Forest vs PGMOL | Page 6 | Vital Football

Forest vs PGMOL

Polly 433 said:
But a goon that is correct. What’s known as a right goon.
Click to expand...
Its funny, but others insult folk here - in spite of being correct in their assertions - and they have people running to the mods and smashing the report button.

Alan Rogers insults Howard Webb, and he's lauded for it.

I suppose it stands to reason, given he's saying something nice about Forest.
It just seems a tad hypocritical...
 
We wouldn't be going down if we had played better and I think both Nuno and coops have held their hands up about our performances.

We also wouldn't be going down with better decisions being made so time for the PGMOL to put it's hand up but seeing as they won't; fuck it, let's make a scene and noise now. If we go down we will have missed our chance so now is the time to make our stand.
 
Isak earlier in the season. Could not be softer. Fray says it Murillo its actually Aina who "trips" him. (About a min in)


I hate the fact that is a pen, ridiculous, but then if that is the benchmark then Reynas is too.

Also look at Isak when he gets up - pretending like he has just taken a two footer from Kenny Burns.

Gallagher says not enough contact - well what about this one then? If the rules have changed as he suggests to allow more contact then that needs to be communicated and how is it fair changing part way through a season?

He also, as pointed out, is of no real use as does not want to critisise his colleagues.

It is a mess.
 
sherwood said:
Isak earlier in the season. Could not be softer. Fray says it Murillo its actually Aina who "trips" him. (About a min in)


I hate the fact that is a pen, ridiculous, but then if that is the benchmark then Reynas is too.

Also look at Isak when he gets up - pretending like he has just taken a two footer from Kenny Burns.

Gallagher says not enough contact - well what about this one then? If the rules have changed as he suggests to allow more contact then that needs to be communicated and how is it fair changing part way through a season?

He also, as pointed out, is of no real use as does not want to critisise his colleagues.

It is a mess.
Click to expand...
Not just the Reyna one, but the multitude of penalties we've had turned down. We've had more apologies than penalties this season. Even against Newcastle in the reverse fixture, Taiwo was brought down far worse than that Isak penalty and it was just waved away. The decisions have been absolutely, totally and utterly shambolic.

Fair play to Richard Keys noting other clubs (even Wolves) have had it bad, but that we're out on our own when it comes to being screwed by PGMOL and VAR. I'm not a huge fan of Keys more often than not, but thought the piece he wrote further up this thread was on the money and well written.
 
Coventry disallowed goal. A toe nail offside? The line goes over the United players boot. Williams saying penalty if top 6 side is what is causing panic at FA. Everyone knows they get all the calls but no one calls it. Finances or football just the same.
 
Pope John XXIII said:
Richard Key's blog

What else is there to say? You all saw it.

I know. I’m late. I’m sorry, but my problem was knowing where to start after what happened at Wembley this weekend - and I’m not just talking
richardajkeys.com richardajkeys.com

I’ve nothing but sympathy for Forest fans today. I know we haven’t always seen eye to eye, but I’m with you now. What a disgrace that was at Goodison. And not for one minute do I agree with Mssrs Jordan, Souness or Neville (Oh what selective memories some people have) that the club had no right to issue the statement that followed the game. Yes they did.

No team has suffered more from poor decisions this season than Forest. Wolves come close, followed by West Ham. Hold on…..I’d better stop there before I name them all. Fulham. Burnley. See what I mean?

No. After what I saw at Goodison, when I caught up on the weekend’s games, Forest are out on their own.

Let’s be generous - one of the decisions was debatable. But, in truth, all three were pens. And I’ve nothing against Everton, whose fans are both knowledgable and honest. They know, like United, they got away with one.

The reason I don’t have a problem with Forest’s statement is because I happen to know that they warned Howard Webb (showbiz showbiz showbiz) on Friday that appointing Stuart Attwell to VAR was asking for trouble. Attwell is a Luton fan.

That’s not news - we all know that now. Forest knew it on Friday and asked for Attwell to be removed - quietly and without going public. Good call. Why not?

Nobody at Forest was suggesting that Attwell would adversely affect the game. I don’t believe any ref ever sets out to make bad decisions, but there’s always the risk of a game turning out the way it did - with controversial decisions being made - and a stench to follow.

I’ve argued this so many times when Anthony Taylor gets games between Man City/United and Liverpool. Of course he won’t make bad decisions intentionally, but why run the risk of him making a genuine mistake that backfires on him? Why? It’s stupid. It’s also arrogant and stubborn for the PGMOL to continue this practice. It’s bitten them badly with Attwell. I feel for the guy. I really do. It’s not his fault, although you could argue that he should’ve recused himself.

Webb was fully aware of the dangers. He should’ve stood Attwell down. Referees wanted to play a bigger role on match days. They wanted to be professionals. They wanted to be taken seriously. Well with those things comes accountability and scrutiny. I’m sorry, but that’s how it is now. We all live in that world.

If the small number of us that keep asking questions and pointing out failings don’t keep up that work nothing will change. I’m with Forest on this one.
Click to expand...

Can't stand Richard Keys, but happy with his statement here.

I can understand Nuno & Neco, in their post match interviews, making comments when emotions run high - so, if Forest face punishment/fine - then, I'd hope so does Taylor/Attwell and we get compensated accordingly (victim surcharge style).

That said, the immediate tweet by Forest post match was childish and naive, the statement yesterday was much better - but, you have to wonder who actually sanctioned that original tweet?

Clattenburg, Cartledge etc were there, so it surely can't just be a lowly twitter admin taking the autonomous decision to post?

Whilst I don't disagree with the sentiment the wording was poorly chosen.
 
Chad_wtf said:
I think the club should release a video reel on social media, of all the shit decisions we have had to take up the ass!
Boly sending off
Liverpool game
Ivan toney moving the ball
Everton game.

Thats just off the top of my head, sure there are others.

Fully support what the club are doing,

Its not pretty, but we have tried working with the powers that be and doesn't seem to make any difference!
Click to expand...
It think you are going to find out that that is exactly what Clattenburg is putting together with commentary
 
LynxRed said:
It should just be drawn to the attackers leading foot. If a player's upper body is "offside" because they've anticipated/reacted to a through ball quicker and started to lean into the run, that's superb timing in my opinion. Provided the feet are onside then it's all good for me.
Click to expand...
Bit late to this debate as had to take wife shopping as her car is out of commission but wanted to put my twopenneth in.

The thing with the offside law is that it was designed to be judged by the naked eye, if someone looks level, they are level & are therefore on side. The law as it stands wasn't designed to be dissected forensically by todays technology. Personally I have no time for this line drawing which for me is just looking for a reason to disallow a goal which surely isn't the intention.

Someone much cleverer than me needs to reframe the law so that it can be judged by todays & future technologies yet still give the benefit of the doubt to the attacking player, a bit like umpires call in cricket. I've really no idea how this can be done but my feeling is that the law should revolve around the feet positions of players involved, the game is football so use the position of the feet
 
seasider red said:
Bit late to this debate as had to take wife shopping as her car is out of commission but wanted to put my twopenneth in.

The thing with the offside law is that it was designed to be judged by the naked eye, if someone looks level, they are level & are therefore on side. The law as it stands wasn't designed to be dissected forensically by todays technology. Personally I have no time for this line drawing which for me is just looking for a reason to disallow a goal which surely isn't the intention.

Someone much cleverer than me needs to reframe the law so that it can be judged by todays & future technologies yet still give the benefit of the doubt to the attacking player, a bit like umpires call in cricket. I've really no idea how this can be done but my feeling is that the law should revolve around the feet positions of players involved, the game is football so use the position of the feet
Click to expand...
just get rid of the offside rule
 
seasider red said:
Bit late to this debate as had to take wife shopping as her car is out of commission but wanted to put my twopenneth in.

The thing with the offside law is that it was designed to be judged by the naked eye, if someone looks level, they are level & are therefore on side. The law as it stands wasn't designed to be dissected forensically by todays technology. Personally I have no time for this line drawing which for me is just looking for a reason to disallow a goal which surely isn't the intention.

Someone much cleverer than me needs to reframe the law so that it can be judged by todays & future technologies yet still give the benefit of the doubt to the attacking player, a bit like umpires call in cricket. I've really no idea how this can be done but my feeling is that the law should revolve around the feet positions of players involved, the game is football so use the position of the feet
Click to expand...
Couldnt agree more

My view on all this is if you have an offside rule it has to be adhered too. It doesnt really matter whether its a mm or a foot . I suggest that referee's should make the decision with reasons and there should be 3 reviews per game per manager. You have 20 seconds to appeal. If there is a clear error then the referee can be overruled . There should be an independant committee looking at it. So take the handball. Taylor didnt give it because it was too high , he thought. Taylor thought the man got the ball on the tackle incidences. The committee would say sorry your reason for the decision was wrong and so we will overturn .

In relation to penalties , all handballs should be penalties unless the ball is driven at you and you cant get out of the way. This stuff about shape etc and natural position is crap. It just is what it is.
 
seasider red said:
Bit late to this debate as had to take wife shopping as her car is out of commission but wanted to put my twopenneth in.

The thing with the offside law is that it was designed to be judged by the naked eye, if someone looks level, they are level & are therefore on side. The law as it stands wasn't designed to be dissected forensically by todays technology. Personally I have no time for this line drawing which for me is just looking for a reason to disallow a goal which surely isn't the intention.

Someone much cleverer than me needs to reframe the law so that it can be judged by todays & future technologies yet still give the benefit of the doubt to the attacking player, a bit like umpires call in cricket. I've really no idea how this can be done but my feeling is that the law should revolve around the feet positions of players involved, the game is football so use the position of the feet
Click to expand...

Umpire's Call in cricket goes either way, but appreciate what you're saying about there has to be a better system.

Personally, I just think it (VAR) should be binned, in current format.

Watched Boro v Leeds last night & Gnonto's goal (Leeds' 3rd) was offside & players just got on with it!
 
toms said:
It think you are going to find out that that is exactly what Clattenburg is putting together with commentary
Click to expand...
I hope so, any right minded indivudual outside being a forest fan would then see, we are constantly get f***ed over. Level of incompetence is astounding. Premier league would not be able to do anything as it is undeniable evidence the refs are shit. Apology letters dont cut it!
 
Our Kids Dad said:
Umpire's Call in cricket goes either way, but appreciate what you're saying about there has to be a better system.

Personally, I just think it (VAR) should be binned, in current format.

Watched Boro v Leeds last night & Gnonto's goal (Leeds' 3rd) was offside & players just got on with it!
Click to expand...
To not just VAR it’s the interpretation of the rules. No consistency. Handball is all over the shop. No agreement. When is a foul just a small foul. When is a good tackle pulled up because of intent. It varies not just from ref to ref but same ref in same game. It’s a mockery. It’s not just the Forest games but it is all over the place. Just getting on with it suggests it is OK. PGMOL, the PL need to define what is and isn’t minor contact, intent, handball and be consistent. It’s not the rule it is how they choose to interpret. They are bringing the game into disrepute and ruining the game. Webb needs to get all the refs together and agree definitions and then communicate to clubs and officiate to a standard. Discussions between VAR and ref need to be open and broadcast So we understand why they come to the decision. Refs need to stop taking hallucinogenics.
 
t.co

Nottingham Forest WILL be sent audio of VAR from Everton defeat

EXCLUSIVE BY MATT HUGHES: Nottingham Forest demanded that audio recordings of the three incidents be made public in a series of extraordinary statements released on Monday.
t.co t.co
Don't know if link will work I'm not very good at this tech stuff, but its supposed mail on line

PGMOL to release audio to the club & may discuss one of the penalty claims on the next mic'd up. Now I've watched a couple of these programmes but gave up on them because Owen never really challenges the BS that Howard Webb comes pre armed with & Howard Webb is nothing more than an arrogant |BS spouting mouthpiece for the establishment. IMO just discussing one of the incidents is leaving them open to all sorts of misinterpretations as to the legitimacy of the other 2 calls. Come on if there's nothing to hide let's see & hear all 3 or is it a matter of national security
 
You must log in or register to reply here.