Premier League 2016/17 - General Discussion

[No Fixed Abode]

Football is a contact sport. Whenever players challenge for the ball they use their arms. Oscar could have run straight through it, he chose not to. Pathetic.

It is a contact sport, but (exaggeration here) you can't rugby tackle someone. He deliberately put his arms out to impeded Oscar. The fall might have been theatrical but there was contact.

So next time Countinho is clothes lined in the area by an arm it will be no penalty? Because arms are now allowed to be used to tackle according to you.

[Sanguine]

Football is a contact sport. Whenever players challenge for the ball they use their arms. Oscar could have run straight through it, he chose not to. Pathetic.

It is a contact sport, but (exaggeration here) you can't rugby tackle someone. He deliberately put his arms out to impeded Oscar. The fall might have been theatrical but there was contact.

So next time Countinho is clothes lined in the area by an arm it will be no penalty? Because arms are now allowed to be used to tackle according to you.

You're being ridiculous. To suggest Oscar was 'clothes-lined' is silly - had he been flattened by the arm it would have been a stonewall penalty. As it was he 'got a touch' and went down like a massive fanny. Like he did a couple of seasons back when through on goal too.

I didn't realise you thought any contact was a foul. Noted.

[No Fixed Abode]

I never said Oscar was clothes lined but you did say you're allowed to use arms to tackle now

[Sanguine]

I never said Oscar was clothes lined but you did say you're allowed to use arms to tackle now

Interesting technique you have if you don't use your arms when playing football.
You almost admitted Oscar is a diving child there. Almost.

[No Fixed Abode]

I never said Oscar was clothes lined but you did say you're allowed to use arms to tackle now

Interesting technique you have if you don't use your arms when playing football.
You almost admitted Oscar is a diving child there. Almost.

Even Carra said it was a penalty.

[No Fixed Abode]

Another weekend of bizarre and poor refereeing decisions.

City penalty shouldn't have been given v Stoke. 6 of 1.....
Sterling one was very very soft
Blatant handball and penalty should have been awarded to Chelsea. (That's three clear pens in two games not given for Chelsea)
Linesman getting the Arter handball incorrect when it was right in front of him. No wonder Arter went a bit mental.

[John Smith]

...And Costa should have been sent off for flinging himself to the ground whilst on a booking

[John Madejski's Wallet]

...And Costa should have been sent off for flinging himself to the ground whilst on a booking

You don't need the second part. The rest can just be used for every single game

[genome]

Inspirational management from Moyes coming out and saying to Sunderland fans to expect a relegation battle this year, after the second game of the season.

[6ft Kerplunk]

tbf that's two games later than everyone else.

[Stranded]

Another weekend of bizarre and poor refereeing decisions.

City penalty shouldn't have been given v Stoke. 6 of 1.....
Sterling one was very very soft
Blatant handball and penalty should have been awarded to Chelsea. (That's three clear pens in two games not given for Chelsea)
Linesman getting the Arter handball incorrect when it was right in front of him. No wonder Arter went a bit mental.

The first one wasn't 6 of 1 it was mainly Shawcross holding the guys arm - he even apologised after. And Sterling wasn't even looking at the ball. Neither of these would have been penalties last season but the players have told that this sort of defending would lead to penalties this season, so good to see Dean giving them. If the other refs to the same then the man-handling at corners etc will disappear and we might see a few more chances/goals from them.

Not seen the other two but if Arter did go mental at the lino then he got the card he deserved regardless of the decision.

[No Fixed Abode]

Another weekend of bizarre and poor refereeing decisions.

City penalty shouldn't have been given v Stoke. 6 of 1.....
Sterling one was very very soft
Blatant handball and penalty should have been awarded to Chelsea. (That's three clear pens in two games not given for Chelsea)
Linesman getting the Arter handball incorrect when it was right in front of him. No wonder Arter went a bit mental.

The first one wasn't 6 of 1 it was mainly Shawcross holding the guys arm - he even apologised after. And Sterling wasn't even looking at the ball. Neither of these would have been penalties last season but the players have told that this sort of defending would lead to penalties this season, so good to see Dean giving them. If the other refs to the same then the man-handling at corners etc will disappear and we might see a few more chances/goals from them.

Not seen the other two but if Arter did go mental at the lino then he got the card he deserved regardless of the decision.

Otamendi was clearly holding the shirt of Shawcross but from Dean's angle he couldn't see it. Both were holding so it was 6 of 1. Even most pundits agreed with this.

Sterling wasn't looking at the ball, you're correct. But that doesn't mean it's a foul. He barely touched Shawcross. Even Shawcross looked a bit bemused by the penalty decision. If Sterling had properly man handled him, I agree it should have been a pen, but he didn't - he barely brushed him.

[6ft Kerplunk]

Sterling wasn't looking at the ball, you're correct. But that doesn't mean it's a foul. He barely touched Shawcross.

But that's exactly the change in interpretation of the rule that has happened this season and the players all know about. If you're making no attempt to play the ball (and Sterling clearly wasn't) and put your hands on an opponent to stop him getting to the ball (and Sterling was doing this even if it was a feeble attempt) then you will get penalised.

[Stranded]

Sterling wasn't looking at the ball, you're correct. But that doesn't mean it's a foul. He barely touched Shawcross.

But that's exactly the change in interpretation of the rule that has happened this season and the players all know about. If you're making no attempt to play the ball (and Sterling clearly wasn't) and put your hands on an opponent to stop him getting to the ball (and Sterling was doing this even if it was a feeble attempt) then you will get penalised.

Exactly this.

You can argue about the weakness of it all day long but the players were told about it before the season started so to do it is idiotic. Especially after the ref has already shown he is clamping down on that sort of foul play earlier in the game.

[No Fixed Abode]

Sterling wasn't looking at the ball, you're correct. But that doesn't mean it's a foul. He barely touched Shawcross.

But that's exactly the change in interpretation of the rule that has happened this season and the players all know about. If you're making no attempt to play the ball (and Sterling clearly wasn't) and put your hands on an opponent to stop him getting to the ball (and Sterling was doing this even if it was a feeble attempt) then you will get penalised.

Sorry - the Sterling one for me was not a penalty. If he had impeded Shawcross more then I would agree. So from now on if a player isn't looking at the ball but keeping an eye on his man and is 'touch' tight - it's a free kick? The game would be forever stopping.

[Sanguine]

LOL @ NFA moaning about referees and not addressing the distinct possibility Costa might not have been on the pitch for either of his goals. I mean, he does it on purpose, I know. But why?

The directive on defending at corners and set-pieces is clear. Shawcross gets it and was frustrated at himself for the foul. Sterling's was a penalty too - it's not about marking your man and being 'touch tight', Sterling was simply playing the man and getting in his way.
I'd be even happier if this law was extended to cover the 'marking' of goalkeepers at corners to stop them coming to collect the ball.

Couldn't be happier that the likes of Arter are getting booked for dissent. There has been evidence in all the live games I've watched this season of a calmer and more restrained attitude towards referees, and that is very welcome.

[No Fixed Abode]

Yet even Dean Saunders and Kit Symons on GoS said it was 6 of 1 with Otamendi pulling the shirt of Shawcross. (I can see why this was given due to Deans view).

And they also disagreed with Deans decision to award a penalty against Sterling.

[Sanguine]

Yet even Dean Saunders and Kit Symons on GoS said it was 6 of 1 with Otamendi pulling the shirt of Shawcross. (I can see why this was given due to Deans view).

And they also disagreed with Deans decision to award a penalty against Sterling.

You make this point a lot.
'So-and-so said...'
It's all about opinions Kes, what is yours on the new rules? You can see how and why Dean has intepreted them in this way.
The message from that game is at corners and set pieces, don't foul your opponent, and challenge for the ball. That's a good thing, surely? It's not like no shirt-pulling is new to these players.

[No Fixed Abode]

Yet even Dean Saunders and Kit Symons on GoS said it was 6 of 1 with Otamendi pulling the shirt of Shawcross. (I can see why this was given due to Deans view).

And they also disagreed with Deans decision to award a penalty against Sterling.

You make this point a lot.
'So-and-so said...'
It's all about opinions Kes, what is yours on the new rules? You can see how and why Dean has intepreted them in this way.
The message from that game is at corners and set pieces, don't foul your opponent, and challenge for the ball. That's a good thing, surely? It's not like no shirt-pulling is new to these players.

But only last week you said football is a contact sport.

I think you're confused m8!

[Sanguine]

It is pal. But you've got to be pretty retarded to agree with wrestling attackers at corners when there is a specific directive to crack down on wrestling attackers at corners, right?