Wolves 2-0 Crystal Palace: Verdict Thread

[sycophantia]

I thought Semedo was excellent, especially defensively. One brain fart in the second half but apart from that very good. If people are questioning his passing fair enough but tbf the whole team suffered from this.

 

[Kenny]

The challenge falls in to the serious foul play area. Off the floor, over the top of the ball and a high risk of injury to the opponent.
That trumps double jeopardy but just not in the eyes of the ref and his back me up VAR buddies.

We should be used to it by now and should probably just celebrate an obvious penalty being awarded to us.

 

[MARKakaJIM]

So the only punishment for a potential season ending injury challenge is the pen? We're not bothered about player welfare? I disagree, the 80s were a long time ago.

Remember Pickford on Van Dijk? He got bailed out by offside I think?

I'm not saying my interpretation is how I think the game should be, I'm just saying there's some ambiguity there and I could see why a referee wouldn't issue a red.

 

[Kenny]

The one that VAR got wrong and said they should have sent him off?

 

[MARKakaJIM]

The one that VAR got wrong and said they should have sent him off?

So two different people looked at it and came to two different conclusions? Sounds like there's some ambiguity there.

I'm surprised there's not been more of that with offside given the way play is often now allowed to go on whilst they wait for VAR to intervene.

 

[AndyWolves]

SERIOUS FOUL PLAY

A tackle or challenge that endangers the safety of an opponent or uses excessive force or brutality must be sanctioned as serious foul play.

Any player who lunges at an opponent in challenging for the ball from the front, from the side or from behind using one or both legs, with excessive force or endangers the safety of an opponent is guilty of serious foul play.


I can't really see any ambiguity here to be honest

 

[Tony Towner]

SERIOUS FOUL PLAY

A tackle or challenge that endangers the safety of an opponent or uses excessive force or brutality must be sanctioned as serious foul play.

Any player who lunges at an opponent in challenging for the ball from the front, from the side or from behind using one or both legs, with excessive force or endangers the safety of an opponent is guilty of serious foul play.


I can't really see any ambiguity here to be honest

There's isn't, Mark is just on one and doesn't understand what double jeopardy means with relation to penalties and sendings off.

Anyway it didn't make a difference and wouldn't have if he'd gone off either, so that's me done

 

[MARKakaJIM]

SERIOUS FOUL PLAY

A tackle or challenge that endangers the safety of an opponent or uses excessive force or brutality must be sanctioned as serious foul play.

Any player who lunges at an opponent in challenging for the ball from the front, from the side or from behind using one or both legs, with excessive force or endangers the safety of an opponent is guilty of serious foul play.


I can't really see any ambiguity here to be honest

Maybe because you've only quoted one rule out of the two that could apply?

 

[Boozad]

SERIOUS FOUL PLAY

A tackle or challenge that endangers the safety of an opponent or uses excessive force or brutality must be sanctioned as serious foul play.

Any player who lunges at an opponent in challenging for the ball from the front, from the side or from behind using one or both legs, with excessive force or endangers the safety of an opponent is guilty of serious foul play.


I can't really see any ambiguity here to be honest

Offside?
Intent to win the ball?
A player being in a situation he's not used to being in?!
Double jeopardy?!
Deciding which rule applies?

Take your pick. There'll be more to pick from in the next few hours if you're stuck.

 

[Wilf Wolf]

Mark’s having a mare. I wonder if he’s planning on becoming an elite referee?

 

[Tony Towner]

Offside?
Intent to win the ball?
A player being in a situation he's not used to being in?!
Double jeopardy?!
Deciding which rule applies?

Take your pick. There'll be more to pick from in the next few hours if you're stuck.

I like the loved up Booz

 

[MARKakaJIM]

Mark’s having a mare. I wonder if he’s planning on becoming an elite referee?

If I were, I have no desire to be, all I'd want is some guidance in which law trumps the other as I can't find that anywhere at the moment. I'd have no issue with being told that violent conduct overrules the double jeopardy issue but as I say, where is that stayed by anyone?

Double jeopardy was the first thing that came to my mind when I saw the decision so to me the booking seemed right as the keeper made an attempt to play the ball. Others think that violent conduct is the primary factor, that's fair enough.

 

[PuntsWolf]

Violent conduct is headbuts, punches, elbows. Serious foul play is bad tackles. Surely you know this Mark? Next thing you’ll be telling me a straight red for DOGSO is a 3 match ban.

 

[Charlie Wolf]

Yep only reason why it’s not bad is because Neto has avoided it as said. If he plants that in the middle of his shin then it’s a not even a debate.

Was in a box last night and stayed after game, Neto came out into the ground and was visibly limping, so it was a fair old clattering he had. That said he was with a young child and was able to break into a jog at one stage so nothing too serious thankfully

 

[Charlie Wolf]

Had to record the game as working late. I just watched it in full.
Absolutely brilliant to see 100% effort from every player and the celebrations at the the win.
I thought Costa's effort throughout was exemplary and a real asset to the cause.
Give him another year I say.

He’s obviously worked hard for 6 months as was no where near match fitness, but looks like he’s got his mojo back even though the legs aren’t there anymore. Certainly a credible focal point and improved us as a team
Word on the street is that he’s great in the dressing room, real prankster, so although he looks like someone you wouldn’t want to meet in a dark alley he obviously has a personality to galvanise everyone which is important when things aren’t going well, so has some leadership skills to complement his now lack of pace and timing. Yeh if offer another year

 

[Walnut]

He’s obviously worked hard for 6 months as was no where near match fitness, but looks like he’s got his mojo back even though the legs aren’t there anymore. Certainly a credible focal point and improved us as a team
Word on the street is that he’s great in the dressing room, real prankster, so although he looks like someone you wouldn’t want to meet in a dark alley he obviously has a personality to galvanise everyone which is important when things aren’t going well, so has some leadership skills to complement his now lack of pace and timing. Yeh if offer another year

He will also have a pre- season.

 

[Del Woppio]

Imma read this thread to my kids when they can't get to sleep

 

[Carsy]

No issue with Costa being here next year if his contract etc is representative. Think we have got something seriously wrong if Costa is our starting striker mind.

 

[Pastywolf]

More importantly, do you still have a vehicle?

It was still there! Although it’s been parked in Liverpool overnight so no idea where it is now, better check

 

[AndyWolves]

Maybe because you've only quoted one rule out of the two that could apply?

I don't think violent conduct is applied in this situation.

Violent conduct only applies when there isn't a challenge being made for the ball, so is irrelevant in this situation.