Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

[Albion] Premier League 9-10/12/23



Grizz

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Jul 5, 2003
1,495
Again this is where it takes far far too long. Now I actually agree with the penalty, he didn't touch the ball, it's a foul. The game should've been stopped and the check take place, as Liverpool could've easily have gone down the other end and scored and then it becomes an utter farce.
 




The Wizard

Well-known member
Jul 2, 2009
18,399
To be fair, Good call by VAR that, what I want to know is why the commentators can hear what’s going on with VAR but the fans can’t?

Why not have a graphic that comes up that tells us when a review is ongoing etc
 






Washie

Well-known member
Jun 20, 2011
6,054
Eastbourne
To be fair, Good call by VAR that, what I want to know is why the commentators can hear what’s going on with VAR but the fans can’t?

Why not have a graphic that comes up that tells us when a review is ongoing etc
On the TV absolutely, In the stadium absolutely not. That would distract the players far too much.
 






keaton

Big heart, hot blood and balls. Big balls
Nov 18, 2004
9,972
Again this is where it takes far far too long. Now I actually agree with the penalty, he didn't touch the ball, it's a foul. The game should've been stopped and the check take place, as Liverpool could've easily have gone down the other end and scored and then it becomes an utter farce.
I'm not sure they should. I would imagine they thought it was a pen pretty quickly and wanted the ref to look at it but were waiting for a stop to do so. What they didn't want to do was stop an attack for the ref to say it wasn't a penalty.
 






Kalimantan Gull

Well-known member
Aug 13, 2003
13,439
Central Borneo / the Lizard
Again this is where it takes far far too long. Now I actually agree with the penalty, he didn't touch the ball, it's a foul. The game should've been stopped and the check take place, as Liverpool could've easily have gone down the other end and scored and then it becomes an utter farce.
Yeah, that hasn't happened yet but it will. We almost scored against Forest before the game was stopped for their penalty.
 


Acker79

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Nov 15, 2008
31,921
Brighton
Again this is where it takes far far too long. Now I actually agree with the penalty, he didn't touch the ball, it's a foul. The game should've been stopped and the check take place, as Liverpool could've easily have gone down the other end and scored and then it becomes an utter farce.



"If play has not already stopped, the referee stops play when the ball is next in a neutral zone/situation (usually when neither team is in an attacking move) and shows the ‘TV signal’"​
 


Grizz

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Jul 5, 2003
1,495

"If play has not already stopped, the referee stops play when the ball is next in a neutral zone/situation (usually when neither team is in an attacking move) and shows the ‘TV signal’"​

I get it, I understand the rules, but in my eyes the whole passage of play becomes a ball of confusion. Is there a perfect solution, maybe not and happy to agree to disagree about stopping the game or not. 😊
 






Bodian

Well-known member
May 3, 2012
14,262
Cumbria
That was marseille. https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/67014105

The Tottenham one was Lamptey's goal standing, despite a clear foul by March. https://talksport.com/football/782751/tottenham-referee-brighton-goal-var-penalty/
There were 'mitigating' circumstances re the Lamptey/March one though. In the first half Kane 'won' a penalty by dangerously backing into Lallana, and there was also a clear penalty for holding Trossard not given. The ref will have seen at half-time that he had cocked those up - and at the time the general feeling was that he let the equaliser stand to 'level things up'.
 










Triggaaar

Well-known member
Oct 24, 2005
53,157
Goldstone
While some may view that as a common sense approach (I wouldn't argue against it) there's no rule that says he has to play the advantage. And if you're a cynic, you might argue that it would be the way the ref would go to protect the big six side.
No he didn't have to, but he did. Once he's played advantage, deliberately or not, it would be against the rules to later give a free kick and remove a legitimate goal.
 








Dick Head

⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
Jan 3, 2010
13,891
Quaxxann
2695df0a67b9e57f09981ae635ebff4e.gif
 


Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here