FA Cup FA Cup 2023/24 (Winners: Man United)

[moomba]

Damn impressive record at home against City, only beaten at Wembley and not in N17 since Pellegrini. Would be the best in England since the takeover you'd think.

22/23: 1-0
21/22: 1-0
20/21: 2-0
19/20: 2-0
18/19: (UCL): 1-0
18/19: (Wembley) 0-1
17/18: (Wembley) 1-3
16/17: 2-0
15/16: 4-1
14/15: 1-5

With 2 wins and 2 draws at the etihad in that time. Would have to be the best record v City under Guardiola.
Probably a round too early this season however given the national team absences.

Would imagine Spurs have had about 20 shots on goal in that period.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

 

[RossFC]

 

[Art Vandelay_]

Correct decision. Was a rubbish red card to begin with.

 

[Frank Bunn]

Sense has prevailed and DCL's red card has been rescinded.

But what about the process? VAR Michael Salisbury incorrectly referred the incident to the pitchside monitor. It was not a clear and obvious error. Then referee Chris Kavanagh incorrectly awarded a red card. I would like to see more refs have the courage to stick by their original decisions.

 

[SM]

Sense has prevailed and DCL's red card has been rescinded.

But what about the process? VAR Michael Salisbury incorrectly referred the incident to the pitchside monitor. It was not a clear and obvious error. Then referee Chris Kavanagh incorrectly awarded a red card. I would like to see more refs have the courage to stick by their original decisions.

This is what I don't understand. The on-field ref made the decision with the benefit of multiple angles and replays. What evidence could Everton possibly have provided to over-turn it?

 

[Zidane98]

 

[ossie_21]

This is what I don't understand. The on-field ref made the decision with the benefit of multiple angles and replays. What evidence could Everton possibly have provided to over-turn it?

Herein lies the problem.

 

[SM]

Herein lies the problem.

At least you've upgraded from just laugh reacting to my posts. Why don't you enlighten the class then?

 

[Zidane98]

Sense has prevailed and DCL's red card has been rescinded.

But what about the process? VAR Michael Salisbury incorrectly referred the incident to the pitchside monitor. It was not a clear and obvious error. Then referee Chris Kavanagh incorrectly awarded a red card. I would like to see more refs have the courage to stick by their original decisions.

The process is correct. The decision to review is subjective and solely at the discretion of the VAR referee. It's no different to any other referee decision.

 

[ossie_21]

At least you've upgraded from just laugh reacting to my posts. Why don't you enlighten the class then?

I laughed at them because it was the usual difference of opinion from you to the majority on here, which must get you hard for some reason when people bite.

It was a misuse of process (instigated by Pawson, who is the worst ref in the league *Salisbury was assistant VAR as mentioned a few posts ago) and exactly as pointed out afterwards (and for other incidents with VAR), you can find what you’re looking for in slow-no and too often they look for any contact whatsoever, not what might be unreasonable contact. Shock horror, it’s a contact sport.

Simply put, the tackle didn’t constitute enough force to be deemed to meet the requirements of endangering an opponent.

 

[SM]

I laughed at them because it was the usual difference of opinion from you to the majority on here, which must get you hard for some reason when people bite.

It was a misuse of process (instigated by Pawson, who is the worst ref in the league *Salisbury was assistant VAR as mentioned a few posts ago) and exactly as pointed out afterwards (and for other incidents with VAR), you can find what you’re looking for in slow-no and too often they look for any contact whatsoever, not what might be unreasonable contact. Shock horror, it’s a contact sport.

Simply put, the tackle didn’t constitute enough force to be deemed to meet the requirements of endangering an opponent.

And yet the referee disagreed. Shock horror.

You've also completely disregarded the point of my post which was what angle or factor the panel could have taken into account that the ref didn't. I don't particularly care about the level of force you believe it was carried out at because the ref thought it was sufficiently foreceful to be deemed a red, and no perspective from the panel could have convinced them otherwise. Meaning they've taken a subjective decision out of the hands of the referee. This isn't like the Morton red being rescinded where another angle clearly showed it was not a red and the absence of VAR in the Championship played against the ref, this was a fully informed ref viewing an incident and making a decision. If appeals panels are going to undermine the decision making process of referees it's going to lead to less refs making a decision meaning that more and more dangerous tackles will be allowed because refs will be scared of sending a player off and getting demoted/punished after the red is overturned.

It also has nothing to do with me wanting to go against people's opinion which is a rather weird accusation to throw at me when one of your fellow Everton supporters is basically the joke of the board when it comes to being a contrarian. I can't remember the last time I went against the majority opinion 'to get hard' but maybe you can remind me since it seems such a clear association in your mind.

 

[Zidane98]

And yet the referee disagreed. Shock horror.

You've also completely disregarded the point of my post which was what angle or factor the panel could have taken into account that the ref didn't. I don't particularly care about the level of force you believe it was carried out at because the ref thought it was sufficiently foreceful to be deemed a red, and no perspective from the panel could have convinced them otherwise. Meaning they've taken a subjective decision out of the hands of the referee. This isn't like the Morton red being rescinded where another angle clearly showed it was not a red and the absence of VAR in the Championship played against the ref, this was a fully informed ref viewing an incident and making a decision. If appeals panels are going to undermine the decision making process of referees it's going to lead to less refs making a decision meaning that more and more dangerous tackles will be allowed because refs will be scared of sending a player off and getting demoted/punished after the red is overturned.

It also has nothing to do with me wanting to go against people's opinion which is a rather weird accusation to throw at me when one of your fellow Everton supporters is basically the joke of the board when it comes to being a contrarian. I can't remember the last time I went against the majority opinion 'to get hard' but maybe you can remind me since it seems such a clear association in your mind.

Some very good points here.


I can't think of too many examples of a red card being overturned in the case where a referee is fully informed on the incident and has viewed it multiple times on VAR replay.


In the past on these types of incidents it was usually dealt with by reducing the suspension to 1 or 2 games from the prescribed 3 games. That way the referee's informed decision still remains final, the player doesn't cop an excessive ban.


The last thing the game needs is referees afraid to brandish a red card after viewing a VAR replay because they will be second guessed afterwards. That'll just result as you say in less red card offences being punished.

 

[ossie_21]

And yet the referee disagreed. Shock horror.

You've also completely disregarded the point of my post which was what angle or factor the panel could have taken into account that the ref didn't. I don't particularly care about the level of force you believe it was carried out at because the ref thought it was sufficiently foreceful to be deemed a red, and no perspective from the panel could have convinced them otherwise. Meaning they've taken a subjective decision out of the hands of the referee. This isn't like the Morton red being rescinded where another angle clearly showed it was not a red and the absence of VAR in the Championship played against the ref, this was a fully informed ref viewing an incident and making a decision. If appeals panels are going to undermine the decision making process of referees it's going to lead to less refs making a decision meaning that more and more dangerous tackles will be allowed because refs will be scared of sending a player off and getting demoted/punished after the red is overturned.

It also has nothing to do with me wanting to go against people's opinion which is a rather weird accusation to throw at me when one of your fellow Everton supporters is basically the joke of the board when it comes to being a contrarian. I can't remember the last time I went against the majority opinion 'to get hard' but maybe you can remind me since it seems such a clear association in your mind.

That all says more about the incompetence of refereeing in England than anything else, with how they apply the laws of he game incorrectly and in general, just make poor decisions.

No panel should have been forced to throw it out as there shouldn’t have been an appeal to begin with, as there shouldn’t have been a red card. The first decision was the correct one and the PMGOL should be backing in their referees to make the correct calls and not overturning them via VAR from the points made earlier, on the request of someone watching a monitor.

 

[SM]

That all says more about the incompetence of refereeing in England than anything else, with how they apply the laws of he game incorrectly and in general, just make poor decisions.

No panel should have been forced to throw it out as there shouldn’t have been an appeal to begin with, as there shouldn’t have been a red card. The first decision was the correct one and the PMGOL should be backing in their referees to make the correct calls and not overturning them via VAR from the points made earlier, on the request of someone watching a monitor.

So we're back to disagreeing with the decision, that's fine, you an disagree with it. That's besides my point though, once again. VAR didn't overturn the decision ffs. How can you in the same post say the game was refereed incompetently and also say that the referee should be backed to make the correct call? The referee did make the call and the appeals panel overturned it.

 

[Zidane98]

That all says more about the incompetence of refereeing in England than anything else, with how they apply the laws of he game incorrectly and in general, just make poor decisions.

No panel should have been forced to throw it out as there shouldn’t have been an appeal to begin with, as there shouldn’t have been a red card. The first decision was the correct one and the PMGOL should be backing in their referees to make the correct calls and not overturning them via VAR from the points made earlier, on the request of someone watching a monitor.

The referee doesn't have to overturn anything. The last thing that anyone wants is to discourage VAR referees from video referrals. The only thing that happens in that case is they'll be loathe to refer anything to VAR including seemingly obvious errors.

Always better to err on the side of caution and refer a referee to a VAR replay than stay silent for me.

 

[ossie_21]

So we're back to disagreeing with the decision, that's fine, you an disagree with it. That's besides my point though, once again. VAR didn't overturn the decision ffs. How can you in the same post say the game was refereed incompetently and also say that the referee should be backed to make the correct call? The referee did make the call and the appeals panel overturned it.

Do you not realise that Kavanagh didn’t call a foul for the tackle and only went to the monitor after being told to?

His decision to not call a foul was the correct one.

 

[SM]

Do you not realise that Kavanagh didn’t call a foul for the tackle and only went to the monitor after being told to?

His decision to not call a foul was the correct one.

Do you not realise it was Kavanagh who decided it was a red not VAR?

 

[ossie_21]

The referee doesn't have to overturn anything. The last thing that anyone wants is to discourage VAR referees from video referrals. The only thing that happens in that case is they'll be loathe to refer anything to VAR including seemingly obvious errors.

Always better to err on the side of caution and refer a referee to a VAR replay than stay silent for me.

I agree to an extent, I personally don’t like it but VAR is here to stay. It can be good, but again it needs the right process used for it and the right/better people. And for the love of god, make the audio available like other sports can.

The ref could have stuck with his original and correct decision after watching it, but the process is flawed when it is hunting for contact on a slow motion replay and not taking into account other factors.

 

[ossie_21]

Do you not realise it was Kavanagh who decided it was a red not VAR?

Go back to my earlier points about the process. He ****ed up.

 

[SM]

Go back to my earlier points about the process. He ****ed up.

He ****ed up because he made a decision you didn't agree with?

I think you came across as more intelligent when you just laugh reacted. Off you go now.

 

[Elmer_Hauser]

Winning the FA Cup is the only possible way Ten Hag keeps his job at United IMHO

 

[ossie_21]

He ****ed up because he made a decision you didn't agree with?

I think you came across as more intelligent when you just laugh reacted. Off you go now.

Me and about 99% of people with a viewpoint of it. You’re in the minority mate, not me.

I’ve made my points and you now try to call out my intelligence, when you’re the one too ****ing dumb to understand plain English. Hope that’s clear enough for you.

 

[SM]

Me and about 99% of people with a viewpoint of it. You’re in the minority mate, not me.

I’ve made my points and you now try to call out my intelligence, when you’re the one too ******* dumb to understand plain English. Hope that’s clear enough for you.

I don't believe I ever claimed to not be in the minority, weird thing to point out. You're the one that accused me of falsely presenting a position just to be contrary, rather than trying to make a genuine point. Instead of engaging me rationally you laugh reacted my posts then took a pot shot at my intelligence. I'm sorry if you didn't appreciate having that thrown your way but it wasn't very nice was it?

Just an entirely weird exchange when I was trying to make valid points about the fallacy of overturning a pitch-side reviewed red card, whether you agree or disagree with his final decision.

 

[ossie_21]

I don't believe I ever claimed to not be in the minority, weird thing to point out. You're the one that accused me of falsely presenting a position just to be contrary, rather than trying to make a genuine point. Instead of engaging me rationally you laugh reacted my posts then took a pot shot at my intelligence. I'm sorry if you didn't appreciate having that thrown your way but it wasn't very nice was it?

Just an entirely weird exchange when I was trying to make valid points about the fallacy of overturning a pitch-side reviewed red card, whether you agree or disagree with his final decision.

I agree, you’ve made this one very weird by straight up ignoring the points I’ve made because you’re dead set that it should have been a red card. One of the very few with that viewpoint, hence the minority.

I made my points, you didn’t address them and now it appears you want to keep arguing for basically no reason? Strange.

The correct decision arrived in the end, but it went through a few postcodes unnecessarily to get there.