Administrator Stan Posted January 9, 2020 Administrator Posted January 9, 2020 Kick-off 20.00 Live on Sky Sports VS Match History West Ham 1-1 Sheff Utd West Ham 1-1 Sheff Utd (EFL Cup) Sheff Utd 3-0 West Ham West Ham 1-0 Sheff Utd Sheff Utd 1-1 West Ham Head to Head Sheff Utd - 35 wins Draws - 23 West Ham - 30 wins Top Scorers: Sheff Utd - Lys Mousset (5) West Ham - Seb Haller (6)
DNA Posted January 9, 2020 Posted January 9, 2020 West Ham with the new manager bounce.. but as we've seen with Arteta and Mourinho, that doesn't necessarily mean it will last all that long. We have a good record against london sides at home, won our last 7 PL matches against them. Rested a lot of players in the FA Cup so everyone fresh. West Ham have indeed looked a lot better now though and will be a different animal this time around. Should be a good game.
Subscriber RandoEFC+ Posted January 10, 2020 Subscriber Posted January 10, 2020 Think this is a draw. Moyes will be happy to come away with a point, I don't think he'll go for the win and I think if West Ham play fairly conservatively they can stifle Sheffield United's attack.
Administrator Stan Posted January 10, 2020 Author Administrator Posted January 10, 2020 Surprised Mousset isn't starting for Sheff Utd?
Administrator Stan Posted January 10, 2020 Author Administrator Posted January 10, 2020 Fabianski injured again...
Administrator Stan Posted January 10, 2020 Author Administrator Posted January 10, 2020 1-0 to Sheff Utd. McBurnie.
Administrator Stan Posted January 10, 2020 Author Administrator Posted January 10, 2020 Poor West Ham...
Administrator Stan Posted January 10, 2020 Author Administrator Posted January 10, 2020 Can't wait for everyone to blame VAR for that despite it being the new handball rule that's been in place since the summer which is the real thing people will be annoyed about
Subscriber RandoEFC+ Posted January 10, 2020 Subscriber Posted January 10, 2020 Haha absolutely daft. What's he supposed to do?
Administrator Stan Posted January 10, 2020 Author Administrator Posted January 10, 2020 Just now, RandoEFC said: Haha absolutely daft. What's he supposed to do? That's not the point. His arm has given him that advantage to go forward with the ball. If his arm isn't there the ball goes beyond him and no advantage gained.
Subscriber RandoEFC+ Posted January 10, 2020 Subscriber Posted January 10, 2020 7 minutes ago, Stan said: That's not the point. His arm has given him that advantage to go forward with the ball. If his arm isn't there the ball goes beyond him and no advantage gained. Everyone has arms though. I know that's the rule but the rule is stupid. If a player actually scores with his arm by accident it shouldn't count but if someone nobs it into your arm like that and it happens to fall for you then fair game in my opinion.
Subscriber Dan+ Posted January 10, 2020 Subscriber Posted January 10, 2020 Just seen the goal that was ruled out. Fucking fed up of this shit now. Yes by the letter of the law it's right to not count that goal but it's only to assist VAR that such a nonsensical rule's been brought in in the first place. Nothing deliberate about it. Not factoring in the fact it's part of the rules now but say that happened against us last season, I'd not have felt cheated.
Administrator Stan Posted January 10, 2020 Author Administrator Posted January 10, 2020 6 minutes ago, Dan said: Just seen the goal that was ruled out. Fucking fed up of this shit now. Yes by the letter of the law it's right to not count that goal but it's only to assist VAR that such a nonsensical rule's been brought in in the first place. Nothing deliberate about it. Not factoring in the fact it's part of the rules now but say that happened against us last season, I'd not have felt cheated. That's bollocks that it's only come in to assist VAR How about it's come in to stop dodgy goals being scored? Imagine Ward-Prowse doing that tomorrow and laying it off for Ings to score. See it back on MOTD after and you see Ward-Prowse handballs it to help it lay on his path to go on towards the box and pass to Ings. You're telling me you wouldn't be annoyed that it stood despite the ball clearly touching the arm and leading to a goal?
Subscriber RandoEFC+ Posted January 10, 2020 Subscriber Posted January 10, 2020 44 minutes ago, Stan said: That's bollocks that it's only come in to assist VAR How about it's come in to stop dodgy goals being scored? Imagine Ward-Prowse doing that tomorrow and laying it off for Ings to score. See it back on MOTD after and you see Ward-Prowse handballs it to help it lay on his path to go on towards the box and pass to Ings. You're telling me you wouldn't be annoyed that it stood despite the ball clearly touching the arm and leading to a goal? The rule was brought in to make it actually illegal for goals like Willy Boly against City and that Millwall player against us in the FA Cup last season. If it's unintentional then I'd let it fly and get on with the game, unless you actually score with your arm or clearly and directly assist a goal by having your arm in an unnatural position. That against Rice today might be the right call by the letter of the law but it's not in the spirit of the game. It just hits him as he's running. It could just as easily come off his chest or knee, balls deflect off players all the time. Luck is allowed to come into it sometimes. For me it's about what's fair. It's unfair if someone scores against you with their arm even if it's accidental but if you twat the ball against someone in the middle of the pitch into their arm, and it happens to fall nicely into their path, that's not unfair, just unlucky. I know you're trying to play devil's advocate but there's no way you can look at that and say "that goal was so unfair it's worth the interference and controversy of disallowing a 92nd minute equaliser".
Administrator Stan Posted January 11, 2020 Author Administrator Posted January 11, 2020 2 minutes ago, RandoEFC said: The rule was brought in to make it actually illegal for goals like Willy Boly against City and that Millwall player against us in the FA Cup last season. If it's unintentional then I'd let it fly and get on with the game, unless you actually score with your arm or clearly and directly assist a goal by having your arm in an unnatural position. That against Rice today might be the right call by the letter of the law but it's not in the spirit of the game. It just hits him as he's running. It could just as easily come off his chest or knee, balls deflect off players all the time. Luck is allowed to come into it sometimes. For me it's about what's fair. It's unfair if someone scores against you with their arm even if it's accidental but if you twat the ball against someone in the middle of the pitch into their arm, and it happens to fall nicely into their path, that's not unfair, just unlucky. I know you're trying to play devil's advocate but there's no way you can look at that and say "that goal was so unfair it's worth the interference and controversy of disallowing a 92nd minute equaliser". The last paragraph is 'countered' by the 'letter of the law' comment earlier on. To play devil's advocate more, he's simply gained an advantage regardless of anything else. Luck doesn't come in to it. If the ball doesn't hit his arm it goes beyond him and there's no advantage gained. For me that's the crux of the matter. The rule is clear and all clubs knew an eventuality like this might/could happen when the rule change was introduced. It may seem shit but in all honesty I don't think it's gonna change any time soon just because a team (West Ham in this case) may feel aggrieved its happened against them. Can guarantee if it happens the other way (hypothetically ball hitting Fleck's arm, leading to Mousset scoring, goal disallowed) they wouldn't be moaning one bit.
Subscriber Dan+ Posted January 11, 2020 Subscriber Posted January 11, 2020 I just disagree with the rule, there's absolutely no intention, agree with Rando that if the ball goes directly off an arm into the goal then yes that shouldn't count but for incidents like that? For what it's worth I think they were right to disallow the goal as they set the standard on the very first day of the season, I ultimately just don't agree with the rule that was introduced in the first place. For me again it's why VAR just doesn't really work in practice. Football is imperfect by nature.
Harry Posted January 11, 2020 Posted January 11, 2020 Yeah I'd have been livid as a West ham fan in that situation. If it's obvious to everyone that it's stupid to reverse that goal it should be obvious the VAR and the associated rules need refinement in the summer.
DNA Posted January 11, 2020 Posted January 11, 2020 That stadium is going to be a great addition to the championship, top class facilities; Wednesday away fans are in for a treat.
DeadLinesman Posted January 11, 2020 Posted January 11, 2020 7 hours ago, Dan said: For me again it's why VAR just doesn't really work in practice. Football is imperfect by nature. It actually shows why VAR DOES work in practice and is the exact opposite of the point you’re trying to make. It’s the RULE that’s at fault, not VAR. VAR has followed the rule to the letter and therefore has worked perfectly. Change the rules. A video replay simply shows what happened. 9 hours ago, Stan said: That's bollocks that it's only come in to assist VAR How about it's come in to stop dodgy goals being scored? Imagine Ward-Prowse doing that tomorrow and laying it off for Ings to score. See it back on MOTD after and you see Ward-Prowse handballs it to help it lay on his path to go on towards the box and pass to Ings. You're telling me you wouldn't be annoyed that it stood despite the ball clearly touching the arm and leading to a goal? Everyone used to be up in arms (pardon the pun) when this happened before VAR. Now it’s acceptable because they want ‘a bit of controversy’. You can either have VAR or totally scrap it. Just remember incidents like Henry vs Ireland a few years back and then tell me it’s acceptable and part of the game. A rule change helps the incident arising from yesterday. Binning VAR just increases the opportunities to cheat again.
LFCMadLad Posted January 11, 2020 Posted January 11, 2020 19 minutes ago, DeadLinesman said: You can either have VAR or totally scrap it. The latter. I mean, most people associated with football are gradually coming round to the idea that VAR is not good for the game. Obviously you still get the group of VAR fanboys who want everything absolutely perfect regardless, but even some of them are realising that football as a spectacle before VAR was much better. I honestly dont know how anyone can sit with a straight face and say VAR has improved football as a spectacle. I know loads of people (both personally and on certain forums/sites) that's interest in watching football is dwindling. I have been obsessed with football basically all my life and yep, my interest in watching it is dwindling too. Klopp (the most passionate football manager out there) said the other day that VAR is killing the passion. He explained that he used to celebrate a goal by acting like a mad man, such was the euphoria. Now he just sits waiting for VAR to do their 1067 checks. When the checks are done, the moment is gone. But hey, as long as a goal is disallowed for brushing a players elbow skin, then all is good. Wank.
Administrator Stan Posted January 11, 2020 Author Administrator Posted January 11, 2020 All this talk of not being able to celebrate goals. Didn't see that with the West Ham fans or Moyes last night did we
LFCMadLad Posted January 11, 2020 Posted January 11, 2020 2 minutes ago, Stan said: All this talk of not being able to celebrate goals. Didn't see that with the West Ham fans or Moyes last night did we Moyes is just buzzing some mugs have employed him the wank cunt.
Subscriber RandoEFC+ Posted January 11, 2020 Subscriber Posted January 11, 2020 I can't believe how much the point is being missed in this thread. Ironically the people who started with "watch everyone blame VAR for this the idiots" are the ones still talking about VAR while me and Dan who are criticising the rule haven't brought VAR into it. I'm having so much trouble describing this because it just is blatantly obvious that that goal shouldn't be disallowed. I don't know where to start. Remember Alexander-Arnold's handball in the Liverpool City game in his own box? Clearly not deliberate but he and his team clearly gained an advantage by it because it stopped City's attack and allowed Liverpool to attack instead. By your logic that should automatically have been called as a foul. Any accidental handball where the team gains any advantage doesn't need to be a foul. I'm staunchly in favour of the technology being used if it is used correctly and I always have been. I haven't really criticise VAR in any competition until the Premier League where the implementation has been astonishingly incompetent, and even then I've given it months before starting to criticise it. In this case they've successfully used the technology to implement a new rule, so the technology itself isn't the problem but the Premier League's use of VAR as a whole package is part of the problem with this goal because this handball rule they've introduced is an attempt to make something black or white, which they think they can do now that they have video replays, but they never can make it black or white. A rule needed to be introduced to stop goals like Boly vs Man City being allowed. All they had to do was say you can't directly score or assist a goal by using your hand. Think about what you're saying if you think that goal should be disallowed. You're saying that Declan Rice committed a foul because a Sheffield United player kicked the ball at his arm from two feet away when he was closer to his own half than the goal his team-mate eventually put the ball into.
Danny Posted January 11, 2020 Posted January 11, 2020 Seen a lot of criticism of VAR over last nights goal but VAR got it spot on, the rule change however is wrong. There is no way Rice should be penalised for that
DeadLinesman Posted January 11, 2020 Posted January 11, 2020 34 minutes ago, Danny said: Seen a lot of criticism of VAR over last nights goal but VAR got it spot on, the rule change however is wrong. There is no way Rice should be penalised for that It’s all VARs fault though.....
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.