Premier League 2012/13

[Lako42]

Everton were a delight last night. Great club.

 

[Profondo Rosso]

I reckon Van Persie and Podolski will both be massive flops this season.

 

[DillyDing22]

Fellaini was brilliant. Can't see him staying at Everton too much longer before one of the big boys comes sniffing. He's been brilliant for them over the last couple of seasons.

Fellaini always does well against United, but not a great influence in the other games. I do think Carrick made him look exceptionally good.

 

[Graz]

Be interesting to see if he keeps playing in a more advanced role now Cahill has gone.

Think they'll have a good season. They'll finish above Liverpool. I think they've done good business this summer (although wasn;t sure when Cahill left) and they've actually got strikers now! Fourth is quite open... they could get in.

 

[MerseyFox]

Another offside goal for Chelsea. Why bother with linesmen?

 

[SwedeFox]

Another offside goal for Chelsea. Why bother with linesmen?

Yeah, why bother. It's not like they're an important part of the game or anything.

 

[FryattFox]

TV replays can't come in soon enough for key decisions, imho.

 

[Orifice]

The fact that the FA staff (assistant refs, referee, etc) are happy to give Chelsea free goals leads me to think that there could be money involved in the decisions. Just a tought of mine as it does happen quite often, remember Chelsea being given a goal against Spurs when the ball didn't cross the line?

I would like the FA to give an honest answer to the above. They don't have to, they make the rules.

The more they do it the more questions will be asked but I doubt that the FA will ever have the balls to make a statement. They are probably quite happy for things to continue.

 

[FryattFox]

They're watching us.

 

[Jeff]

TV replays can't come in soon enough for key decisions, imho.

Presumably something has happened in tonight's game. Can you elaborate, for those us who don't follow the prem?

 

[SwedeFox]

The fact that the FA staff (assistant refs, referee, etc) are happy to give Chelsea free goals leads me to think that there could be money involved in the decisions. Just a tought of mine as it does happen quite often, remember Chelsea being given a goal against Spurs when the ball didn't cross the line?

I would like the FA to give an honest answer to the above. They don't have to, they make the rules.

The more they do it the more questions will be asked but I doubt that the FA will ever have the balls to make a statement. They are probably quite happy for things to continue.

Big teams often get decisions in their favour at home, yes, but that's a phenonemon known all around the world. Why is it so hard to believe that referees are human and will make mistakes and buckle under pressure sometimes, with no money involved whatsoever?

 

[FryattFox]

Presumably something has happened in tonight's game. Can you elaborate, for those us who don't follow the prem?

Torres was a yard offside for Chelsea's third, to put them 3-2 up.

Hardly a conspiracy, but must be gutting for Reading who looked pretty decent throughout and deserved better.

 

[FryattFox]

Why is it so hard to believe that referees are human and will make mistakes

Because that's no fun.

 

[Matt_B]

TV replays can't come in soon enough for key decisions, imho.

Offsides? Penalties? Goal line?

How about free kicks that might be scored from? or last man decisions? Or throw ins if you're Stoke?

Lots of decisions are key and this is the problem with technology being introduced. I used to be all for it, but I'm beginning to think that we're better letting it be

 

[MerseyFox]

It was a blatant offside! Mistakes and close calls are fair enough but that was too blatant. If the lineman is unable to correctly make that decision, he needs to be re-educated and not allowed to officiate until he can.

 

[Matt_B]

It was a blatant offside! Mistakes and close calls are fair enough but that was too blatant. If the lineman is unable to correctly make that decision, he needs to be re-educated and not allowed to officiate until he can.

At what point does it become "blatant" though? I'm just playing devil's advocate. You can't allow common sense or any grey areas, otherwise it is pointless.

 

[Mawsley]

Because that's no fun.

I like fun - point me in the direction of fun now.

Please.

 

[Matt_B]

I like fun - point me in the direction of fun now.

Please.

Sexy Fun

 

[FryattFox]

I like fun - point me in the direction of fun now.

Please.

Send me your bank details and I'll set you up.

 

[FryattFox]

Offsides? Penalties? Goal line?

How about free kicks that might be scored from? or last man decisions? Or throw ins if you're Stoke?

Lots of decisions are key and this is the problem with technology being introduced. I used to be all for it, but I'm beginning to think that we're better letting it be

Offsides where goals are scored directly in that passage of play. Yes.
Penalties. Yes.
Goal line. Yes.
Direct red cards. Yes.
Free-kicks. No.

That's where I'd draw the line, and I think it's a pretty clear distinction between items that are directly goal/player related and items that may result in a goal.

Plus you could easily limit each team to 1-3 challenges per game.

It's used successfully in almost every other sport and I've yet to see it be a hindrance, so it's just another example of football being behind the times.