Page 1 of 1
Harry Clarke
Posted: Tue Oct 29, 2024 1:11 pm
by Bluemike
So it's now official, he DIDNT concede an OG which was obvious to a blind man at the time.
All these online pages with the story about the second player in history to concede a penalty an OG and get sent off look pretty stupid now.
Re: Harry Clarke
Posted: Tue Oct 29, 2024 2:35 pm
by ashfordblue
Bluemike wrote: ↑Tue Oct 29, 2024 1:11 pm
So it's now official, he didn't concede an OG which was obvious to a blind man at the time.
All these online pages with the story about the second player in history to concede a penalty an OG and get sent off look pretty stupid now.
Maybe so, Mike, but it has been put on record now in his effort to clear the ball off the line and carry it into his goal. But I still think he's a bloody big liability. I've lost count of the number of times he's left his RB position wide open because he's gone charging upfield without thinking. Plus, he gives far too much space for the opposition winger to work in. That is where Axel is so much better than Harry.
Re: Harry Clarke
Posted: Tue Oct 29, 2024 2:54 pm
by Bluemike
Axel is clearly better yes, Clarke played his first ever game at this level and actually did ok if you ignore all the nonsense about penalties and cards. I agree at times his positional play is off but the lad invariably comes up against the oppositions best player. I don't want him as first choice but I also don't believe he's a liability, certainly no worse than a few defenders of ours I could mention, or the keeper, right winger and left winger.
Re: Harry Clarke
Posted: Tue Oct 29, 2024 9:51 pm
by shabba
He gives his all though, I don't mind him, certainly is a good bench optin when chasing a goal late on as he has more forward thrust than our other RBs
Re: Harry Clarke
Posted: Tue Oct 29, 2024 11:21 pm
by Charnwood
I’m pleased he had the og chalked off, I said at the time it was a harsh decision to award him an own goal against him.
The penalty given against him he can’t complain too much about as the foul continued in the box. Had he been a bit smarter and pulled out of the foul once in the box it would have been a free kick outside the area where the offence was first committed. That said he was probably carried over with momentum which would have made that difficult.
Can’t fault his commitment and I’d be in no hurry to see him leave.
Re: Harry Clarke
Posted: Wed Oct 30, 2024 8:14 am
by hallamblue
It wasn't an OG, and it wasn't a foul (let alone a penalty!!), because he got the ball, and the initial player contact was well outside the penalty area.So for Harry Clarke did nothing wrong thst day, and if fit I'd play him sat.
Re: Harry Clarke
Posted: Wed Oct 30, 2024 10:04 am
by Blue Wilf
Charnwood wrote: ↑Tue Oct 29, 2024 11:21 pm
I’m pleased he had the og chalked off, I said at the time it was a harsh decision to award him an own goal against him.
The penalty given against him he can’t complain too much about as the foul continued in the box. Had he been a bit smarter and pulled out of the foul once in the box it would have been a free kick outside the area where the offence was first committed. That said he was probably carried over with momentum which would have made that difficult.
Can’t fault his commitment and I’d be in no hurry to see him leave.
I don't get the whole foul continuing in the box thing. A foul is a foul and as soon as it has been committed (in this case outside the box) it should be given in the same way that when someone dives from outside the box but lands in the box and a free kick is given.
Re: Harry Clarke
Posted: Wed Oct 30, 2024 10:07 am
by Blue Wilf
In fact, just scrap VAR. it brings nothing to the game except delay and controversy.
Re: Harry Clarke
Posted: Wed Oct 30, 2024 10:24 am
by Bluemike
Technically you could be fouled in the centre circle and run to the penalty box before falling over
Re: Harry Clarke
Posted: Wed Oct 30, 2024 10:26 am
by marko69
Blue Wilf wrote: ↑Wed Oct 30, 2024 10:07 am
In fact, just scrap VAR. it brings nothing to the game except delay and controversy.
The day it causes a riot, they’ll think about scrapping it. Was bad enough at the Edinburgh derby last week, but it’ll create something bigger, like at an Old Firm game.
Supposed to take pressure away from the ref, but he’s the one on the pitch and in that cauldron.
Re: Harry Clarke
Posted: Wed Oct 30, 2024 12:25 pm
by RRanger
Moan about VAR as much as you like but it won't be scrapped but I would like to see the on-field ref stronger when sent to watch something from every angle and in slow motion, to stick to his original decision sometimes. Also there does seem to be a tendency creeping into the usage by the VAR official of stretching the intended meaning of "a clear and obvious error" by the on-field official. Cricket has their equivalent use of technology absolutely spot-on with their "umpire's call" -football needs to find an equivalent with VAR.
Re: Harry Clarke
Posted: Wed Oct 30, 2024 4:14 pm
by Mariner67
Charnwood wrote: ↑Tue Oct 29, 2024 11:21 pm
I’m pleased he had the og chalked off, I said at the time it was a harsh decision to award him an own goal against him.
The penalty given against him he can’t complain too much about as the foul continued in the box. Had he been a bit smarter and pulled out of the foul once in the box it would have been a free kick outside the area where the offence was first committed. That said he was probably carried over with momentum which would have made that difficult.
Can’t fault his commitment and I’d be in no hurry to see him leave.
The sending off was harsh,he didn't make contact with the player, the ref got it wrong.
Re: Harry Clarke
Posted: Thu Oct 31, 2024 7:45 pm
by collinsc
And the pundits on MOTD didn't even bother to slow down the replay and have a proper look, in fact, i think they said it was the correct decision (i may have misremembered that).
P.S. Still on the search for a VAR line photo of their equaliser if anyone has seen it!!!?
Re: Harry Clarke
Posted: Thu Oct 31, 2024 8:55 pm
by Ricco
RRanger wrote: ↑Wed Oct 30, 2024 12:25 pm
Cricket has their equivalent use of technology absolutely spot-on with their "umpire's call" -football needs to find an equivalent with VAR.
You know what else cricket has?... an appeal system. Football will have an appeal system one day I'm sure, and then VAR will be a success. Until then, it will continue to be a complete mess and a blight on the game.
Re: Harry Clarke
Posted: Fri Nov 01, 2024 12:00 am
by Mariner67
collinsc wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2024 7:45 pm
And the pundits on MOTD didn't even bother to slow down the replay and have a proper look, in fact, i think they said it was the correct decision (i may have misremembered that).
P.S. Still on the search for a VAR line photo of their equaliser if anyone has seen it!!!?
Yep they said it was the correct decision, completely wrong & delusional.
Re: Harry Clarke
Posted: Fri Nov 01, 2024 12:06 am
by marko69
Mariner67 wrote: ↑Fri Nov 01, 2024 12:00 am
collinsc wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2024 7:45 pm
And the pundits on MOTD didn't even bother to slow down the replay and have a proper look, in fact, i think they said it was the correct decision (i may have misremembered that).
P.S. Still on the search for a VAR line photo of their equaliser if anyone has seen it!!!?
Yep they said it was the correct decision, completely wrong & delusional.
Only seems to happen in football / soccer.
The NFL in the USA or the AFL in Oz go to their VAR-man in the booth, its over in seconds, and they’re 9.99 out of 10 correct.
VAR in Scotland or England; they can sometimes be 2-3 minutes ——>> and they get it wrong on numerous occasions, (certainly too many occasions) ……. So what’s the point?
Scrap it.
Just go back to the Refs & Linesmen and colourful referee songs. And scrap the 4th official as well. Lets go back to what we know, (certainly here in Scotland) —->> the game is over when Celtic score the winner or equalise.
Sorted!
Re: Harry Clarke
Posted: Fri Nov 01, 2024 10:53 am
by ITFC2024
VAR is especially ineffective when the Ref is sh*t, which he was.
Re: Harry Clarke
Posted: Fri Nov 01, 2024 12:15 pm
by Mariner67
marko69 wrote: ↑Fri Nov 01, 2024 12:06 am
Mariner67 wrote: ↑Fri Nov 01, 2024 12:00 am
collinsc wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2024 7:45 pm
And the pundits on MOTD didn't even bother to slow down the replay and have a proper look, in fact, i think they said it was the correct decision (i may have misremembered that).
P.S. Still on the search for a VAR line photo of their equaliser if anyone has seen it!!!?
Yep they said it was the correct decision, completely wrong & delusional.
Only seems to happen in football / soccer.
The NFL in the USA or the AFL in Oz go to their VAR-man in the booth, its over in seconds, and they’re 9.99 out of 10 correct.
VAR in Scotland or England; they can sometimes be 2-3 minutes ——>> and they get it wrong on numerous occasions, (certainly too many occasions) ……. So what’s the point?
Scrap it.
Just go back to the Refs & Linesmen and colourful referee songs. And scrap the 4th official as well. Lets go back to what we know, (certainly here in Scotland) —->> the game is over when Celtic score the winner or equalise.
Sorted!
VAR man in a booth sounds better,put that in place & we can all Boo the booth
