JWP dumped from the squad entirely, he'll be gone surely come January.
-
Mobile App Discontinued
Due to a number of factors, support for the current BigFooty mobile app has been discontinued. Your BigFooty login will no longer work on the Tapatalk or the BigFooty App - which is based on Tapatalk.
Apologies for any inconvenience. We will try to find a replacement.
Premier Lg EPL Matchday 6 - On Stan Sport
- Thread starter RossFC
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Premier League Football
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
Bradesmaen
TheBrownDog
I would have taken 13 points from 6 games if that included the 6 worst teams in the league.
I understand what people are saying about Pope getting a nick on the ball but here's a question, if that happened anywhere else on the pitch, would it have been called a foul?
It was Gyökeres who got to the ball first and pushed it past him, taking a tiny nick of Pope's foot. Anywhere else on the pitch and that is a nailed on foul, so why not a penalty if it happens in the box.
Good one!
Log in to remove this Banner Ad
moomba
TheBrownDog
For me, it was a decent decision to give the penalty given what he would have been able to see, and it was a decent decision to overturn it on review.
Arsenal have got such a victim complex when it comes to referees and that comes from the chief whingy whiny lego headed bitch himself.
It'll cost them ultimately. They get too emotional over things they should just be able to deal with.
Arsenal have got such a victim complex when it comes to referees and that comes from the chief whingy whiny lego headed bitch himself.
It'll cost them ultimately. They get too emotional over things they should just be able to deal with.
Jarrod Bowen thank you very much.
- Aug 21, 2016
- 19,095
- 32,743
- AFL Club
- Geelong
- Other Teams
- Oldham
Joe Hart on MOTD said after Pope gets the touch his foot is planted. So it was a player collision not a foul. I'm ok with that interpretation. But the referee's initial call of a penalty was also valid. These marginal calls should not go to VAR to be re-refereed.
Decent point, thought we grew into the game and seemed a lot more solid especially at set pieces defensively.
ossie_21
Premium Platinum
That yellow card to Dewsbury-Hall is the most egregious yellow card I’ve ever seen since the yellow card to Dewsbury-Hall for taking a free kick.
For me its again a lack of consistency.
Last year Saliba heads the ball away, makes accidental head contact immediately after and its given a penalty.
PGMOL mouthpiece on ref watch says "Saliba didn't get the ball, the ball got him".
No rule changes happen, and in this case Pope doesn't get the ball and considering his reaction to the penalty being awarded I am not even sure he knows he got it.
And on ref watch Dermott is now saying the opposite, that Pope got the ball, he planted his foot (thats not even a rule) and even if he did plant his foot Gyokeres has him beat until Pope collects him with his knee.
But the main takeaway was it wasn't clear and obvious. They took 7 minutes to look over it and still it wasn't a clear conclusion.
There will be another collision like Gyokeres and Pope, and there will be a different outcome and when PGMOL is asked "well how was that different to the Newcastle/Arsenal one?" they will go head in the sand.
Gallagher is a fackwit. Will say whatever he needs ot say to defend the refs decisions they make.
- Aug 21, 2016
- 19,095
- 32,743
- AFL Club
- Geelong
- Other Teams
- Oldham
I usually like Dermott Gallagher's interpretations but he was unconvincing with this one. Gyokeres gets to the ball first and plays it onto Pope's foot. Whether or not Pope's foot was planted doesn't mean he can bring Gyokeres down in the tackle.
It's possible to see the incident differently but VAR should not have called this a clear and obvious error. Gallagher is also being unreasltic to say that Gillett could have stuck with his original decision after being referred to the monitor.
