Saints V Leicester (A)

[david in sweden]

well after 550 posts on the match, the key issue seems divided between people who think that both incidents were penalties, or that only one was, but not everyone is agreed on which one...and those who think the ref. got it right ....and neither was a penalty and Leicester throughly deserved their win.

 

The net result was 0 goals and 0 points. In its way, it was a "must-win " game (I know, I hate that phrase, too) but a win would have pulled us closer to Man U and West Ham. Now there is a 4 point gap above us, at a time in the season when we are running out of games....and Chelsea have hit form and Liverpool have game(s) in hand.

 

Unless we can produce a last month's revival we will most certainly "miss" any Euro football next season, and be lucky to finish in the top half.

[simo]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p03q1f0n?ns_mchannel=social&ns_campaign=bbc_match_of_the_day&ns_source=facebook&ns_linkname=sport

 

No bias there then !

[ALWAYS_SFC]

Blah blah blah . The irony here is excruciating

 

Sent from my SM-G925I using Tapatalk

 

....

[Sour Mash]

Just stumbled across the highlights again on sky; two definite penalties for us and a cracking save by Schmeichel from Fonte.

[Batman]

Just stumbled across the highlights again on sky; two definite penalties for us and a cracking save by Schmeichel from Fonte.

 

Amazing that we never got one of those two.

Just sums up the standard of officiating this season. The ref we had is probably the best there is too

[LeBizzier69]

Just wish FIFA/FA would pull their heads out their backsides and allow certain key decisions to be referred. So much at stake these days and it works in every other sport.

[VectisSaint]

Just stumbled across the highlights again on sky; two definite penalties for us and a cracking save by Schmeichel from Fonte.

 

Cracking save bu Fraser from Fonte as well. Jose knows where the goal is.

[Whitey Grandad]

Just wish FIFA/FA would pull their heads out their backsides and allow certain key decisions to be referred. So much at stake these days and it works in every other sport.

 

No, no and thrice no.

 

An official makes a decision that you don't like. That doesn't mean that he is wrong, it's his opinion. There is no right of appeal in football (during the game). If you don't like it then play some other game. I'll be honest and say that I've only seen the Huth incident so far but from what I've read none of these decisions would ever be overturned by video referral. Video referrals have ruined cricket and rugby.

 

Basically, all you are says no is that you didn't like a decision and you would prefer a different one.

[Batman]

No, no and thrice no.

 

An official makes a decision that you don't like. That doesn't mean that he is wrong, it's his opinion. There is no right of appeal in football (during the game). If you don't like it then play some other game. I'll be honest and say that I've only seen the Huth incident so far but from what I've read none of these decisions would ever be overturned by video referral. Video referrals have ruined cricket and rugby.

 

Basically, all you are says no is that you didn't like a decision and you would prefer a different one.

 

There are plenty of incidents in a premier league weekend that would be immediately overturned if there was a video ref

[Graffito]

No, no and thrice no.

 

An official makes a decision that you don't like. That doesn't mean that he is wrong, it's his opinion. There is no right of appeal in football (during the game). If you don't like it then play some other game. I'll be honest and say that I've only seen the Huth incident so far but from what I've read none of these decisions would ever be overturned by video referral. Video referrals have ruined cricket and rugby.

 

Basically, all you are says no is that you didn't like a decision and you would prefer a different one.

 

That's an odd way of putting it Whitey. I don't advocate referrals but sometimes refs make mistakes. It's a difficult job but they get things wrong and we should acknowledge that.

[Sour Mash]

Just wish FIFA/FA would pull their heads out their backsides and allow certain key decisions to be referred. So much at stake these days and it works in every other sport.

Wouldn't work in football for many reasons.

 

Even these handballs, I would have given them, others wouldn't, all down to interpretation, how long do you allow for the deliberation?

 

What would be more useful is if the authorities properly clarified some of the grey areas, to take away all this interpretation;

 

- Bookings/penalties for shirt pulling at corners/free kicks.

- Penalties and free kicks given even if the players keep to their feet.

- What is actually classed as handball - none of this rubbish "hand in an unnatural position" rubbish.

[Whitey Grandad]

 

That's an odd way of putting it Whitey. I don't advocate referrals but sometimes refs make mistakes. It's a difficult job but they get things wrong and we should acknowledge that.

 

But these weren't mistakes by any stretch, were they?

[Whitey Grandad]

Wouldn't work in football for many reasons.

 

Even these handballs, I would have given them, others wouldn't, all down to interpretation, how long do you allow for the deliberation?

 

What would be more useful is if the authorities properly clarified some of the grey areas, to take away all this interpretation;

 

- Bookings/penalties for shirt pulling at corners/free kicks.

- Penalties and free kicks given even if the players keep to their feet.

- What is actually classed as handball - none of this rubbish "hand in an unnatural position" rubbish.

 

Yes I agree, there does at face value appear to see some variation in interpretations but almost every incident is different. The FA (and FIFA) do go to great lengths to try to get some consistency through regular seminars and training sessions but at the end of the day it's going to come down to one person's decision and cannot be decided by a majority vote of a committee. There are some situations where if you had 100 referees 50 would decide one way and the rest the other.

[Sour Mash]

Yes I agree, there does at face value appear to see some variation in interpretations but almost every incident is different. The FA (and FIFA) do go to great lengths to try to get some consistency through regular seminars and training sessions but at the end of the day it's going to come down to one person's decision and cannot be decided by a majority vote of a committee. There are some situations where if you had 100 referees 50 would decide one way and the rest the other.

Yes, but all those things I've listed can be improved and clarified regardless of personal interpretation.

[Graffito]

But these weren't mistakes by any stretch, were they?

 

You appear to be saying they weren't mistakes by any stretch, not asking if they were, yet you've only seen the Huth incident. Nice try.

[Whitey Grandad]

You appear to be saying they weren't mistakes by any stretch, not asking if they were, yet you've only seen the Huth incident. Nice try.

 

I very clearly asked if they were. My last words were 'weren't they?'

 

So were they not?

[Kingsland Codger]

No, no and thrice no.

 

An official makes a decision that you don't like. That doesn't mean that he is wrong, it's his opinion. There is no right of appeal in football (during the game). If you don't like it then play some other game. I'll be honest and say that I've only seen the Huth incident so far but from what I've read none of these decisions would ever be overturned by video referral. Video referrals have ruined cricket and rugby.

 

Basically, all you are says no is that you didn't like a decision and you would prefer a different one.

 

Are you in favour of scrapping goal line technology?

[Graffito]

I very clearly asked if they were. My last words were 'weren't they?'

 

So were they not?

 

And your first words were "But these weren't mistakes by any stretch". Why didn't you simply ask if I thought these were mistakes? I think you are being disingenuous here. Your default position is always to defend referees, even when you haven't seen the incidents. Definitely one and arguably all three were the wrong decision or, let's not mince words, "mistakes", in my opinion.

[monosaint]

It seems that in every game now the discussion always includes refereeing decisions. Why not go for a system like Tennis and Cricket have where each team is allowed say 1 appeal/referral in each half. That would hardly slow the game down and teams would be very careful not to waste a call unless absolutely sure.

[Sour Mash]

It seems that in every game now the discussion always includes refereeing decisions. Why not go for a system like Tennis and Cricket have where each team is allowed say 1 appeal/referral in each half. That would hardly slow the game down and teams would be very careful not to waste a call unless absolutely sure.

Because as explained previously, the appeal/referral would be misused by teams to stop the game at a convenient time for them, regardless of whether they have a legitimate appeal or not.

[doddisalegend]

It seems that in every game now the discussion always includes refereeing decisions. Why not go for a system like Tennis and Cricket have where each team is allowed say 1 appeal/referral in each half. That would hardly slow the game down and teams would be very careful not to waste a call unless absolutely sure.

 

 

A better idea would be to just remove grey areas from the rules. It would make life easier for everyone if the rules weren't open to interpretation so off side is off side none of this interfering with play stuff, a handball is a handball accidental or not, a tackle is fair if you touch the ball first regardless of what comes next and shirt pulling is always a foul.

 

Yeah it would result in some ****ty decisions but every team would be in the same boat at the moment depending on refs interpretation of the rules it feels like some teams are outside the boat swimming against the current to keep up while some ( ahem.... Leicester) are in a super powered speed boat.

[Professor]

A better idea would be to just remove grey areas from the rules. It would make life easier for everyone if the rules weren't open to interpretation so off side is off side none of this interfering with play stuff, a handball is a handball accidental or not, a tackle is fair if you touch the ball first regardless of what comes next and shirt pulling is always a foul.

 

Yeah it would result in some ****ty decisions but every team would be in the same boat at the moment depending on refs interpretation of the rules it feels like some teams are outside the boat swimming against the current to keep up while some ( ahem.... Leicester) are in a super powered speed boat.

 

This is the solution and changes to the rules of the game do happen, as with the current off-side interpretation, but we need bigger changes to reflect the modern game and the cheating that goes on within the present rules.

Removing the grey areas would take away some of the subjective decisions, removing some of the things that referees have most difficulty with. Off-side and handball are certainly two of these things. But the penalty for a 'foul' in the area is probably the biggest issue. Everyone in football knows that players are cheating but the administrators need to accept that the reason for the cheating is that a penalty kick is far too big a reward for many of the incidents that occur. There are other options, such as reducing the size and shape of the penalty area, or better, to have penalty kicks only when a clear goal scoring opportunity is prevented but for other fouls in the area, the offending player should go to a sin bin for a set period. Or maybe play the rest of the game with his boot laces tied together....no, but there are other ways it would be possible to punish fouls near the goal without awarding an almost certain goal which encourages players to pretend that they have been fouled.

[babyblue]

They pretty much ARE always guaranteed to happen. That's why everyone else in the history of the Premier League has dropped off, non top 6 teams don't have the depth and always have to play weaker players and lose games as a result - but this season we've seen an unprecedented level of top club laziness as well - Chelsea's first half of the season was indefensible, Man City slacked off enough to look like they might miss top 4, Arsenal are STILL only the 3rd or 4th best team even without City and Chelsea above them.

 

I'm not even being critical of Leicester, but that's not really a plan B, it's the same as their plan A, same formation, same team doing the same things, just with less effective attacking as Mahrez is now mostly being stopped. Their workrate usually turns something up for them though - and Vardy is to this side what Suarez was for Liverpool a couple of years ago. Always a threat from anywhere on the pitch and a nightmare to defend against. As long as they have that outlet and don't concede first they'll be ok.

 

Hi, Leicester fan in peace.

 

Just a point on the injuries, of course luck does play a part in some way as you can't do much about impact injuries. I think most injuries are muscle based though, whether it's a hammy, a calf, thigh, groin etc. Since Pearson arrived here and setup the sports science department our injury record has been fantastic with regards not losing players to muscle problems. We do things quite differently to most with regards extra rest days (something Ranieri was baffled by and wanted to change until being convinced otherwise), the cryotherapy chamber we had installed at the training ground, along with lots of other innovations that were embraced. So whilst I agree, luck does play a part. It can't just be attributed to that, you have to give credit to the clubs setup.

 

Yes other teams have lost more players, but I'm sorry. The likes of Man City, United, Arsenal, Chelsea and even Spurs to some extent, can replace one injured player with someone else who cost anything from £5m to £30m. Then having a few more injuries is no excuse when we're doing it with a starting 11 that cost less than one half a Raheem Sterling.

 

Of course top clubs aren't performing as well as they might usually but often you only get one or two per season who get it right anyway. What we're on course for is more than enough to get you 2nd or 3rd most seasons. I did a count up a while back and with our current ppg ratio we'd end up on enough to win the league about 30% of the time. So whilst the lack of that one exceptional team might help us get the title, where usually we might not have. We'd still be there or there abouts, 4 losses in 41 games is no fluke.

 

Plan B is a variation of Plan A, so you're right it's pretty close to what we did before. But more of a shift to the defensive side, people started giving us the ball and sitting back. We don't want the ball, it's not how we want to play really. So we've sat deeper, got more people back, aren't pressing as high up the pitch as much as we were. Basically forcing the other team to come onto us, even though their game plan wasn't to do that. It's of no surprise that we've scored pretty much in all our recent games when the other team has been having a "good spell".

 

The beauty of the team is that they are capable of doing both sides of it. Opening it up and bombing forwards with pace and some skill (see the game against you earlier in the season after we went 2 behind). Whilst also being more than happy to sit back, absorb pressure and grind it out like in this game.

 

There are 1000 little things that have got us to this point, enough to honestly write a book about. From training ground improvements, to scouting, past and present managers inputs, the owners mentality, bloody clappers!. All just culminating in what's happening. I'm sure some people will look at our style and think it's that they need to copy, but I don't think it can be. It's more than that, it's a once in a lifetime chain of events that brought us to this point.

 

Just want to say thanks to the saints fans I met the other day as well. Really nice bunch.

[sandwichsaint]

Are you in favour of scrapping goal line technology?

 

Completely different situation, one rules on 'fact' the other still relies on interpretation. Goal line technology has been excellent and I can't believe anybody would go back to not having it where it is available.

[VectisSaint]

A better idea would be to just remove grey areas from the rules. It would make life easier for everyone if the rules weren't open to interpretation so off side is off side none of this interfering with play stuff, a handball is a handball accidental or not, a tackle is fair if you touch the ball first regardless of what comes next and shirt pulling is always a foul.

At least three of those infringements would still be open to interpretation. Was he in an offside position when the ball was kicked or not, did the ball hit his hand/arm or not, did he actually touch the ball or not. Shirt pulling is probably the least open to interpretation but is also probably the least given foul out of that lot.

[doddisalegend]

At least three of those infringements would still be open to interpretation. Was he in an offside position when the ball was kicked or not, did the ball hit his hand/arm or not, did he actually touch the ball or not. Shirt pulling is probably the least open to interpretation but is also probably the least given foul out of that lot.

 

 

I'd argue those examples aren't open to interpretation if the rules are clear but they are subject to the refs eyesight.

In that case video technology would help. With an official watching the game on video in real time and with instant playback, who is in contact with the ref, can then let a ref know he has missed something. Most people argue video technology won't work because the rules are open to interpretation so take away the interpretation and make then black and white.

[Kingsland Codger]

Completely different situation, one rules on 'fact' the other still relies on interpretation. Goal line technology has been excellent and I can't believe anybody would go back to not having it where it is available.

 

I was asking a question of Whitey Grandad as his comment on the use of video technology was 'no, no and thrice no'. This seemed fairly emphatic.

 

But is the difference between 'interpretation' and 'fact' as distinct as you suggest?

 

Lee Mason believed he saw Sadio Mane foul Eric Pieters and showed a red card. On review the authorities decided the referee was wrong, and cancelled the red card. I have no idea what was 'fact' and what was 'interpretation' but I am certain the use of video technology in this case was completely correct.

[eddie]

lost away at the league leaders after the international break....what's the bother?

 

played well all game (after playing well in general for last coupl' months bar some expected off-days, right after home win against liverpool, arguably best of the season) and were unlucky not to come away 1-1.

 

conceded a goal in unfortunate circumstances, with one CB coming out to help cedric deal with albrighton (or fuchs, can't remember) leaving clasie (5" 6) to cover wes morgan. bound to lose, but that's life.

 

are people really going to spend the week following the result fuming about referees, pelle or even koeman's setup?

[Whitey Grandad]

Just wish FIFA/FA would pull their heads out their backsides and allow certain key decisions to be referred. So much at stake these days and it works in every other sport.

The amount at stake is totally irrelevant to the sport.

 

Cricket has been distorted by referrals and rugby has been totally ruined and turned into stop-go American Football.

[Whitey Grandad]

And your first words were "But these weren't mistakes by any stretch". Why didn't you simply ask if I thought these were mistakes? I think you are being disingenuous here. Your default position is always to defend referees, even when you haven't seen the incidents. Definitely one and arguably all three were the wrong decision or, let's not mince words, "mistakes", in my opinion.

Did you miss the two words and question mark at the end of the sentence?

[Whitey Grandad]

And your first words were "But these weren't mistakes by any stretch". Why didn't you simply ask if I thought these were mistakes? I think you are being disingenuous here. Your default position is always to defend referees, even when you haven't seen the incidents. Definitely one and arguably all three were the wrong decision or, let's not mince words, "mistakes", in my opinion.

It cannot have been a wrong decision. If it was a matter of opinion. An opinion can never be wrong.

[Whitey Grandad]

Are you in favour of scrapping goal line technology?

I don't think we need it and I don't think it's 100% accurate. I refer back to that early game in the World Cup. The photos of the ball taken from looking along the line disappeared very quickly, so quickly that I never got to see them.

 

Anyway, ball in or out of play is a matter of fact, not opinion.

[Whitey Grandad]

This is the solution and changes to the rules of the game do happen, as with the current off-side interpretation, but we need bigger changes to reflect the modern game and the cheating that goes on within the present rules.

Removing the grey areas would take away some of the subjective decisions, removing some of the things that referees have most difficulty with. Off-side and handball are certainly two of these things. But the penalty for a 'foul' in the area is probably the biggest issue. Everyone in football knows that players are cheating but the administrators need to accept that the reason for the cheating is that a penalty kick is far too big a reward for many of the incidents that occur. There are other options, such as reducing the size and shape of the penalty area, or better, to have penalty kicks only when a clear goal scoring opportunity is prevented but for other fouls in the area, the offending player should go to a sin bin for a set period. Or maybe play the rest of the game with his boot laces tied together....no, but there are other ways it would be possible to punish fouls near the goal without awarding an almost certain goal which encourages players to pretend that they have been fouled.

All good points.

[Graffito]

It cannot have been a wrong decision. If it was a matter of opinion. An opinion can never be wrong.

 

You've got me there Einstein.

[Lets B Avenue]

It cannot have been a wrong decision. If it was a matter of opinion. An opinion can never be wrong.

 

In your opinion.

[LeBizzier69]

No, no and thrice no.

 

An official makes a decision that you don't like. That doesn't mean that he is wrong, it's his opinion. There is no right of appeal in football (during the game). If you don't like it then play some other game. I'll be honest and say that I've only seen the Huth incident so far but from what I've read none of these decisions would ever be overturned by video referral. Video referrals have ruined cricket and rugby.

 

Basically, all you are says no is that you didn't like a decision and you would prefer a different one.

 

Interested to know how exactly they've ruined cricket and rugby....seems to me that important, game changing decisions are now correct ones and not simply open to interpretation.

[Kingsland Codger]

I don't think we need it and I don't think it's 100% accurate. I refer back to that early game in the World Cup. The photos of the ball taken from looking along the line disappeared very quickly, so quickly that I never got to see them.

 

Anyway, ball in or out of play is a matter of fact, not opinion.

 

If it's 100% accuracy you're after then you must be all in favour of doing away with referees and linos.

 

We have an imperfect system at present and I would like to see if improvements can be made. One use of video technology which wouldn't interfere with play is the use of retroactive checks for things the ref simply didn't see. Marcelo's antics in the Real v Wolfsburg match is one clear example.