Can't moan about the referee for Brentford

[PSRB]

as I've never heard of him. Tony Harrington

[pjlincs]

as I've never heard of him. Tony Harrington

John Brooks on VAR again.

[WES]

John Brooks on VAR again.

Generally I'm not of the view that Martin Samuel of the Times is an utter c*nt.

But in his article today in the Times he compares the Gyokeres tackle on their keeper with the Caceido tackle and his view is that both or neither are red cards, but that his view is neither.

For now, I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt. The fat c*nt.

[PSRB]

Generally I'm not of the view that Martin Samuel of the Times is an utter c*nt.

But in his article today in the Times he compares the Gyokeres tackle on their keeper with the Caceido tackle and his view is that both or neither are red cards, but that his view is neither.

For now, I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt. The fat c*nt.

The keeper also made a massive meal of it.

I was a little surprised it was yellow as Taylor had been looking to even it up but VAR said Yellow

[redgunamo]

as I've never heard of him. Tony Harrington

Let's hope he's not reading this

[Peter]

Generally I'm not of the view that Martin Samuel of the Times is an utter c*nt.

But in his article today in the Times he compares the Gyokeres tackle on their keeper with the Caceido tackle and his view is that both or neither are red cards, but that his view is neither.

For now, I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt. The fat c*nt.

If he is saying that the Caicedo tackle is not a red card then there really isn't any point in reading further. He's trying to sell you something.

Complete and utter nonsense.

[WES]

If he is saying that the Caicedo tackle is not a red card then there really isn't any point in reading further. He's trying to sell you something.

Complete and utter nonsense.

The relevant text from his article:

A personal view? The initial yellow card was sufficient. The slow-motion replays were wince-inducing and had Taylor shown an immediate red, well, that would have been understandable, too. What jarred was the elevation by VAR. Taylor didn’t really make a mistake. Yet once summoned to the monitor by John Brooks and the incident revisited at reduced speed, he was always going to think he had erred. So it was no surprise the yellow was upgraded.

Yet Caicedo was trying to make a fair challenge, mistimed it by a split-second and caught the man. Later in the match, so did Victor Gyokeres, following in a loose ball after a save by Robert S?nchez. The Chelsea man got to it first and Gyokeres went studs first into S?nchez’s chest. Taylor gave him a yellow card, and Brooks stayed silent. Why? Gyokeres had every right to go for the ball, like Caicedo, but got it wrong, like Caicedo. One’s a punitive red, the other’s a lenient yellow. But, hey, that’s modern football.

The fat c*nt

[Peter]

The relevant text from his article:

A personal view? The initial yellow card was sufficient. The slow-motion replays were wince-inducing and had Taylor shown an immediate red, well, that would have been understandable, too. What jarred was the elevation by VAR. Taylor didn’t really make a mistake. Yet once summoned to the monitor by John Brooks and the incident revisited at reduced speed, he was always going to think he had erred. So it was no surprise the yellow was upgraded.

Yet Caicedo was trying to make a fair challenge, mistimed it by a split-second and caught the man. Later in the match, so did Victor Gyokeres, following in a loose ball after a save by Robert S?nchez. The Chelsea man got to it first and Gyokeres went studs first into S?nchez’s chest. Taylor gave him a yellow card, and Brooks stayed silent. Why? Gyokeres had every right to go for the ball, like Caicedo, but got it wrong, like Caicedo. One’s a punitive red, the other’s a lenient yellow. But, hey, that’s modern football.

The fat c*nt

Click bait. Pure and simple. Not worthy of discussion.

There is no way a guy who was been writing about football for that long genuinely believes that. And his logic displays a hopeless misunderstanding of the guidelines which again, I find impossible to believe.

[pjlincs]

The relevant text from his article:

A personal view? The initial yellow card was sufficient. The slow-motion replays were wince-inducing and had Taylor shown an immediate red, well, that would have been understandable, too. What jarred was the elevation by VAR. Taylor didn?t really make a mistake. Yet once summoned to the monitor by John Brooks and the incident revisited at reduced speed, he was always going to think he had erred. So it was no surprise the yellow was upgraded.

Yet Caicedo was trying to make a fair challenge, mistimed it by a split-second and caught the man. Later in the match, so did Victor Gyokeres, following in a loose ball after a save by Robert S?nchez. The Chelsea man got to it first and Gyokeres went studs first into S?nchez?s chest. Taylor gave him a yellow card, and Brooks stayed silent. Why? Gyokeres had every right to go for the ball, like Caicedo, but got it wrong, like Caicedo. One?s a punitive red, the other?s a lenient yellow. But, hey, that?s modern football.

The fat c*nt

Brooks didn't stay silent on Gyokeres. Can't recall the exact words but Smithy or the commentator relayed what the VAR said about the ball being there to be played and the angle of Vik's leg.

[PSRB]

John Brooks on VAR again.

James Bell on VAR, apparently. Never heard of him either.