Post Match Brighton 1 Leicester 2

[Volpone]

Pen or no pen? At first, I thought it was about as obvious as they come, looked to me like Dunk took Vardy out. But on repeated views, I could see why there was the thought that Dunk had just gotten to the ball. I didn't (want to) agree but could see the possibility. So, for me, no clear and obvious mistake on the ref's part. I think the commentators suggested that had the ref given the pen then VAR would not have overturned it - for exactly the same reason. Win some, lose some.

Whether Dunk got the ball or not isn't relevant. Did he commit a foul? No. Vardy, as he has done many times, deliberately dragged his leg to ensure he made contact with Dunk's leg. As you say, some he wins, some he loses and I thing refs and VAR have got wise to it. MOTD didn't even mention it so it was hardly contentious.

 

[big_mac4824]

Noticed that too re: Rodgers comments. Very begrudging.

I love Nacho, always rated him, but I think he’s off in the summer.

he has had more than enough chances 4 years is ample IMO, the reason why BR is praising Vardy is because the unselfish work he is doing for the team is phenomenal. Vardy is a 1 in 10,000 player that comes along every decade or so.
What is great to see is Nacho and Vardy linking up BR should stick with a winning team and resist the temptation to bring players back into the fold. Is there anything in the rumour about the lad from Celtic? It is obvious Nacho prefers to play just behind Vardy the decision will be Maddison or Nacho I know what I would choose.

 

[Feriol]

Maybe Rodgers has learned that the best way to get the best out of Iheanacho is not to praise him too much and let it go to his head but to keep him eager to impress. I wouldn't read too much into Rodger's comments or lack of them.

 

[Robin127]

...We would also want to get something for him rather than allow him to leave for free.

Isn't there something in the deal when he was signed that Man. City get first dibs on him or a pecentage of any re-sale money?

 

[City Fan]

I wouldn't read too much into Rodger's comments or lack of them.

Who’s Rodger?

 

[mabrah]

Whether Dunk got the ball or not isn't relevant.

Letter of the law, no, but the commentators were talking about it (does that make it contentious? Or just a conversation?) The point being I guess that whilst it's not specifically the issue (as in the laws don't mention getting the ball first) Dunk was playing the ball (and not Vardy) and Vardy went over Dunk. Collateral damage if you like, or Vardy looking for it as you suggest.

On seeing the replays, I certainly felt it fell into the 'seen them given' category and obviously VAR didn't see enough to suggest the ref had got it wrong.

 

[Bezu Fache Fox]

Whether Dunk got the ball or not isn't relevant. Did he commit a foul? No. Vardy, as he has done many times, deliberately dragged his leg to ensure he made contact with Dunk's leg. As you say, some he wins, some he loses and I thing refs and VAR have got wise to it. MOTD didn't even mention it so it was hardly contentious.

Agreed, definitely not a penalty. I'd be interested to know what hallucinogens others on here have been smoking.

 

[LoopisDeLupis]

Who’s Rodger?

It’s Roger. The fella who played James Bond, I think?

 

[mabrah]

I'd be interested to know what hallucinogens others on here have been smoking.

Wow. Because they might not share your view?

 

[City Fan]

It’s Roger. The fella who played James Bond, I think?

That’s Moore like it

 

[Bezu Fache Fox]

Wow. Because they might not share your view?

I wouldn't take everything so literally.

 

[mabrah]

Ah OK, so you weren't being dismissive of other opinions then. That's good to hear.

 

[Bezu Fache Fox]

Ah OK, so you weren't being dismissive of other opinions then. That's good to hear.

It certainly is.

 

[jb5000]

Agreed, definitely not a penalty. I'd be interested to know what hallucinogens others on here have been smoking.

Hallucinogens aren't usually ingested by smoking

 

[mabrah]

Hallucinogens aren't usually ingested by smoking

Indeed. I'd like to know what hallucinogens people have been smoking to think that.

 

[Bezu Fache Fox]

Indeed. I'd like to know what hallucinogens people have been smoking to think that.

Some are commonly smoked. I know that from a google search, certainly not from personal experience.

 

[popillius]

Some are commonly smoked. I know that from a google search, certainly not from personal experience.

While your searching Google, have a look at the laws concerning penalty infringements in a football match.

 

[LoopisDeLupis]

While your searching Google, have a look at the laws concerning penalty infringements in a football match.

It just says “if it’s your team, stonewall. If it’s their team, either soft or never in a million years”

 

[mabrah]

It just says “if it’s your team, stonewall. If it’s their team, either soft or never in a million years”

So true innit? At least with some decisions. I mean, you sorta try to be objective... gut reaction has you screaming 'penalty!' ... then you see the replays and start to think 'ok, kinda, maybe'... then reluctant clarity and it's '****, dirty cheating bastards, twat referee, frikkin VAR' etc etc etc... oh the joys.

 

[LoopisDeLupis]

So true innit? At least with some decisions. I mean, you sorta try to be objective... gut reaction has you screaming 'penalty!' ... then you see the replays and start to think 'ok, kinda, maybe'... then reluctant clarity and it's '****, dirty cheating bastards, twat referee, frikkin VAR' etc etc etc... oh the joys.

Aye and this forum is a lot less biased than FT