Leeds Utd v Everton Match Thread

[DDB220]

Only if you allowed them to debate it. Could be something like 50 seconds limit to debate then vote and the verdict is then returned within a minute.

You cannot impose time limits on decision making when the outcome or incident is likely to divide the room. Particularly when the outcome has significant magnitude. This decision has split most professional pundits.

[White Lotus]

Anyone see Moyes' post match interview?
Borderline unprofessional imo.

A losing manager has every right to feel disappointed, but the whining about the penalty decision and the ref went a bit over the top.

It likely was a touch and go (excuse the pun) decision, but reading the view of ex-players who were in various commentary roles, it was the right one.
But then I've always felt he was a bit of a moaner.

And BTW - Nmecha's penalty .... outfrikkinstanding!!!
He hit it so hard and wide it didn't matter which way the keeper went.
He beat England's best keeper with a rocket. None of this prancy...prancy, tip-toeing, ballerina type run up. Just fookin hit it.

Yes, I felt exactly the same at the time, was quite surprised actually, I think Moyes was hiding behind the fact of how bad EFC were and thought papping on about the penalty his only go to.

Yeah wasn't it a good pen, and Pickford went the right way, pinpoint! Even better in slow motion.

[Orange Box]

The trouble is when it comes to something subjective like the penalty decision tonight. Pundits (supposedly experts) seemed fairly split. As such if it black and white overturn and make the correct decision. If it is open to debate then stick with the on field decision. Personally I would have a panel of 5 in the VAR box including ex professional footballers and then have it that at least 4 (possibly all 5) have to agree for a decision to be made.

Personally I’d include two professional boxers in there as well, to determine whether a player got hit hard enough to warrant being felled and rolling around like a rolling pin flattening pastry.

[White Lotus]

You cannot impose time limits on decision making when the outcome or incident is likely to divide the room. Particularly when the outcome has significant magnitude. This decision has split most professional pundits.

I know, seriously makes you wonder what this world is coming to

Imagine the split if half were defenders and half attackers, 50/50?
Lord help us.

[Cjay]

Can't make my mind up on the pen.

Can see why it was given but if it was the other way around wouldn't be happy.

He did lean in but his arms were down by his side.

Difficult one.

But went in our favour so who cares

[Shando]

Let's just say the prick should've stuck his leg out, lol.

[Barlow Boy]

Can't make my mind up on the pen.

Can see why it was given but if it was the other way around wouldn't be happy.

He did lean in but his arms were down by his side.

Difficult one.

But went in our favour so who cares

I’m in the same boat.

At the time, in the ground, I didn’t see anything. We don’t get the benefit of replays at the ground, so you’re trusting the ref, ref assistant, VAR etc.

Thankfully, this one went in our favour. One later in the season probably won’t. Take what you’re given and move on.

Ultimately, the better team on the night won the game.

[andrewjohnsmith]

Is it only me?

Did our subs change the game?

I made the same point. We were looking second best before the subs came on. They helped us get back control of the game.

[whiteswan]

Don't you know Jack has telescopic vision and magnified at that, how else could he have spotted the kid with the sign and run from the halfway line to give him his shirt?

Nice of Jack to put a big wedge of dosh behind the bar of a local pub for the fans to enjoy a drink pre game.

[White Lotus]

I’m in the same boat.

At the time, in the ground, I didn’t see anything. We don’t get the benefit of replays at the ground, so you’re trusting the ref, ref assistant, VAR etc.

Thankfully, this one went in our favour. One later in the season probably won’t. Take what you’re given and move on.

Ultimately, the better team on the night won the game.

Can i have a go at convincing you whilst we're here?

I didn't clearly see it first time, partly because i was jumping around the room when it got rewarded
On the replays i thought 'it's going to get overturned this' and waited for the ref to be told to go to the monitor.

Then as the explanations came in, i agreed penalty.
Imagine him just solidly stood up, with his arms behind his back best he can, the ball gets whacked into say his upper arm/elbow/lower arm even = No pen, ball to hand/arm.

But this guy is falling into the ball, he could whip his arm up out of the way, but he knows what he's doing and just his body is not wide enough. And if you watch a slow motion you'll see him actually try and make himself that wee bit bigger and his arm twitches out and the ball strikes it, he was falling into it un-naturally.
The ref was spot on in his first call, i actually thought it wasn't on the slow mo and was convinced it would be overturned, but then the explanation of the fall said to me it was.

Var worked for us, but the ref was right anyway, so var still owes us and not the other way, we definitely don't owe it.

[1964white]

I made the same point. We were looking second best before the subs came on. They helped us get back control of the game.

Without any shadow of doubt, Andrew.

[John in Louisiana]

Personally I’d include two professional boxers in there as well, to determine whether a player got hit hard enough to warrant being felled and rolling around like a rolling pin flattening pastry.

If Monty Python can determine whether God exists by staging a wrestling match certainly the EPL can arrive at less momentous decisions in a similar fashion.

[weasel]

You cannot impose time limits on decision making when the outcome or incident is likely to divide the room. Particularly when the outcome has significant magnitude. This decision has split most professional pundits.

That's why you have the early cut off and vote. You don't let the debate run its full course. As shown today in punditland there are lots saying it was a penalty and lots saying it wasn't. That is why I'd set the bar at 4 (or all 5) out of 5 having to agree for a decision to be overturned.

[weasel]

Personally I’d include two professional boxers in there as well, to determine whether a player got hit hard enough to warrant being felled and rolling around like a rolling pin flattening pastry.

That reminded me of the stupidity when the ref made Ampadu leave the pitch after being treated for his injury. Fair enough if the ref has had to stop play because a player is down and there had been no free kick but the fact the ref booked the Everton player for the foul should certainly have made it acceptable for the player fouled to receive treatment and then not have to leave the pitch for 30 seconds.

[weasel]

Can i have a go at convincing you whilst we're here?

I didn't clearly see it first time, partly because i was jumping around the room when it got rewarded
On the replays i thought 'it's going to get overturned this' and waited for the ref to be told to go to the monitor.

Then as the explanations came in, i agreed penalty.
Imagine him just solidly stood up, with his arms behind his back best he can, the ball gets whacked into say his upper arm/elbow/lower arm even = No pen, ball to hand/arm.

But this guy is falling into the ball, he could whip his arm up out of the way, but he knows what he's doing and just his body is not wide enough. And if you watch a slow motion you'll see him actually try and make himself that wee bit bigger and his arm twitches out and the ball strikes it, he was falling into it un-naturally.
The ref was spot on in his first call, i actually thought it wasn't on the slow mo and was convinced it would be overturned, but then the explanation of the fall said to me it was.

Var worked for us, but the ref was right anyway, so var still owes us and not the other way, we definitely don't owe it.

I was fairly much the same - expected it to get overturned but the more you watch it the more you see he was making no intention to put his arm behind his back. You cannot simply just stand in the way of a shot with your arms by your side and have the ball hit your arm if it is coming from a reasonable distance whereby you have the opportunity to move your arm away. Fair enough if it is kicked at you from a couple of yards away and you don't have the chance to react and move your arm. Tarkowski though had the time to move his arm but didn't - he did however have time to move the rest of his body to the left.

[malcolmw]

Without any shadow of doubt, Andrew.

Just watched Locky's review video of the game. He made a good point re. the subs - especially Harrison and Aaronson. Both are quite high energy (in their own individual ways). Introducing them when he did, Farke was able to inject much needed energy - which was flagging - at a key moment.
Nmecha is a different player to Piroe and so was able to get in behind their defense, which is not Piroe's main strength. In this way, Nmecha was also able to cause disruption at a key time.

Thinking about that .....with a more balanced and stronger squad in most positions this season, the manager has the ability to use his bench in that way, i.e. use the subs at key times in whatever part of the pitch its most needed.

Struijk was amazing last night, so surely keeps his place Vs Arsenal. But if he struggles, we now have an equally strong .... but different ... CB in Bijol to bring on. (same for Rodon).
We don't have the same (quality) cover in the fullbacks yet though. Perhaps Bornaauw, when fit, will correct that. But to me, we do need more cover at RB for Bogle.

Will also be interesting to see how/when he introduces DCL up front. There is no doubt our biggest failing last night was getting the ball in their box and not scoring. AS Farke has said we do need to bring in another - very direct - striker.

Wingers are a bit of an issue too. James (and I'm a fan) was very poor last night. He just wasn't in the game from the start. Harrison or Ramazani should perhaps start on the right wing for now?? (perhaps DJ just not quite match fit yet?)

[andrewjohnsmith]

Just watched Locky's review video of the game. He made a good point re. the subs - especially Harrison and Aaronson. Both are quite high energy (in their own individual ways). Introducing them when he did, Farke was able to inject much needed energy - which was flagging - at a key moment.
Nmecha is a different player to Piroe and so was able to get in behind their defense, which is not Piroe's main strength. In this way, Nmecha was also able to cause disruption at a key time.

Thinking about that .....with a more balanced and stronger squad in most positions this season, the manager has the ability to use his bench in that way, i.e. use the subs at key times in whatever part of the pitch its most needed.

Struijk was amazing last night, so surely keeps his place Vs Arsenal. But if he struggles, we now have an equally strong .... but different ... CB in Bijol to bring on. (same for Rodon).
We don't have the same (quality) cover in the fullbacks yet though. Perhaps Bornaauw, when fit, will correct that. But to me, we do need more cover at RB for Bogle.

Will also be interesting to see how/when he introduces DCL up front. There is no doubt our biggest failing last night was getting the ball in their box and not scoring. AS Farke has said we do need to bring in another - very direct - striker.

Wingers are a bit of an issue too. James (and I'm a fan) was very poor last night. He just wasn't in the game from the start. Harrison or Ramazani should perhaps start on the right wing for now?? (perhaps DJ just not quite match fit yet?)

It was noticeable that he was creating flexible options with the new signings

With all strikers fit, I think we might see Piroe as a 10 at time (although predominantly as a striker)

We currently have 3 strikers who are all different

Aaronson, Harrison, Ramazani (likely replaced by Okafor), James, and Gnonto are all diferent wide players

We have 5 central midfielders, none of whom seem to be leaving

We have 4 good central defenders (hope debate about Strujik leaving isn't true)

Obviously need a back up full back

[malcolmw]

It was noticeable that he was creating flexible options with the new signings

With all strikers fit, I think we might see Piroe as a 10 at time (although predominantly as a striker)

We currently have 3 strikers who are all different

Aaronson, Harrison, Ramazani (likely replaced by Okafor), James, and Gnonto are all diferent wide players

We have 5 central midfielders, none of whom seem to be leaving

We have 4 good central defenders (hope debate about Strujik leaving isn't true)

Obviously need a back up full back

Agree
Locky almost made an observation that Stach could well become a much more forward playing midfielder under Farke (he has done this before), therefore negating the need to spend on a specific 10.
I think Piroe is better and more effective when he is not in a "lone striker" role. He doesn't get the credit due for some of the timely, pinpoint passing he does when going back to retrieve the ball. He could also be/become a 10??
To me, its becoming clearer by the day we just need an out-and-out, in-form, hungry striker profile player to be brought in. The most important investment for the remainder of the window imo. DCL could be that profile if he can be kept fit and coached back into it. He was like that 5 years ago. But can we risk that?

[Orange Box]

That reminded me of the stupidity when the ref made Ampadu leave the pitch after being treated for his injury. Fair enough if the ref has had to stop play because a player is down and there had been no free kick but the fact the ref booked the Everton player for the foul should certainly have made it acceptable for the player fouled to receive treatment and then not have to leave the pitch for 30 seconds.

I understand the concept of the rule - to prevent time wasting or breaking up pressure through feigning injury - but the application is applied so rigidly as to make, as you say, the rule punish the wronged. Frustrates the hell out of me.

[weasel]

I understand the concept of the rule - to prevent time wasting or breaking up pressure through feigning injury - but the application is applied so rigidly as to make, as you say, the rule punish the wronged. Frustrates the hell out of me.

Like you say it is to stop the feigning injury - when a player though had been booked for the tackle that injured the player you would think that common sense would prevail.