Football 2022/23

[Gnomicide]

Great end to the match last night. Nothing better than getting a late, late winner against a team that have been time-wasting from the 3rd minute onwards. 

Liverpool still far from firing on all cylinders yet though, Henderson now added to the list of injured midfielders nut hopefully we'll get a few back over the next couple of weeks.

[WS_Jack_III]

16 hours ago, Gnomicide said:

Great end to the match last night. Nothing better than getting a late, late winner against a team that have been time-wasting from the 3rd minute onwards. 

Liverpool still far from firing on all cylinders yet though, Henderson now added to the list of injured midfielders nut hopefully we'll get a few back over the next couple of weeks.

😅 all you Liverpool fans banging on about time wasting, supposedly it was the 9th most active game this season so far. You just didn't like it because little old Newcastle took you to the wire and the officials had to dig you out. Even with the supposed "time wasting" there's no way there should have been over 9 minutes of stoppage time across the game.

 

oh and the mackem took over a minute to get off the pitch when he was subbed 🤔

[Gnomicide]

6 hours ago, WS_Jack_III said:

😅 all you Liverpool fans banging on about time wasting, supposedly it was the 9th most active game this season so far. You just didn't like it because little old Newcastle took you to the wire and the officials had to dig you out. Even with the supposed "time wasting" there's no way there should have been over 9 minutes of stoppage time across the game.

 

oh and the mackem took over a minute to get off the pitch when he was subbed 🤔

There's a reason they say minimum of x minutes added time. It's decided a few minutes before full time. 

5 minutes rightly added on, yet another player sitting down because he's supposedly got cramp, keeper being "treated" for 90 seconds for his pretend injury, taking an age for the goal kick, rolling extra balls on to disrupt play... then the ball goes for a corner at 6 minutes 50 added on. The only thing the ref got right all game and people are saying he's corrupt. Laughable.

"Little old Newcastle" 😄 You were playing a £60m striker 

[charlierc]

So I didn't see the game live but what annoyed me was that more than 3 Twitter accounts I saw to keep up with things declared that the game had ended, so seeing Tweets then turning up saying Liverpool winner did feel like two different conversations going on at once. I mean, by all means, add some on if need be but 2 1/2 minutes, so extending injury time by 50%, feels excessive.

Irritating, but it's Anfield. It's usually somewhere that has a sting in the tail for Newcastle. Least at the Etihad or Emirates we just usually have a shit afternoon.

A point would've been a decent result given the absences of 4 players that would be at least challenging for starting berths, but alas, for not. Boo. And I'm not arsed about Liverpool fans booing us off. Honestly think it's better than a sympathy applause off the pitch for Bournemouth after their slightly more one-sided game at Anfield the previous weekend.

Oh well. If we beat Palace tomorrow, still got more points at this stage of the season than I thought we'd have.

[WS_Jack_III]

14 hours ago, Gnomicide said:

There's a reason they say minimum of x minutes added time. It's decided a few minutes before full time. 

5 minutes rightly added on, yet another player sitting down because he's supposedly got cramp, keeper being "treated" for 90 seconds for his pretend injury, taking an age for the goal kick, rolling extra balls on to disrupt play... then the ball goes for a corner at 6 minutes 50 added on. The only thing the ref got right all game and people are saying he's corrupt. Laughable.

"Little old Newcastle" 😄 You were playing a £60m striker 

90 seconds added on top of the 5 minutes, do the maths buddy. Goal went in after 97. Everyone knows if that had been anyone else, the ref would have blown full time when the ball went out for the corner.

[pink_triangle]

11 hours ago, WS_Jack_III said:

90 seconds added on top of the 5 minutes, do the maths buddy. Goal went in after 97. Everyone knows if that had been anyone else, the ref would have blown full time when the ball went out for the corner.

It's hard to have any sympathy for teams who waste time. The trouble is sometimes the team who spend the whole game wasting time go behind and benefit from having the extra time to catch up.

[WS_Jack_III]

Looks like Newcastle were cheated again.

 

 

 

 

Edited September 3, 2022 by WS_Jack_III

[charlierc]

It's a genuine toss-up between that or the West Ham equaliser ruled out for a "foul" by Bowen on Mendy for the worst call of the day, and there have been some doozies.

In tandem, the fact I saw Palace fans Tweeting they'd got away with one for Mitchell pushing Willock into the keeper and Chelsea fans saying Mendy was lucky hints the system has had a breakdown today.

I can accept we didn't help ourselves - 23 shots, no goals (although Palace getting no goals from 19 of their own indicates a mutual inability to finish chances) - while Wilson, Bruno and Saint-Maximin can't come back soon enough. But having that coming off the back of Isak's disallowed goal at Anfield that looked similar to goals that have been allowed is a pretty irritating double whammy.

(Not to labour the point but that goal annoyed me more than the timewasting arguments. If it stands and we go 2-0 up, less reason to engage in such dark arts)

Edited September 3, 2022 by charlierc

[charlierc]

On 9/3/2022 at 5:32 PM, WS_Jack_III said:

Looks like Newcastle were cheated again.

 

 

 

 

So the PGMOL have conceded that both this decision and the one that saw West Ham's 90th minute equaliser at Stamford Bridge ruled out were incorrect... doesn't exactly help out either of our causes now though.

Maybe it's us. Maybe we all overhyped VAR as something that would fix bad refereeing forever when really it's a piece of technology that's only as good as the operators of it.

[Neil]

16 minutes ago, charlierc said:

Maybe it's us. Maybe we all overhyped VAR as something that would fix bad refereeing forever when really it's a piece of technology that's only as good as the operators of it.

if you thought var would resolve the controversial decisions, then what football is had passed you by.

[charlierc]

16 minutes ago, Neil said:

if you thought var would resolve the controversial decisions, then what football is had passed you by.

Well obviously it hasn't ended the ability of football referees to make controversial decisions and if anything it has created new ways to reach them. In theory you could perfectly referee games but so much of it is tied up in subjective calls and in any case, the system is only good as whomever is using it.

[WS_Jack_III]

1 hour ago, Neil said:

if you thought var would resolve the controversial decisions, then what football is had passed you by.

I was a huge advocate for the introduction of technology in the Prem but unfortunately the standard of officiating in our country is appalling. It's the people operating it that are ruining the game. 

 

It's either that, or there's corruption going on or a mix of the two.

[pink_triangle]

To me it's not just the officiating, but the technology gives a level of perfection that isn't needed and nobody was asking for.

Look at some of these marginal offsides and these type of goals were not causing controversy in the pre VAR era. In this respect they have created a solution for a problem that didn't exist and made the game worse.

[Neil]

6 hours ago, WS_Jack_III said:

I was a huge advocate for the introduction of technology in the Prem but unfortunately the standard of officiating in our country is appalling. It's the people operating it that are ruining the game. 

 

It's either that, or there's corruption going on or a mix of the two.

Most offences are subjective var would never have resolved that 

[Neil]

the glazers are touting nan utd to middle east despots.

[thetime]

11 hours ago, Neil said:

the glazers are touting nan utd to middle east despots.

Reports are jim ratcliffe is more likely.

[Neil]

2 hours ago, thetime said:

Reports are jim ratcliffe is more likely.

I know he's asset rich but is he cash rich? 

[charlierc]

On 9/5/2022 at 5:22 PM, Neil said:

the glazers are touting nan utd to middle east despots.

Wouldn't be new tbf. They tried to sell them to the Saudis before they went for a different project.

[Gnomicide]

Tuchel sacked!

Blimey.

[The Nal]

Wow that's mental

[TheGayTent]

All the Chelsea fans I know haven’t been happy with team selection and tactics for a long time. Add the fact that it appears he’s now got a number of senior players unhappy with his management it’s not all that surprising. 

[The Nal]

Graham Potter though?

[Neil]

2 hours ago, Gnomicide said:

Tuchel sacked!

Blimey.

SAME AS WITH BOURNMOUTH, MANAGER SLAGGING OFF THE SQUAD.

[thetime]

50 minutes ago, The Nal said:

Graham Potter though?

Should wait for the England job next summer.

I'd imagine poch will be a strong candidate for Chelsea. 

[Skip997]

On 9/5/2022 at 5:22 PM, Neil said:

the glazers are touting nan utd to middle east despots.

And the slow death of football continues.

I've more or less given up, it's become pointless.