[Albion] The penalty

[One Teddy Maybank]

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.

Quite. Regardless of yesterday, if VAR is supposed to reduce controversy, it is failing.

 

[Bold Seagull]

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.

Thought Holgate’s tackle on Maupay was more of a red then Bertrand who was a bit unlucky I thought. So no real consistency.

 

[martin tyler]

Personally it was soft at best
I think compared to some of the decisions that have gone against teams in recent weeks this was soft. Problem I have is it seems referees have met up in the week decided mid season that they are using it wrong for fouls in other areas on the pitch and changed it this weekend. I know it’s work in progress but the lack of consistency when using it is what frustrates people most.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

It's not hard to figure out.

Yes I'm glad we benefitted from a call that would have undoubtedly not been made without VAR.

The issues with VAR are way beyond teething problems however, to the extent that I would gladly suffer the injustices to nip it in the bud right now.

Hope this clarifies it for you, I know it's the antithesis of your particular opinion on the matter which is something along the lines of an ever-refined VAR evolving like the dalek empire or some other nonsense.

yes we will have to differ on this occasion. All the best.

 

[The Camel]

Thought Holgate’s tackle on Maupay was more of a red then Bertrand who was a bit unlucky I thought. So no real consistency.

Many refs would have given Holgate a red for that tackle I'm sure.

But he had a clear view of it and decided it was a yellow. No need for VAR to get involved.

 

[amexer]

Once VAR tells ref in there opinion a penalty why dont they suggest to ref to look at screen so he can make final decision. Surely his opinion is better then some bod looking at a screen miles away.

 

[Saunders]

Was it him that got the arm in the face as well?

After watching the highlights that was Maupay.

 

[Deleted member 37369]

Fair enough !! Don’t get me wrong I think we have been hard done by with luck so far this season so stealing a victory feels like our luck balancing itself out but if I stand back and look at that decision it is very soft.

A soft penalty is still a penalty though...

 

[The Fifth Column]

Regarding Everton dripping about Richarlison's penalty claim. When you see it Montoya brushes his hands on Richarlison's back and the dick is already in his way down trying to win the penalty, he then clutches his head and face like he's been viciously assaulted. There was barely any contact and none physical enough to force him on the deck, he's tried to deceive the ref and failed - no penalty all day long, jog on scousers.

 

[Seasider78]

A soft penalty is still a penalty though...

There has always been an amount of discretion shown in the rules by officials. If that level of contact is going to be deemed a penalty then we will be seeing 4-5 penalty’s per game for all sorts of holds, taps, treads and arm contact.

Not the way I want the game to go at all and I hold my view if that decision went the other way yesterday this board would be having a meltdown

 

[forumwayseagull]

How many " really soft penalties " have we conceded in the last 2 seasons ? I think it's great we have got " the rub of the green " for once.

THIS ALL OVER!! Salah for Liverpool springs to mind immediately..

 

[Birdie Boy]

Once VAR tells ref in there opinion a penalty why dont they suggest to ref to look at screen so he can make final decision. Surely his opinion is better then some bod looking at a screen miles away.

Lol. A screen miles away is showing the same picture as screens pitch side. Refs can view pitch side screens but it is to be used in rare circumstances and they are to take VAR decisions as good.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/football/9625785/var-premier-league-rules-2019-20-video-referee/

 

[darkwolf666]

Once VAR tells ref in there opinion a penalty why dont they suggest to ref to look at screen so he can make final decision. Surely his opinion is better then some bod looking at a screen miles away.

Why, will the screen look different in the ground?

I’m guessing those decisions are taken remotely to take the pressure of the ref, particularly when giving a decision against a home side in a possibly hostile environment.

 

[yxee]

There has always been an amount of discretion shown in the rules by officials. If that level of contact is going to be deemed a penalty then we will be seeing 4-5 penalty’s per game for all sorts of holds, taps, treads and arm contact.

Not the way I want the game to go at all and I hold my view if that decision went the other way yesterday this board would be having a meltdown

I don't understand why "that level of contact" is being used for standing on the side of his foot. How is that better than a touch that throws someone off balance?

 

[Seasider78]

I don't understand why "that level of contact" is being used for standing on the side of his foot. How is that better than a touch that throws someone off balance?

The player is not in control of the ball both players are looking up there is no threat on goal and the player stands on his foot. Not stamped, not raked, not caught him in full flight. That’s the difference for me

Are you saying if that was given against dunk you would be on here saying yep that’s a pen? As I know I would be raging especially if it proved to be the turning point in a game we were on top in

 

[pb21]

The relevant law (12) states:

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:

trips or attempts to trip

If an offence involves contact it is penalised by a direct free kick or penalty kick.

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

I think it's fair to say he was tripped, I guess the question then is whether or not Keane was careless and showed a lack of attention and/or consideration of Connolly's feet.

 

[portlock seagull]

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.

No, no it really ****ing wasn’t and as others say you really have to take your blue and white specs off. The fact so many fans can support this useless development that’s ****ed our beloved sport up is beyond comprehension to me. It’s the football equivalent of Hitler taking over and yet plenty are supporting by saying ‘well, he’s doing marvellous things for the economy’!! Look at what the long term god damned cost is going to be. It’s absolutely destroyed our sport. The players hate it. Pundits do. And all (sensible) fans likewise. I’d be up for a mass protest from paying supporters with a pitch invasion at an allotted time at every PL game to get the game abandoned. We need our sport back. Fans United shall never be defeated.

 

[Munkfish]

@%1;

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.

No im saying it wasn't a penalty.

 

[maffew]

Clear and obvious is what var was meant for we were led to believe. The fact, again, its not a blatant ref cock up and its being discussed has changed the game for the worse irreversibly now, my opinion. Yes we will take this one. Doesnt.sit well though

 

[B-right-on]

The player is not in control of the ball both players are looking up there is no threat on goal and the player stands on his foot. Not stamped, not raked, not caught him in full flight. That’s the difference for me

Are you saying if that was given against dunk you would be on here saying yep that’s a pen? As I know I would be raging especially if it proved to be the turning point in a game we were on top in

Not sure what the problem is with this. Player accidentally stands on foot of other player. Trips the other player. Foul all day long anywhere on the pitch. Ref missed it.