[Albion] Penalty or nah?

[Neville's Breakfast]

View attachment 131211

Yep, it was a factual decision. Factually wrong.

 

[darkwolf666]

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

Err, if one wasn't bothered what other people posted I wouldn't be reading a football forum, where people talk about what they think!

Your name stands out as eveytime I see it it is accompanied by a negative post. I only checked your posting history to see if I was doing you a disservice, I wasn't!

 

[Thunder Bolt]

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

Imagine thinking your fun is winding up other posters M. Time to change the record.

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

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.

View attachment 131207

Strange? Not really. The premier league refs are the best in the country. I would have hated being on the opposite side of either of the villa and Liverpool penalty decisions, but the letter of the law was applied. Same here. I can see why he decided the foul did continue into the box - just - and I have to say I called penalty in real time as it happened. But no amount of arguing by people on here about how and when the foul 'stopped' will make me overrule a premier league ref, just like all the arguing by villa or Liverpool fans in very similar ways made me change my mind.

The problem isn't the decision so much as the game being re refereed. It's not clear and obvious, it wasn't a blatant error, go with the on field ref in these situations.

 

[The Wizard]

Strange? Not really. The premier league refs are the best in the country. I would have hated being on the opposite side of either of the villa and Liverpool penalty decisions, but the letter of the law was applied. Same here. I can see why he decided the foul did continue into the box - just - and I have to say I called penalty in real time as it happened. But no amount of arguing by people on here about how and when the foul 'stopped' will make me overrule a premier league ref, just like all the arguing by villa or Liverpool fans in very similar ways made me change my mind.

The problem isn't the decision so much as the game being re refereed. It's not clear and obvious, it wasn't a blatant error, go with the on field ref in these situations.

Eh? VAR literally overruled a ‘premier league ref’ ?

The letter of the law wasn’t applied as there was NO FOUL inside the box, watch the link on the previous page and tell me where the foul is inside the box. It’s strange to think that referees/VAR are infallible simply because of the position they hold, for me that one last night is one of the worst decisions in that the referee gave the correct decision and had his decision changed.

 

[junior]

Err, if one wasn't bothered what other people posted I wouldn't be reading a football forum, where people talk about what they think!

Your name stands out as eveytime I see it it is accompanied by a negative post. I only checked your posting history to see if I was doing you a disservice, I wasn't!

But that's obviously not true though, because you just mentioned Halifax.

You're just only seeing the negative posts because you disagree with them.

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

Eh? VAR literally overruled a ‘premier league ref’ ?

The letter of the law wasn’t applied as there was NO FOUL inside the box, watch the link on the previous page and tell me where the foul is inside the box. It’s strange to think that referees/VAR are infallible simply because of the position they hold, for me that one last night is one of the worst decisions in that the referee gave the correct decision and had his decision changed.

My issue is that he didn't overrule him per se, but refereed the decision from scratch without consideration of the original refs decision. It was incredibly marginal but the VAR ref decided he had to rule one way of the other, and came down on the side of penalty. What VAR should do is say 'its marginal, so I'll go with the on field ref decision'. I don't think we disagree there.

 

[darkwolf666]

But that's obviously not true though, because you just mentioned Halifax.

You're just only seeing the negative posts because you disagree with them.

Not sure we've played Halifax for a while!

 

[Audax]

For me, seeing the footage and analysis provided in this thread - not a Pen. A foul outside the box, and a yellow to KWP for simulation after the fact.

The only thing I can think of that would justify VAR calling it as "inside the box" as a "factual" call is if the law on fouls applies the same as the law on offside, and KWP had just enough arm inside the box when the foul happened.

Certainly cannot have been a decision made "factually" if it was based on the secondary contact that happened inside the box: there's a matter of opinion there whether KWP or March initiated that contact that needs to be resolved before you can rule on the facts of location. IMO, KWP initiated the secondary contact - if you watch the way his upper leg moves initially, and then how his foot kicks out ... no way is that a natural part of falling. He's kicked his legs away from the direction of the fall. That's quite simply not natural. He's deliberately initiated that contact with March looking for the Pen.

 

[LamieRobertson]

Bet Martin Keown voted penalty

 

[Wrong-Direction]

Never a pen, contact started outside the box!

Sent from my SM-A600FN using Tapatalk

 

[warmleyseagull]

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.

You are misinterpreting; if a player is fouled then continues of his own accord and stumbles, then clearly there is no continuity. Otherwise we would have players stumbling all over the place. VAR is irrelevant; the issue is continuity. TBH, I am amazed that the concept is causing such difficulty; it is has been around for yonks, way before VAR. What happened here is that VAR saw that the original contact continued to within the area; I accept now that there is a good argument that it didn't (albeit requires a deal of time absorbing forensic examination which many VAR haters dislike) but the video ref ruled that it did. End of.

 

[brighton_tom]

They replayed like 5 different angles over and over again, 3 or 4 of them making it clearly look like a free kick and 1 or 2 of them making it look more like a penalty. But that inconclusive nature of the replays means VAR had no right giving the penalty as they had no way of being certain. Should have just gone with the refs initial decision.

 

[Bodian]

For me, seeing the footage and analysis provided in this thread - not a Pen. A foul outside the box, and a yellow to KWP for simulation after the fact.

The only thing I can think of that would justify VAR calling it as "inside the box" as a "factual" call is if the law on fouls applies the same as the law on offside, a[B]nd KWP had just enough arm inside the box when the foul happened.[/B]

Certainly cannot have been a decision made "factually" if it was based on the secondary contact that happened inside the box: there's a matter of opinion there whether KWP or March initiated that contact that needs to be resolved before you can rule on the facts of location. IMO, KWP initiated the secondary contact - if you watch the way his upper leg moves initially, and then how his foot kicks out ... no way is that a natural part of falling. He's kicked his legs away from the direction of the fall. That's quite simply not natural. He's deliberately initiated that contact with March looking for the Pen.

I think this is why they gave it as a penalty, and all our chat about 'carrying on into the box' isn't really relevant.

 

[daveinplzen]

View attachment 131196

Well?

It's outside the box. Picture doesn't lie.

 

[OzMike]

how could it have been awarded after seeing that.

 

[Uh_huh_him]

I believe the refs are deliberately trying to undermine VAR, and have been since the outset.
They must know they are making ridiculous decisions. The length of time it takes to confirm goals has been baffling at times.

So far they are doing a great job of convincing fans and pundits that the problem is VAR and not the officials.
Even though the same pundits and fans are looking at exactly the same footage and non-plussed at the official's final decision.

It's about time the pundits start shining a light on the officials making the decisions.
Covering them with "by the letter of the law" and "well there is contact" is just letting officials get away with the poor standards they (have chosen to) apply.

 

[Wrong-Direction]

If the ref had given the pen and VAR said it was a free kick, would he have checked the TV to make the final decision? I cant believe the ref didnt go and check when the week before they did!?

Sent from my SM-A600FN using Tapatalk

 

[One Teddy Maybank]

No - ridiculous


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Taybha]

If the ref had given the pen and VAR said it was a free kick, would he have checked the TV to make the final decision? I cant believe the ref didnt go and check when the week before they did!?

Sent from my SM-A600FN using Tapatalk

That's because he's a Coote