling we won’t see it used much for that except for obvious missed red cards 🤷♂️
@Wyojasond I don't believe Giroud dislodges it though, it's Krul's movement towards him that does.
Guess this conversation just shows how hard these decisions can be to call even with the use of VAR.
Definitely needs to be clearer guidelines though that remove ambigouity (talking with regards to the Azpi situation here rather than the Giroud one.)
Personally I'm all for VAR. When used correctly and competently then it definitely makes a fairer game.
Rated E For Everyone.
Comments
Not sure which match you are watching
Only reason that got reviewed to start with was because it was a goal. If Krul had the ball and Giroud ran into him to dislodge it, then it’s the right call 🤷♂️
This match has showed how it can affect matches if when not used correctly, it may as well not be there.
Of course you can compare it to the Azpi situation. It’s a possible penalty that is reviewable by VAR. Azpi is kicked in the leg and goes down. Maybe the ref misses it, but surely VAR doesn’t...
Are you seriously acting like every team in the world doesn’t do this?
Fixed it for you
For me I didn’t think there was enough there. Might have been the same thing with VAR, not enough evidence to say for sure.
Do feel the Zouma goal getting overturned was a bit rough, but again if Krul had the ball before Giroud ran into him than it’s the right call 🤷♂️
Mount appreciation post too. He's the real deal.
@Wyojasond The ref saw the Zouma incident clearly so VAR shouldn't have been challenging the decision, also if you watch it back Giroud doesn't commit a foul. Giroud has every right to be in that position, as did Krul. Keepers get far too much protection.
There's no way the ref could of seen what happened with Azpi clearly due to how quickly it happened and the nature of the challenge. VAR then didn't award a penalty as the foul didn't meet a certain threshold. Its either a foul or not in this situation. The idea of using a threshold is plain stupid. How can you judge where a threshold ends and how is that clear for anyone involved or watching!?
With regards to the stamp on Moult, I don't believe the ref saw it clearly, so VAR has to step in. Whether that was intentional and deserves a red or yellow is up for debate but definitely needs reviewed. Personally I believe he left his foot in there intentionally and a red should be shown.
Then there's the foul on Abraham in the build up to Norwich's goal that VAR didn't get involved in due to it being part of another attacking play. What a load of nonsense, a foul is a foul. And anyway just because Norwich moved the ball backwards once, how can you say that was the attacking play ending!?
VAR reviews every goal. Whether the ref sees something or not.
Giroud has the right to be there for sure, but VAR makes the right call because Krul catches the ball and then is ran into by Giroud....that’s a foul leading to the goal. Just like the handball called on City.
Again not VARs fault there. They are just following the rules.
@Wyojasond fair enough about VAR reviewing every goal. Wasn't so sure on that.
I don't believe Giroud runs into Krul though. I would say Krul actually jumps into him. Look at the direction of Krul's jump, he's going to hit Giroud no matter what Giroud does. Giroud makes no intention of trying to knock the keeper or the ball. Both had the right to do what they did in that situation. So overall no foul in my opinion.
I agree to an extent but that’s the rule. Can’t dislodge the ball from the keeper once he’s caught it.
As frustrating as VAR has been for some, they have been the right calls. The penalty calls seem to be the most judged calls thus far. I have a feeling we won’t see it used much for that except for obvious missed red cards 🤷♂️
@Wyojasond I don't believe Giroud dislodges it though, it's Krul's movement towards him that does.
Guess this conversation just shows how hard these decisions can be to call even with the use of VAR.
Definitely needs to be clearer guidelines though that remove ambigouity (talking with regards to the Azpi situation here rather than the Giroud one.)
Personally I'm all for VAR. When used correctly and competently then it definitely makes a fairer game.
I’ve always said that top 4 is a real possibility for us
You gonna keep this agent **** up all season? 😴
Agents Bertrand and Romeu up next
I like Kovacic, I hope he has a great season!