[Football] Premier League admit VAR made a MISTAKE in awarding Brighton a last-minute penalty

[drew]

1. It was a penalty. The reason, because it was a foul, whether intentional or not.

2. It was a clear and obvious error because the ref didn't see it. If the ref had seen it clearly then he should have given a pen anyway.

3. The journalist is the North West correspondent for the Daily Mail. A couple of clues to the the veracity of the article. He served as Everton correspondent 2005/9!!!

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

I fully expected the decision to be no penalty, in fact I was shocked they even looked at it (I had the benefit of seeing the replay on the press screen before VAR flagged up). It was a mistake and we would have been incandescent if it happened to us.

VAR is a crock of shit imo, I’d much rather go back to “some you win, some you don‘t’” as it’s always been. Seems to work in rugby but then there are plenty of breaks in rugby and it’s seldom contentious. Seems most of the VAR decisions have been contentious and very long winded, which doesn’t go well with a game of football.

According to the laws of the game it was a foul. What we've been doing for the past 100 years is deciding that 'soft fouls' shouldn't be penalised, we have an interpretation of the laws that pretty much all football fans have accepted. VAR has come along and told us we've been wrong all along. It will take some getting used to, and I'm in complete agreement with you that it is spoiling the game.

 

[Triggaaar]

Fair enough, I missed that. All the stream I was watching showed was Connolly going down and clutching his ankle/foot.

Er, well, that's roughly all I saw too. He held his ankle/foot, grimaced, banged the floor a bit and put his arm up. I kinda took the whole thing to be an appeal, but I guess it wasn't clear. If, after all that, he appealed directly to the ref, I didn't see that.

 

[Triggaaar]

According to the laws of the game it was a foul. What we've been doing for the past 100 years is deciding that 'soft fouls' shouldn't be penalised, we have an interpretation of the laws that pretty much all football fans have accepted.

There have been loads of occasions where one player has accidentally stood on another player's foot/ankle, and a foul has been given. No one has ever complained about it. I'm confident that studs pushed into the top of your foot is painful, and causes players to go down. I don't know where you get the idea that that's soft (as a foul) and not given in the past.

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

There have been loads of occasions where one player has accidentally stood on another player's foot/ankle, and a foul has been given. No one has ever complained about it. I'm confident that studs pushed into the top of your foot is painful, and causes players to go down. I don't know where you get the idea that that's soft (as a foul) and not given in the past.

Because it wasn't given at the time and I don't think we'd have been going on about it for ages afterwards, if at all. There would have been some comment, 'ooh that could maybe have been a penalty for Brighton ' and then we move on.

That happened all the time

 

[Algernon]

Excellent!
Even better.
About time.

 

[LowKarate]

Oh!

No!

This is terrible news.

I am devastated.

etc...

 

[pasty]

Fair enough, I missed that. All the stream I was watching showed was Connolly going down and clutching his ankle/foot.

To be fair I missed him appealing as well. I just read it in The Arsegas later.

 

[GT49er]

1. It was a penalty. The reason, because it was a foul, whether intentional or not.

2. It was a clear and obvious error because the ref didn't see it. If the ref had seen it clearly then he should have given a pen anyway.

3. The journalist is the North West correspondent for the Daily Mail. A couple of clues to the the veracity of the article. He served as Everton correspondent 2005/9!!!

Ah! - the Mike Riley/Dermot Gallagher (mis)interpretation of 'clear and obvious'.

 

[Triggaaar]

Because it wasn't given at the time and I don't think we'd have been going on about it for ages afterwards, if at all.

That's quite different to your comment that for the past 100 years we've not penalised soft fouls.

It wasn't given at the time because the ref didn't see it well. It wasn't easy to see live. It's being talked about afterwards because it was the first time this season (or thereabouts) that VAR intervened to give a penalty, but it wasn't any worse than some others (a similar thing happened with Man City) which weren't given by VAR.

But in general, when seen, that sort of foul has been given for as long as I can remember.

There would have been some comment, 'ooh that could maybe have been a penalty for Brighton ' and then we move on.

That happened all the time

Yes ok, I think you're right that fouls inside the box have been given less often than fouls outside the box. Something like that would rarely be given as a penalty, as it's difficult to see, but not because it didn't use to be interpreted as a foul. I've seen plenty of fouls like that given in the middle of the park (pitch).

 

[smith’s dreads]

The offside that ruled out a Trossard goal v West Ham was a correct call.
But it would never have been spotted without VAR.
The Connolly incident v Everton was a foul in the box and therefore a penalty.
But it would not have been given without VAR.
VAR has changed the game.
We can accept when it goes against us.
On other occasions it will be in our favour - that should be accepted too.

 

[drew]

Ah! - the Mike Riley/Dermot Gallagher (mis)interpretation of 'clear and obvious'.

Ok then, what is your definition?

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/f...warding-Brighton-penalty-against-Everton.html

Oh well

 

[GT49er]

Ok then, what is your definition?

Something which was clear and obvious to at least ten Brighton players, ex-professional footballers watching as pundits for TV and several thousand Albion fans watching in the ground, which the penalty against Everton wasn't. Something that was 'clear and obvious' only after being viewed several times, from different angles, in slow motion isn't actually clear and obvious at all, not in the normal world.

 

[Easy 10]

Still lots of blue and white striped specs on here then.

That penalty was an absolute gift. Nobody in the stadium was howling for a spot kick, it was the softest of softest pens you will ever see all season. Any season. If that had been given against us (say Dunk on Richarlison), and it had cost us the game, this place would've gone absolutely apeshit.

 

[Icy Gull]

According to the laws of the game it was a foul. What we've been doing for the past 100 years is deciding that 'soft fouls' shouldn't be penalised, we have an interpretation of the laws that pretty much all football fans have accepted. VAR has come along and told us we've been wrong all along. It will take some getting used to, and I'm in complete agreement with you that it is spoiling the game.

If we go to the letter of the law, pretty well every set piece where the ball goes into the box will either be a free kick to the defenders or a penalty. Shirt tugging and wrestling with players should be penalised shouldn’t they? They happen every time though to some degree.

 

[WATFORD zero]

Er, well, that's roughly all I saw too. He held his ankle/foot, grimaced, banged the floor a bit and put his arm up. I kinda took the whole thing to be an appeal, but I guess it wasn't clear. If, after all that, he appealed directly to the ref, I didn't see that.

Connolly knew he had been fouled and I think he knew exactly how VAR worked which is why he stayed down. I don't think he appealed to the ref, but stayed down to give sufficient time for the VAR assistant to have a look and tell the ref to hold up play for a review.

As I understand it, If he had immediately jumped up and the game had re-started it couldn't have been reviewed.

 

[Icy Gull]

That's quite different to your comment that for the past 100 years we've not penalised soft fouls.

It wasn't given at the time because the ref didn't see it well. It wasn't easy to see live. It's being talked about afterwards because it was the first time this season (or thereabouts) that VAR intervened to give a penalty, but it wasn't any worse than some others (a similar thing happened with Man City) which weren't given by VAR.

But in general, when seen, that sort of foul has been given for as long as I can remember).

I think it is the death knell of football if a player looking up at the flight of the ball treads on a forwards foot and gets a penalty awarded against him. It wasn’t deliberate and in F1 parlance “it’s just a racing (football) incident” and should not be punished. If he’d had a glance down and made a deliberate movement to stand on Connolly’s foot then sure, nailed on penalty. (I totally accept that the laws of the game may say different, but they shouldn’t ]

As an Albion fan I thought it was an outrageous penalty although I was absolutely delighted it was given, just very very suprised

 

[Wardy's twin]

whats the big fuss we got lucky we have been unlucky in some games and lucky in others, VAR will hopefully eliminate some bad decisions but it is also moving the boundary into more marginal decisions where the judgement is harder and it will make mistakes because of the degree of margin reviewed , look at some of the offside decisions that have been given where an inch of arm is involved even though the players body was behind a defender.

in this case the decision would not have been given pre VAR but there was contact and VAR proved that.

 

[drew]

Something which was clear and obvious to at least ten Brighton players, ex-professional footballers watching as pundits for TV and several thousand Albion fans watching in the ground, which the penalty against Everton wasn't. Something that was 'clear and obvious' only after being viewed several times, from different angles, in slow motion isn't actually clear and obvious at all, not in the normal world.

Where did you get the idea that it wasn't obvious from the first replay the VAR saw?

That said, we are never going to agree. In my view it doesn't matter what everyone else's view is, it is whether the man in the middle saw exactly what happened and it seems he didn't.