[Albion] The penalty

[Albion my Albion]

Were you at the fan fest by any chance? I spied couple of Seagulls flags and the odd scarf-wearer after the match.

Did anyone happen to notice a US "Gully" at the fan fest in Austin?

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

I think the accidental aspect shouldn't be the major issue.

It should not be an issue full stop; intent doesn’t play any part in the laws of a foul. Similarly with the old chestnut of “he got the ball” , again this is irrelevant as it’s not part of the laws.

 

[Napper]

farcical penalty really . If was against us be livid .

Sums VAR up .

Ruining the game

 

[NooBHA]

It should not be an issue full stop; intent doesn’t play any part in the laws of a foul. Similarly with the old chestnut of “he got the ball” , again this is irrelevant as it’s not part of the laws.

Of course intent is relevant to the laws of the game.

Look at things like elbows to the face when jumping for the ball. Intent often determines whether a foul is given and it definitely determines the punishment

 

[jessiejames]

A joke of a decision, and frankly I cannot believe some of the blue-and-white specs views on this incident. Two players watching the ball drop out of the sky, yes there is some inadvertent contact when Keane treads on his boot. But Connolly milked the shit out of it (rolling around clutching his SHIN when Keane was nowhere near it), and bought a review. For that to have been deemed a "clear and obvious error" by the ref not to award a pen is absolutely astonishing. I would have utterly blown a GASKET if that had been given against us.

That decision went beyond soft. It was almost a "hey look, we WILL give pens on review guys" after the equally ridiculous decision NOT to award a pen when Veronghan took out that Watford player last weekend.

VAR as it is currently being implemented is simply not fit for purpose.

So you say that there was contact, but believe it was not a foul. Even with the slightest of contact, if that stops a player continue, that is a foul.

 

[Seasider78]

VAR was brought in to overturn incorrect decisions by the on field ref. What will they bring in to overturn the incorrect decisions by the VAR ref?

Complete waste of time as the arguing still continues so may as well just bin it and go back to the old system of moaning at the ref for a dodgy decision. At least the game will flow properly again and we can all celebrate immediately rather than waiting 2 mins by which time the elation has subsided

This is the crux of the issue for me we are still debating incidents and consistency with it here so what exactly is the point

Complete shambles but why do I get the feeling no matter how bad it continues to be we are stuck with it

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Of course intent is relevant to the laws of the game.

Look at things like elbows to the face when jumping for the ball. Intent often determines whether a foul is given and it definitely determines the punishment

As I said, if you read the laws it makes no mention of intent. This has been discussed to death on this board, and the factors are “careless, reckless or using excessive force“. Intent is irrelevant. You say it definitely determines punishment? Not by whether a card is given it doesn’t. If you read the laws you’ll see exactly what I mean.

 

[Easy 10]

So you say that there was contact, but believe it was not a foul. Even with the slightest of contact, if that stops a player continue, that is a foul.

So the Richarlison one in our box that Silva was grizzling about - that was a foul, was it ?

There was contact. So contact ALWAYS = foul then ?

 

[perseus]

Is Keane plain clumsy or an exponent of the black arts of defending? Everton fans might say the first.

Connolly to pay the Equity subscription?

 

[Acker79]

How often do we see a player running with the ball, running across the path of an opponent and getting caught. It's (often) unintentional, but it's a trip and a free kick. Why is this any different? We may not like it, but we've come to accept it will always be a foul. It doesn't matter that it was accidental, because a trip is a trip.

 

[darkwolf666]

So the Richarlison one in our box that Silva was grizzling about - that was a foul, was it ?

There was contact. So contact ALWAYS = foul then ?

Yep, if the ref sees it, it’s a penalty as Montoya was pulling his shirt BEFORE he went down like he’d been shot by a sniper...

Not quite sure why VAR didn’t pick it up, maybe they don’t like Richarlison either!

 

[London Irish]

You take away a striker's feet and it's always a stonewall penalty, that's what happened to Connolly, stonewall. It was a clear and obvious error by the ref, VAR right to overturn.

Now upper body grappling and upper body contact is always an area of value judgment by refs, hence the huge inconsistency, alas. It's an area lawmakers need to clarify for refs but simply grabbing a shirt has never been a stonewall penalty, ever. Not a clear and obvious error by the ref, VAR right not to overturn.

VAR rules!

 

[Bozza]

As we're seeing today, with two VAR penalties awarded, they have clearly moved the goalposts/lowered the high bar that was previously in place.

First 90 games of the season: 0 (zero) VAR penalties awarded.
Next 10 games: 3 penalties (and counting)

 

[jessiejames]

So the Richarlison one in our box that Silva was grizzling about - that was a foul, was it ?

There was contact. So contact ALWAYS = foul then ?

Yes that was a penalty, luckily it wasn't given.

 

[Acker79]

Trent AA just trod on Danny Rose's foot and a free kick was awarded. It wasn't deliberate though, so surely the ref is gonna be in for some criticism for that howler...

 

[Medwayseagull]

Trent AA just trod on Danny Rose's foot and a free kick was awarded. It wasn't deliberate though, so surely the ref is gonna be in for some criticism for that howler...

Similar incident in the Newcastle game. Presumably some people believe there is a different standard for fouls inside and outside the box. I must check what part of the laws it says that.

 

[METALMICKY]

This is the crux of the issue for me we are still debating incidents and consistency with it here so what exactly is the point

Complete shambles but why do I get the feeling no matter how bad it continues to be we are stuck with it

This! In the dangerous search for perfection the genie is well and truly out of the bottle. There is no way they will scrap it but they will perhaps in vain try to tinker with it to try and sort out all the inconsistentcies.

 

[Dick Head]

I think this proves that it was a penalty.

 

[Easy 10]

Yes that was a penalty, luckily it wasn't given.

So basically, in your world, EVERYTHING is a penalty if there is any form of contact in the box. Especially if they go down clutching their face.

OK. Glad we cleared that up.

 

[rippleman]

Are you seriously suggesting standing on someone's ankle is not a foul? When you are challenging them for the ball

WHAT?!

I don't know what's going on in this thread.

You do know that he is palace? He has spent years watching the SEGW throwing himself to the floor at every opportunity. He isn't used to seeing actual contact before the player ends up in a screaming heap.