It was and that is why it was called. If you mean that without VAR it wouldn't have been given, who knows. But to say it was not is clearly wrong. The trouble is when you have VAR you can't say that something was only a little bit against the rules.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Albion] The penalty
- Thread starter Stat Brother
- Start date
Absolute joke of a decision that brings the game into disrepute, but I'm not complaining.
Technically correct decision, but VAR is ruining the live spectator experience and enhancing that of the armchair fan. Do not like it one bit but it did us a favour for once!
What is the difference between studs on a shin and studs on an instep, apart from about six inches? It was a foul, end.
Dick Knights Mumm
Take me Home Falmer Road
Correct decision. Player's ankle get raked - that's painful and stops him moving that foot to control the ball. Clear and obvious error in that seen on replay and not by the ref. I'd be upset had it been against us but it would have been correct.
- Thread starter
- #185
Why doesn't Mr Var release a statement after the game and before the highlights are available?
They have had a fully discussion on the incident.
They have had time to analyse the footage.
They are removing 'human error'.
So why not explain it?
This is going to be shrouded in 'he wasn't even looking at the player' and 'there was no intent', neither of which have anything to do with the decision.
They have had a fully discussion on the incident.
They have had time to analyse the footage.
They are removing 'human error'.
So why not explain it?
This is going to be shrouded in 'he wasn't even looking at the player' and 'there was no intent', neither of which have anything to do with the decision.
Medwayseagull
JCB
More importantly those two reasons being trotted out by people having nothing to do with the laws of the game.
Deleted member 37369
Well-known member
- Aug 21, 2018
- 1,994
Apologies if someone has already posted this ... but I haven't read all 20 pages! This from thefa.com
Direct free kick
A direct free kick is awarded if a player commits any of the following offences against an opponent in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force:
This includes....
- Careless is when a player shows a lack of attention or consideration when making a challenge or acts without precaution. No disciplinary sanction is needed
- impedes an opponent with contact
No... Michael Keane didn't mean to stand on AC ... but he did. So maybe a bit of 'lack of attention or consideration' of where his opponent was. More importantly for me ... the contact impeded AC ... so it's a penalty!
I have a mate who is a season ticket holder at Goodison and he was rather angry after (not that he'd seen the incident ... he was going on hearsay). He did moan that it was the first time that VAR had awarded a pen that the ref hadn't given. So what ... it was always going to be used for the first time at some stage!
And he complained that 'diver' Richarlison should have had an earlier pen. Nonsense ... he threw himself to the floor and then held his head ... much like what he was doing all game!
Anyway ... 3 points ... 2 consecutive home wins ... UTA!!
Direct free kick
A direct free kick is awarded if a player commits any of the following offences against an opponent in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force:
This includes....
- Careless is when a player shows a lack of attention or consideration when making a challenge or acts without precaution. No disciplinary sanction is needed
- impedes an opponent with contact
No... Michael Keane didn't mean to stand on AC ... but he did. So maybe a bit of 'lack of attention or consideration' of where his opponent was. More importantly for me ... the contact impeded AC ... so it's a penalty!
I have a mate who is a season ticket holder at Goodison and he was rather angry after (not that he'd seen the incident ... he was going on hearsay). He did moan that it was the first time that VAR had awarded a pen that the ref hadn't given. So what ... it was always going to be used for the first time at some stage!
And he complained that 'diver' Richarlison should have had an earlier pen. Nonsense ... he threw himself to the floor and then held his head ... much like what he was doing all game!
Anyway ... 3 points ... 2 consecutive home wins ... UTA!!
Richardlison had his shirt pulled and was impeded. Letter of the law var should have given a penalty. It would have been ridiculous of course but our var converts could have had ZERO complaint had it been given. Of course without Var the game would have continued with no decision on either and rightly so.
Having your foot trod on with studs by a 6ft+ player must be very painful, I’m not happy with the criticism I’ve seen of AC. It was a foul, albeit accidental.
However, if the ref has not seen it, I’m not keen on it being given. It’s the same as the handball ‘unnatural position’ rubbish (whatever hope red to hand-to-ball etc) and keepers moving off the line in a penalty. Too much detail being looked at. VAR still needs a lot of work.
However, if the ref has not seen it, I’m not keen on it being given. It’s the same as the handball ‘unnatural position’ rubbish (whatever hope red to hand-to-ball etc) and keepers moving off the line in a penalty. Too much detail being looked at. VAR still needs a lot of work.
It’s a penalty. Not one most football fans would give but that’s just the way it is. I’m not sure how it meets ‘the clear and obvious’ threshold though, especially as, in previous weeks, the defender could whip out a chainsaw and amputate the striker’s leg and VAR wouldn’t have batted an eyelid if the ref gave nothing.
I suspect the real key here is that the VAR was more experienced than the on-field ref and so was happy to over-rule him. The other way round, it doesn’t work.
So after weeks of media moaning that VAR doesn’t award penalties, it has - and now the moaning about that begins. Next, they’ll get the pitchside monitors used, which is a disaster as that takes forever - and everyone will moan about that.
It’s as if a borderline penalty was never given before VAR existed. If it’s going to cause this much debate, may as well bin it - which is a shame.
I suspect the real key here is that the VAR was more experienced than the on-field ref and so was happy to over-rule him. The other way round, it doesn’t work.
So after weeks of media moaning that VAR doesn’t award penalties, it has - and now the moaning about that begins. Next, they’ll get the pitchside monitors used, which is a disaster as that takes forever - and everyone will moan about that.
It’s as if a borderline penalty was never given before VAR existed. If it’s going to cause this much debate, may as well bin it - which is a shame.
Have only seen the replays straight after the game but he did take a quick look at Connolly just before standing on his foot, as I remember it.
Totally agree. The decision was actually completely consistent with last week’s in the Leicester-Burnley game, where Wood’s equaliser was ruled out because he made seemingly accidental contact with Jonny Evans. That caused very little fuss comparatively because, hey, it’s only Burnley. This is mighty Everton. Likewise, I strongly suspect if we’d lost 3-2 and had that penalty awarded against us, it would have been met with a collective shrug of the shoulders nationally and a quick dismissive comment in the MOTD studio.
Hampster Gull
Well-known member
- Dec 22, 2010
- 13,465
VAR is ruining the game for taking spontaneity out of key moments and make this all about the rule book, the pedants.
But it’s here.
This was a clear foul and a penalty. I’ve seen loads of defenders do sly things like that, he knew what he was doing.
But it’s here.
This was a clear foul and a penalty. I’ve seen loads of defenders do sly things like that, he knew what he was doing.
portlock seagull
Well-known member
- Jul 28, 2003
- 17,777
Is it a foul? By the same token any players jumping for the same ball and colliding, a clash of heads in the box must therefore always result in a penalty even as a defender might be lying cold and requiring emergency medical attention. Don’t think that’s what this technology was deployed to do. VAR HAS WRECKED FOOTBALL - there’s no denying it. You see the humans behind involved are still not droids and never will be so consequently we’ve got same inconsistencies whilst destroying the games most cherished moment for both players and fans which is scoring a GOAL. Still, as long as the nerds can enjoy the ‘drama’ of waiting up to five minutes for remote analysis from hundreds of miles away whilst no ones got a clue what’s going on in the ground and yet still they **** it up...yep, brilliant invention. #VARce #VeryAwfulReferee
Why?
Bold Seagull
strong and stable with me, or...
Yeah I’ll agree it was soft and contact impedes our player, but I think you always have to judge how much contact generates a foul. I don’t think Montoya on Richarlison is a foul either because the contact is not strong or long enough to warrant the player falling over/being impeded.
I would have thought anyone who saw it after was expecting something a lot more clear and obvious than what we saw. Massive decision by VAR and reinforces the thought they’re making it up as they go along.
Bold Seagull
strong and stable with me, or...
Yep, Murray had already been warming up and was ready to come on. Connolly was coming off regardless I think. He might have a bruised foot, but suspect he’s absolutely fine.
The Camel
Well-known member
Blimey, amazed this subject has so many posts.
Absolutely a penalty and exactly why VAR was introduced, to pick up clear fouls which the ref has missed.
It has been used incorrectly up until to this weekend, but the red card for Bertrand, Chelsea's penalty being overturned and this penalty suggest they might finally be getting it right.
Absolutely a penalty and exactly why VAR was introduced, to pick up clear fouls which the ref has missed.
It has been used incorrectly up until to this weekend, but the red card for Bertrand, Chelsea's penalty being overturned and this penalty suggest they might finally be getting it right.
Kalimantan Gull
Well-known member
So what you're saying is, next time I'm playing a game and the striker is trying to collect a long ball played to him, I should just tread on his foot and stop him getting there, and watch the ball sail out harmlessly for a goal kick. It's a good idea, will certainly make it easier for me
