[Albion] Anthony Taylor

[Bodian]

I am reminded of the Johnson interpretation of difference between 'should' (its up to you, do what you feel is best) and must (you have to do it).

Perhaps in football its the other way round. And 'get in the sea' is an invitation to join Judith Chalmers on a summer holiday in the Maldives.

Not just Johnson - that's also the interpretation in legislation. 'Should/may' in legislation has a different meaning to 'shall/must'. Although to be fair 'should' generally means 'ought to' rather than 'can do'

I have never seen anyone booked for not taking a throw in.

There was one (England player?) who was booked for not picking up the nearest ball to take a throw-in, but going two steps further to pick up a drier one.

 

[kevo]

Graham Scott, who is seemingly being moved away from active duty, only doing two PL games in the middle this season. He reffed us twice last year (0-0 at home v Newcastle, and the 2-3 win at Wolves where he correctly sent off Semedo and had quite a good game if memory

One of the better ones, generally.

 

[kevo]

Not just Johnson - that's also the interpretation in legislation. 'Should/may' in legislation has a different meaning to 'shall/must'. Although to be fair 'should' generally means 'ought to' rather than 'can do'

There was one (England player?) who was booked for not picking up the nearest ball to take a throw-in, but going two steps further to pick up a drier one.

I remember a game at Aldershot years ago where a player was booked for taking a throw in from the wrong place and as it was a second booking was sent off as a result!

 

[Bodian]

I remember a game at Aldershot years ago where a player was booked for taking a throw in from the wrong place and as it was a second booking was sent off as a result!

Ha. Yes - there was this as well.

‘It’s shambolic’ – Northern Ireland’s Lewis sees red for time wasting on first-half throw-in

Lewis had already been booked when he seemingly took too long for the referee’s liking when taking a throw-in midway through the first half in Switzerland

inews.co.uk

 

[Zeberdi]

If it's "clearly a deliberate boot in the ribs", why doesn't that video show him clearly and deliberately booting Pedro in the ribs?

I've watched that clip loads over the weekend and no matter how many times I watch it all I see is a tussle where the Forest player tries to step over our player and then try and toe poke the ball out from under him because Pedro is trying to shield it.

Barely a foul because Pedro went down super easily, and certainly not a yellow (in my opinion, of course)

It does show a kick in the stomach/ribs imo - yes Pedro took a bit of a dive (he needs to get better at that ) and I don’t think the ‘back standing’ is particularly vexatious but once Wood’s boot is under Pedro’s body, watch the sudden jerk upwards of Woods lower leg the flexing of his thigh muscles - he clearly kicks Pedro in the stomach/ribs with his boot already in situ in order to get him off the ball - that’s a clumsy foul in the very least and the giving of a penalty the right decision.

EDIT - this wasn’t the penalty incident just a foul

 

[Green Cross Code Man]

In the time it took for VAR to deliberate Forest's penalty on Saturday, we mounted a pretty dangerous attack which may have resulted in a goal. I'm guessing that it would have been ruled out and the game returned to the penalty.

Something like this is going to happen one day, which begs the question should the game be paused whilst the VAR puts on his thick rimmed glasses and makes a guess at what's going on? The penalty was enough to get Dunk sent off, imagine a disallowed goal too....there'd have been a riot!

It did happen in the first season of var. I think it was Burnley who scored and had their goal ruled out and the other team subsequently had a penalty awarded and scored.

 

[albionalex]

The VAR Review: Why Man United were awarded a penalty, and was Alisson really fouled?

The lowdown on Man United's VAR penalty against Everton, plus Manchester City's disallowed goal against Liverpool.

www.espn.co.uk

ESPN VAR experts suggests another apology may be incoming...

"Would the VAR have advised a penalty for Hinshelwood's challenge if there hadn't been a similar one earlier in the game? Perhaps not. However, as we have discussed, the VAR's job isn't to provide consistency of decision-making by a referee, and there doesn't appear to be a clear act of holding by Hinshelwood.

The argument that if you give the first one you have to give the second only holds if they are identical incidents, and it would have been better had the VAR not intervened. If the independent panel comes to the same conclusion, it would be the fourth incorrect VAR decision to go against Brighton this season."

 

[Stato]

In all of this fuss the most confusing thing to me was what on earth Steve Cooper was on about. Taylor gave our penalty shout, but didn't give their's in real time. Then VAR tells him to look again and, rightly or wrongly, he gives their's too. They get their penalty, Dunk loses his head for a second and gets himself sent off. Had Taylor given the penalty straight away, there is no guarantee that the exchange with Dunk would have gone down the way it did. The outcome is Cooper's team gets its penalty and scores it. It also gets a man advantage for half an hour. Post game Cooper says that he'll be on the phone to Howard Webb on Monday because the ref didn't give it until VAR told him to look again. Whatever the rights and wrongs of whether VAR should have intervened, how on earth does Cooper come out thinking that he's owed anything? Does he want Webb to apologise because his team was given a penalty, but not in the way he would have liked? It's just nonsense.

 

[Bodian]

The VAR Review: Why Man United were awarded a penalty, and was Alisson really fouled?

The lowdown on Man United's VAR penalty against Everton, plus Manchester City's disallowed goal against Liverpool.

www.espn.co.uk

ESPN VAR experts suggests another apology may be incoming...

"Would the VAR have advised a penalty for Hinshelwood's challenge if there hadn't been a similar one earlier in the game? Perhaps not. However, as we have discussed, the VAR's job isn't to provide consistency of decision-making by a referee, and there doesn't appear to be a clear act of holding by Hinshelwood.

The argument that if you give the first one you have to give the second only holds if they are identical incidents, and it would have been better had the VAR not intervened. If the independent panel comes to the same conclusion, it would be the fourth incorrect VAR decision to go against Brighton this season."

I'm not sure we have actually had many formal apologies though have we? Palace for the offside lines last year, and one out of the five in the Spurs match.

Any this season?

 

[Seagull58]

If it's "clearly a deliberate boot in the ribs", why doesn't that video show him clearly and deliberately booting Pedro in the ribs?

I've watched that clip loads over the weekend and no matter how many times I watch it all I see is a tussle where the Forest player tries to step over our player and then try and toe poke the ball out from under him because Pedro is trying to shield it.

Barely a foul because Pedro went down super easily, and certainly not a yellow (in my opinion, of course)

He puts his foot on Pedro's back and then pushes his foot backwards "helping" Pedro to the ground. Then he tries to toe poke the ball, which isn't there, and then follows up with a second kick, at which point Pedro grabs his leg.

 

[Seagull58]

I'm no fan of the PL refs but I thought Taylor did alright

Or at the very least was incompetent enough to disadvantage both sides making it an even, if slightly calamitous, performance from him.

He red carded Dunk for calling him a bellend, prick or whatever but did not punish the Forest defender (already on a yellow?) for deliberately standing on Pedro's back and then tickling him in the ribs while he's on the ground. Not my understanding of fair but certainly calamitous. Didn't we also pick up a yellow for kicking the ball away whereas Forest delayed 3 or 4 free kicks without punishment?

 

[dwayne]

The VAR Review: Why Man United were awarded a penalty, and was Alisson really fouled?

The lowdown on Man United's VAR penalty against Everton, plus Manchester City's disallowed goal against Liverpool.

www.espn.co.uk

ESPN VAR experts suggests another apology may be incoming...

"Would the VAR have advised a penalty for Hinshelwood's challenge if there hadn't been a similar one earlier in the game? Perhaps not. However, as we have discussed, the VAR's job isn't to provide consistency of decision-making by a referee, and there doesn't appear to be a clear act of holding by Hinshelwood.

The argument that if you give the first one you have to give the second only holds if they are identical incidents, and it would have been better had the VAR not intervened. If the independent panel comes to the same conclusion, it would be the fourth incorrect VAR decision to go against Brighton this season."

The problem once again is that there's not enough cameras in the ground. There's literally no clear view of the incident.

Quite unbelievable for a multi billion industry that the powers that be can't be bothered to put 100+ cameras facing the pitch in each epl stadium.

 

[Bodian]

The problem once again is that there's not enough cameras in the ground. There's literally no clear view of the incident.

Quite unbelievable for a multi billion industry that the powers that be can't be bothered to put 100+ cameras facing the pitch in each epl stadium.

Watch the extended highlights and Ferguson's goal. Cameras behind the goal, both sides of the pitch, etc etc, Plenty of them - which does make you wonder why only one, very distant view, was shown.

 

[Uh_huh_him]

I'm not sure we have actually had many formal apologies though have we? Palace for the offside lines last year, and one out of the five in the Spurs match.

Any this season?

I think PGMOL have dialled back on the apologies this season.
Only apologising for the ones making the maximum noise in the media.

Howard Webb underestimated the scale of the job when he took over.
He thought he'd make a few apologies when he first came in and then he would sort things out.

Gets a bit embarrassing when you're turning up at the same clubs a couple of times per month.

 

[Slum_Wolf]

It did happen in the first season of var. I think it was Burnley who scored and had their goal ruled out and the other team subsequently had a penalty awarded and scored.

Guess it doesn't happen that often. I first saw it happen in SPAL v Fiorentina in 2019.



Didn't remember the Burnley one but seemingly the decision was 'slammed' by a certain team of the week pundit...

BBC pundit slams Mike Dean and VAR after Burnley penalty

Bournemouth saw a goal disallowed at Turf Moor and a penalty awarded to Burnley after a VAR review

www.lancs.live

 

[Greg Bobkin]

Another weekend, another Sunday/Monday with VAR chat looming large over the board. Well played, PGMOL, you've played an absolute blinder there.

However, as Sam Matterface said on the recent Albion podcast, VAR is not actually going to go away because the authorities have spent too much money on it – and there are probably a load of people making money out of it. So it's a bit futile calling for it to go because they will carry on fannying around with it until they get an acceptable level of improvement. Whether that will be acceptable to the fans, who knows? But what do we matter anyway?

 

[Joey Jo Jo Jr. Shabadoo]

It does show a kick in the stomach/ribs imo - yes Pedro took a bit of a dive (he needs to get better at that ) and I don’t think the ‘back standing’ is particularly vexatious but once Wood’s boot is under Pedro’s body, watch the sudden jerk upwards of Woods lower leg the flexing of his thigh muscles - he clearly kicks Pedro in the stomach/ribs with his boot already in situ in order to get him off the ball - that’s a clumsy foul in the very least and the giving of a penalty the right decision.

Aren't you confusing two difference incidents?

Chris Wood gives away the penalty for having his arms over Joao Pedro and pulling him down. The treading on the back and the kick in the ribs was done down near the corner flag when Pedro was trying to shield the ball after Wood had been subbed off.

 

[Zeberdi]

In all of this fuss the most confusing thing to me was what on earth Steve Cooper was on about. Taylor gave our penalty shout, but didn't give their's in real time. Then VAR tells him to look again and, rightly or wrongly, he gives their's too. They get their penalty, Dunk loses his head for a second and gets himself sent off. Had Taylor given the penalty straight away, there is no guarantee that the exchange with Dunk would have gone down the way it did. The outcome is Cooper's team gets its penalty and scores it. It also gets a man advantage for half an hour. Post game Cooper says that he'll be on the phone to Howard Webb on Monday because the ref didn't give it until VAR told him to look again. Whatever the rights and wrongs of whether VAR should have intervened, how on earth does Cooper come out thinking that he's owed anything? Does he want Webb to apologise because his team was given a penalty, but not in the way he would have liked? It's just nonsense.

Cooper was ranting because of the inconsistency of refereeing - which was a big issue throughout the match for both sides - Cooper disagreed with our penalty basically saying if you award the Wood incident a penalty then you should give hundreds more like it in every game (it was a soft one imo - they both were) - he wasn’t ranting against Forest getting a pen because VAR intervened but used the fact Taylor had missed it in real time as an example of Taylor’s inconsistency in the match (ie he had seen ours but not theirs in real time) - thereby Cooper was undermining the legitimacy of our pen, by undermining the competence of the ref.

Cooper 'really disappointed' by penalty decisions

Nottingham Forest manager Steve Cooper questions some of referee Anthony Taylor's decision making after his side's 3-2 defeat by 10-man Brighton at the City Ground.

www.bbc.co.uk

It was just a passive aggressive round about way of Cooper suggesting to Forest fans/owner that Forest lost because of referee incompetence rather than his own - they played fairly shlte in the first half so he had to blame someone to help his ailing career - Marinakis was looking distinctly unhappy in the stands.

Under Pressure Steve Cooper, to give Nottingham Forest's manager his full name

Cooper must be used to speculation about his future at the City Ground - after defeat to Brighton it is mounting up again

theathletic.com

 

[Zeberdi]

Aren't you confusing two difference incidents?

Chris Wood gives away the penalty for having his arms over Joao Pedro and pulling him down. The treading on the back and the kick in the ribs was done down near the corner flag when Pedro was trying to shield the ball after Wood had been subbed off.

Conflating the two - days are passing and my memory is fading

Was discussing the right incidence - in response to an earlier post suggesting it wasn’t a foul but you are correct, this incidence wasn’t the incidence that led to the pen - stupid because I actually commented on this very incident in the match thread.

 

[peterward]

Cooper was ranting because of the inconsistency of refereeing - which was a big issue throughout the match for both sides - Cooper disagreed with our penalty basically saying if you award the Wood incident a penalty then you should give hundreds more like it in every game (it was a soft one imo - they both were) - he wasn’t ranting against Forest getting a pen but used the fact Taylor had missed it in real time as an example of Taylor’s inconsistency in the match (ie he had seen ours but not theirs in real time) - thereby Cooper was undermining the legitimacy of our pen, by undermining the competence of the ref.

Cooper 'really disappointed' by penalty decisions

Nottingham Forest manager Steve Cooper questions some of referee Anthony Taylor's decision making after his side's 3-2 defeat by 10-man Brighton at the City Ground.

www.bbc.co.uk

It was just a passive aggressive round about way of Cooper suggesting to Forest fans/owner that Forest lost because of referee incompetence rather than his own - they played fairly shlte in the first half so he had to blame someone to help his ailing career - Marinakis was looking distinctly unhappy in the stands.

Under Pressure Steve Cooper, to give Nottingham Forest's manager his full name

Cooper must be used to speculation about his future at the City Ground - after defeat to Brighton it is mounting up again

theathletic.com

Think it would be mad to fire him and deeply unpopular on the terraces. He's doing better than Hughton so far in second season.

That said, they were at home, a goal up early and poor. Pedro penalty, while soft was still a lot more of a pen than their ridiculous gift.
We were cruising, when they were gifted a free goal and the loss of our captain, and it still felt relatively comfortable for that 23 minutes.