[Albion] Penalty or nah?

[The Wizard]

As expected the ‘secondary contact’ is the pathetic excuse many are giving to defend the decision.

Anyone talking about the the second ‘foul’ WATCH THE REPLAY from the behind the goal angle, it’s CLEARLY the Southampton player making contact with the back of Sollys knee whilst throwing himself forward into the box, so even if they are going off that it, that wasn’t even a foul. The saddest thing is the on pitch referee got this spot on, he was standing 2 yards or so from the edge for the kick to be taken which looking at the replay is exactly where the initial foul took place.

This kind of decision is the reason VAR is alienating fans, VAR should not be used to make decisions that take 10-15 replays to decide because ultimately that is showing the decision will be opinion based, not based on a clear mistake.

And by the way, we weren’t good enough last night it’s no excuse for our second half performance in which we probably deserved to lose

 

[METALMICKY]

Under the current laws, this is the correct answer. If a foul is initially committed outside of the box but continues into the box it is a penalty.

It was a bloody stupid challenge to make in any event.

So what defines ' continuation of a foul'? So let's suggest a player gets tripped 10 yards outside the box but manages to stay on his feet. He then deliberately stumbles the distance to land within the box. So despite obvious initial foul being well outside VAR can give a penalty?

That's an exaggerated example but shows how rubbish VAR is. The argument that there were two fouls by March is also rubbish. He makes initial contact outside the box and the second contact inside the box is the aftermath of that one challenge. Notwithstanding the fact that their player has almost jumped into the box.

 

[pb21]

Under the current laws, this is the correct answer. If a foul is initially committed outside of the box but continues into the box it is a penalty.

It was a bloody stupid challenge to make in any event.

The foul happens outside the box, they then fall over in the box as a result of the foul.

Are you saying that if you push someone over outside the box, but they then fall, or roll, into the box its a penalty?

Also I had a look for the relevant law on where a foul technically takes place (foul continuation); where is this?

 

[Silverhatch]

Given that the modern narrative around football is that it's a business as much as it's a sport, it beggars belief that the shareholders and rule makers have endorsed the adoption of a technology that actually make the product worse. What's more, the product for the people that create the atmosphere - the in-person-fans (now forever recognised as fundamental to the product's success thanks to Covid) are actually getting an even worse version of an already sub-standard product.

The technology is just a ****ing camera. The problem is the people that have screamed (for a policeman) for every bad decision in the Premier League era. Either use cameras properly, or ditch the whole ****ing thing. DO NOT RE REFEREE THE GAME.

 

[Iggle Piggle]

Of course it's not a penalty and Ray Charles in the VAR box should be able to work that one out for himself. That said, i'm just as annoyed about 1) Letting Southampton off the hook after being dominant in the 1st half 2) Watching a 6ft 6 bloke run onto a free header in the box 3) Solly making the challenge anyway 4) Matt Ryan's Graeme Smithesque levels of saves this season and 5) Connolly and Maupay looking decidedly Championship recently.

Stick Ings on for us in the 2nd half and we win that game. It felt like watching the West Brom game again.

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

I have to say its a penalty. A premier league ref looked at it for ages and concluded it was a penalty. He knows the laws of the game far better than me. So penalty.

For me its more about VAR enabling a re refereeing of the game from the TV box, its not what VAR is supposed to be about.

 

[The Wizard]

I have to say its a penalty. A premier league ref looked at it for ages and concluded it was a penalty. He knows the laws of the game far better than me. So penalty.

For me its more about VAR enabling a re refereeing of the game from the TV box, its not what VAR is supposed to be about.

What a strange way to form an opinion, given the state of the VAR decisions this season how can you simply just go with it? If the ref had given a penalty I would understand them not changing the decision as it took all those replays for the VAR referee to decide it was inside the box, however the referee in this instance gave the correct decision and was over ruled. The contact that makes the player fall is outside the box, the Southampton player then continues and throws himself forward into Solly March and makes contact with March inside the box, not the other way around.

I genuinely feel sorry for the referee last night as he got that spot on and was made to look silly by VAR outright changing his decision.

 

[LamieRobertson]

I have to say its a penalty. A premier league ref looked at it for ages and concluded it was a penalty. He knows the laws of the game far better than me. So penalty.

For me its more about VAR enabling a re refereeing of the game from the TV box, its not what VAR is supposed to be about.

Nope you don’t “have to say it was a penalty”, it wasn’t its that simple

 

[doogie004]

So sky sports this morning
Dermont Gallagher says yes pen as he was at stockly park watching the process but agrees it still comes down to refs opinion against another which
A .Don’t make it clear and obvious or factual just opinion
B. No way of being sure it’s in box or not as only looking at camera angles which are not 100% accurate
C. Which makes it even harder to accept is the pen was given on the INITIAL contact as I argued on another thread with people saying it was the comming together of legs well you were wrong .

 

[The Wizard]

Where is the foul inside the box? Watch the first 10 seconds and slow it down, March is kicked in the back of the leg, there is no foul inside the box. How am I seeing people even saying the foul ‘continued’ inside the box? If anyone is fouled here it’s March as by this point he’s got his body in front.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Dk3VDGOVW-w

 

[Yoda]

How many more dodgy penalties are Saints going to be given against us?

https://youtu.be/HfgpjyATaWU?t=161

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

Under the current laws, this is the correct answer. If a foul is initially committed outside of the box but continues into the box it is a penalty.

It was a bloody stupid challenge to make in any event.

I’m sorry but that is not the case. Under current laws any contact inside the box would have to have been a continuation of March’s shove outside the box. The shove had finished and a free kick should have been awarded. The Southampton player threw himself into the box and wrapped his foot against the back of Solly’s leg and that is not a continuation foul.

http://www.askasoccerreferee.com/continuation-fouls/

I have to say its a penalty. A premier league ref looked at it for ages and concluded it was a penalty. He knows the laws of the game far better than me. So penalty.

For me its more about VAR enabling a re refereeing of the game from the TV box, its not what VAR is supposed to be about.

See link above. The VAR ref clearly does not know the laws of the game. I’m happy to accept the decision of any ref on field, taken in good faith and where it does not involve losing 4 minutes of play thereby spoiling the momentum of the game and in this case the outcome.

 

[LamieRobertson]

Where is the foul inside the box? Watch the first 10 seconds and slow it down, March is kicked in the back of the leg, there is no foul inside the box. How am I seeing people even saying the foul ‘continued’ inside the box? If anyone is fouled here it’s March as by this point he’s got his body in front.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Dk3VDGOVW-w

So they’ve both looked at it several times and concluded it was a penalty...did the VAR guy just flip a coin ....fekin annoying being their last night waiting for that crap decision

 

[Bold Seagull]

Incredibly difficult to take that VAR overturns the onfield decision on that. If the ref gives a foul or a pen, it's an opinion decision, VAR shouldn't be inferring.

It's one of those that is 50-50. I don't think there is a right answer, BUT no way VAR should be overturning the officials on a decision like that. First couple of replays, not clear and obvious the Ref has made a mistake. Play continues with the Ref decision whether it was a pen or foul.

I need a 3rd poll option of '50-50 stay with the on-field decision'.

What I do need to find out is why the hell doesn't Webster just make a positive decision and just win the header!

 

[wellquickwoody]

From the view offered by Bozza it would appear not.

Sat watching the game 12 hours later, the views offered on Optus/PL produced TV vindicate the VAR (I am now choking on my words), we should not enjoy VAR one week and hate it the next. Any of us should make a positive choice, yes or no.

For me, it is an absolute pile of cack, still subject to human error (but maybe less so) but ruins the game for the paying spectator. But TV money is more important than actual fan money so it ain’t going nowhere. Lower league football may benefit from the greed of the big boys in an unexpected way.

I will ALWAYS be Brighton, but I might choose to spend my money elsewhere.......Melbourne, when in the UK maybe Worthing, or submit and become an armchair fan on the opposite side of the planet.

 

[darkwolf666]

Who cares, we are shit.

A genuine question and not meant out of any malice, but do you ever say anything positive about the team?

I looked back through some of your posts and clearly you have been supporting the Albion for a long time, but nothing recent is positive. Lots of good old days stuff, so maybe you just don't like The Premier League and would prefer days out at Halifax.

If that is the case I think you may need to have a rethink, or you are going to get even more grumpy - if that's at all possible!

 

[zefarelly]

I'm doubting if it was even a fould, the stains plsayter just wrapeed his leg and launched himself like superman on a springboard. It's all a bit of a joke, except its not funny.

 

[Bozza]

The VAR ref clearly does not know the laws of the game.

 

[junior]

A genuine question and not meant out of any malice, but do you ever say anything positive about the team?

I looked back through some of your posts and clearly you have been supporting the Albion for a long time, but nothing recent is positive. Lots of good old days stuff, so maybe you just don't like The Premier League and would prefer days out at Halifax.

If that is the case I think you may need to have a rethink, or you are going to get even more grumpy - if that's at all possible!

Imagine being that bothered by what other people post that your are inclined to go back through their previous posts

 

[Bold Seagull]

View attachment 131211

Much shouting at the ref that he was a see you next Tuesday around me, but as I said to them, nothing to do with him, he gave it outside, completely out of his hands as he wasn't invited to review it.