[Albion] The penalty

[Peter Grummit]

Dermot Gallagher on SSN Ref Watch has just said it is consistent with the recent David Silva award interpretation by VAR, so it is technically a penalty.

Stephen Warnock and Sue (women's ex-player, sorry didn't catch her surname) disagreed.

It's a pen for me, although I accept it's difficult for us to be objective. Because of the blades and the thinness of modern boots, even innocuous looking fouls like this can be very painful. The fact that Connolly was subbed immediately is also relevant if circumstantial. Players can suffer metartasal injuries from such challenges.

Gallagher also said he didn't think the challenge on Richarlison was a pen, as he was already on his way down. It's also clear that he suffers no head contact so it's hard to interpret his lying there for ages clutching his head as anything other than the Brazilian's common simulation practice.

So, all good. 3 home points again against the Bitter Bluenoses who demonstrate their ongoing inferiority complex.

 

[GT49er]

Dermot Gallagher on SSN Ref Watch has just said it is consistent with the recent David Silva award interpretation by VAR, so it is technically a penalty.

Dermot Gallagher is programmed never to actually use the words 'got it wrong' in respect of any refereeing or VAR decision!

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

This is a continuation of the Ashley Barnes trip of the ref that time. Professional players are paid to know where their feet are. It is not like you or me. Keane know where his feet were and what he was doing.

 

[Bakero]

This is a continuation of the Ashley Barnes trip of the ref that time. Professional players are paid to know where their feet are. It is not like you or me. Keane know where his feet were and what he was doing.

It doesn't even matter if he knew what he was doing. A careless rather than intentional infringement is a foul nonetheless.

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

It doesn't even matter if he knew what he was doing. A careless rather than intentional infringement is a foul nonetheless.

Yep. Of course.

 

[Seasider78]

It doesn't even matter if he knew what he was doing. A careless rather than intentional infringement is a foul nonetheless.

Unless of course it’s Dale Stephens injuring Ramirez or the Hemed stamp where we reserve the right to have 500 pages berating the decision saying there was no intent!!!

Guess we are football fans it’s what we do!!

 

[Bakero]

Unless of course it’s Dale Stephens injuring Ramirez or the Hemed stamp where we reserve the right to have 500 pages berating the decision saying there was no intent!!!

Guess we are football fans it’s what we do!!

There's a difference between a foul and a red card offence.

You can get a red for:

Serious foul play
Violent conduct
Denying an obvious goal-scoring opportunity (handball)
Denying an obvious goal-scoring opportunity (foul; if deliberate)
Spitting or biting
Using offensive, insulting or abusive language and/or gestures
Receiving a second caution in the same match

Was Stephens or Hemed guilty of any of these? That's up for debate I'd say. From what I remember Ramirez swung his leg into Stephens studs. The furore around that decision was heightened by the Ramirez hitting then yellow out of the ref's hand to get him to change his mind.

 

[pb21]

It was technically a penalty (IMO). However, I am not sure it was a clear and obvious error by the ref in not seeing it (I see all fouls, genuine or otherwise, on Brighton players from up in the WSU and didn't spot this one). Therefore I don't think VAR should have got involved.

What would be interesting though is if the opposite happened, i.e. Connolly had trod on Keane's foot in a similar manner, Keane went down and then Connolly scored. I imagine the VAR would have ruled no goal (correctly IMO) and that all the Evertons would have been thanking the VAR for spotting the foul.

 

[dazzer6666]

Dermot Gallagher on SSN Ref Watch has just said it is consistent with the recent David Silva award interpretation by VAR, so it is technically a penalty.

Stephen Warnock and Sue (women's ex-player, sorry didn't catch her surname) disagreed.

It's a pen for me, although I accept it's difficult for us to be objective. Because of the blades and the thinness of modern boots, even innocuous looking fouls like this can be very painful. The fact that Connolly was subbed immediately is also relevant if circumstantial. Players can suffer metartasal injuries from such challenges.

Gallagher also said he didn't think the challenge on Richarlison was a pen, as he was already on his way down. It's also clear that he suffers no head contact so it's hard to interpret his lying there for ages clutching his head as anything other than the Brazilian's common simulation practice.

So, all good. 3 home points again against the Bitter Bluenoses who demonstrate their ongoing inferiority complex.

No - he was being subbed anyway wasn't he ?............Muzza was ready to come on before the incident. Agree - I think Connolly was in genuine pain - defender's weight, through studs, onto the top of his foot would have hurt like a b*tch.

If the ref had seen it, I think he'd have given a pen - it was a foul - so if he didn't see the actual contact (maybe assumed it was just a 'coming together'), that was a 'clear and obvious mistake'.

 

[jessiejames]

I've seen this incident so many times now, and at no point does it look like a foul. Both players are looking at the ball sailing over their heads (neither of them was ever going to reach it), and while they're both looking to the sky, Keane inadvertently steps on Connolly's foot. Connolly makes the absolute most of it, milking the shit out of it on the offchance because he felt some contact - and he hit the jackpot. Another game another day that probably wouldn't even be looked at, or if it was, play would just have restarted with a goal kick and nobody would be complaining. It wouldn't even warrant a mention, it was barely an incident worthy of note. Instead though, possibly because VAR has been getting stick recently for not acting on pens, its inexplicably given.

Everyone I've spoken to who was at the game, both at the time and afterwards, was stunned at that decision being given. Stunned and astonished. People around me were laughing. Its only on here that I've seen floods of posts saying that VAR got it bang-on.

If that is the threshold now for awarding a penalty, then we are going to see a HELL of a lot of spot kicks. Except we won't, because as ever with VAR, the only rule it follows is total inconsistency.

I admit that I was stunned that VAR was actually looking at the incident, yes I laughed when the penalty was awarded. When I watched the replay of the game in the North stand and showed the VAR evidence, I then saw Keen tread on Connerly foot, by the rules that is a penalty.

 

[jessiejames]

Regardless - it was not a clear and obvious mistake so no idea why VAR is now refereeing the game. Almost like umpires call - should have stayed with refs decision.

And if they give that - the Montoya / Dunk incidents on the corner should have definitely given away a penalty.

So VAR is now completely unreliable

Our disallowed goal v West Ham was not clear and obvious, even to the extent that West Ham were ready to kick off again. Maybe that should have stayed with the refs decision and we could possibly be another 2 points better off having a goal that was off side.

 

[GT49er]

Our disallowed goal v West Ham was not clear and obvious, even to the extent that West Ham were ready to kick off again. Maybe that should have stayed with the refs decision and we could possibly be another 2 points better off having a goal that was off side.

Exactly. VAR should have kept its nose out of both of them. Or better still, not been there at all.

 

[Acker79]

Do you think it was a clear and obvious mistake from the referee not to give it?

If the officials know a foul has occurred in the box and they don't give a penalty, isn't that a clear error?

Thanks to VAR, they know a foul occurred, so had to give it.