Exeter City vs Ipswich Town match day thread

Status
Not open for further replies.

Alistair20000

Very well known Exeweb poster
Joined
May 5, 2009
Messages
46,951
Location
Hunkered down
VAR would have given it.
Not sure about that andrew :unsure:

To misquote Mark Twain: “Predicting anything about VAR is hazardous, especially the outcome reached”

I have rewatched it several times now and it is a clear push but the Sky commentators prattle on about “not quite enough contact” for a penalty and felt the referee got it right. Isn’t a push a push ?

When TAA shoved Ryan Sessegnon over reasonably hard in the box a couple of weeks ago VAR did not even look at it. The day before that Cancelo was given his marching orders and a penalty awarded for something less than the TAA shove. Cancelo’s push was about the same as matey on Nombe yesterday.

All a bit of a mess really.

Cannot help but think mind that if the boot had been on the other foot yesterday with a penalty awarded against us there would be plenty on here calling out “not enough contact. Sh!te officials”
 

John William

Well-known Exeweb poster
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
9,294
Location
Undisclosed
Cannot help but think mind that if the boot had been on the other foot yesterday with a penalty awarded against us there would be plenty on here calling out “not enough contact. Sh!te officials”
Coaches, managers and fans, all hypocrites.

Foul against us: "referee, clear foul, get your card out"

Foul by us: "come on, play on, it's a man's game"
 

Bridgy 81

Active member
Joined
Jun 9, 2021
Messages
1,871
Location
Bridgwater
I noticed the co-commentator on Sky yesterday paraphrasing several times what I think was part of a directive to referees a year or so ago to reduce/eliminate players “buying” penalties or free kicks i.e. contact with consequence.
Presumably it’s to recognize that football is still (just about) a contact sport so some level of contact is inevitable.
But one of the factors which leads to it becoming an infringement is if there is a significant adverse consequence for the player fouled rather than he/she using slight contact to fall over when it isn’t necessary.
Referees obviously still have to make a subjective judgement though which maybe right or wrong and which we may agree or disagree with.
I think it comes back yet again to consistency.
As I said elsewhere I didn’t think was happened to Sam was very different to the level of contact Jack Sparkes had on an Ipswich player.
One was waved away the other was given as a free kick in a dangerous place and deemed worthy of a yellow card.
Plus, I’m also still narked about the (clear) foul on Tim Dieng which meant their second goal which came from a corner should have been a free kick to us, because there was contact with consequence!
 

denzel

Very well known Exeweb poster
Joined
Apr 1, 2004
Messages
10,002
Location
The Travel Tavern
Capacity is now sub 7800 isn’t it? 250 to 300 seats used for segregation/journos and 250 to 300 ticket holders not turning up explains the attendance figure. Capacity of the BB isn’t just about kow many people you can fit on the terrace but also about evacuating them in an emergency.
We've had this before.
ST holders are counted whether they turn up or not. If they didn't turn up there would be more gaps
 

DawlishBouy

Active member
Joined
May 30, 2020
Messages
1,066
We've had this before.
ST holders are counted whether they turn up or not. If they didn't turn up there would be more gaps
People who buy tickets and don't turn up are not counted. I wasn't talking about season ticket holders.
 

Egg

Well-known Exeweb poster
Joined
Apr 6, 2004
Messages
7,955
People who buy tickets and don't turn up are not counted. I wasn't talking about season ticket holders.
I don't pretend to know but why would a sold ticket be treated differently to a season ticket?! Both are 'money in the bank' so it doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top