[Albion] The penalty

[nickjhs]

Never a pen. If that was given against us id be fumming. Changed the game.

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.

 

[wellquickwoody]

Absolute joke of a decision that brings the game into disrepute, but I'm not complaining.

Technically correct decision, but VAR is ruining the live spectator experience and enhancing that of the armchair fan. Do not like it one bit but it did us a favour for once!

 

[wellquickwoody]

Well I’ve searched http://www.thefa.com/football-rules...les/laws/futsal/law-12---fouls-and-misconduct and I’m struggling to see where an accidental standing on a players ankle is a foul.

Can you highlight the bit you are referring to please.

What is the difference between studs on a shin and studs on an instep, apart from about six inches? It was a foul, end.

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

Correct decision. Player's ankle get raked - that's painful and stops him moving that foot to control the ball. Clear and obvious error in that seen on replay and not by the ref. I'd be upset had it been against us but it would have been correct.

 

[Stat Brother]

Why doesn't Mr Var release a statement after the game and before the highlights are available?

They have had a fully discussion on the incident.
They have had time to analyse the footage.
They are removing 'human error'.

So why not explain it?

This is going to be shrouded in 'he wasn't even looking at the player' and 'there was no intent', neither of which have anything to do with the decision.

 

[Medwayseagull]

Why doesn't Mr Var release a statement after the game and before the highlights are available?

They have had a fully discussion on the incident.
They have had time to analyse the footage.
They are removing 'human error'.

So why not explain it?

This is going to be shrouded in 'he wasn't even looking at the player' and 'there was no intent', neither of which have anything to do with the decision.

More importantly those two reasons being trotted out by people having nothing to do with the laws of the game.

 

[Deleted member 37369]

Apologies if someone has already posted this ... but I haven't read all 20 pages! This from thefa.com

Direct free kick
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:

This includes....

- 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
- impedes an opponent with contact

No... Michael Keane didn't mean to stand on AC ... but he did. So maybe a bit of 'lack of attention or consideration' of where his opponent was. More importantly for me ... the contact impeded AC ... so it's a penalty!

I have a mate who is a season ticket holder at Goodison and he was rather angry after (not that he'd seen the incident ... he was going on hearsay). He did moan that it was the first time that VAR had awarded a pen that the ref hadn't given. So what ... it was always going to be used for the first time at some stage!

And he complained that 'diver' Richarlison should have had an earlier pen. Nonsense ... he threw himself to the floor and then held his head ... much like what he was doing all game!

Anyway ... 3 points ... 2 consecutive home wins ... UTA!!

 

[Deadly Danson]

Apologies if someone has already posted this ... but I haven't read all 20 pages! This from thefa.com

Direct free kick
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:

This includes....

- 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
- impedes an opponent with contact

No... Michael Keane didn't mean to stand on AC ... but he did. So maybe a bit of 'lack of attention or consideration' of where his opponent was. More importantly for me ... the contact impeded AC ... so it's a penalty!

I have a mate who is a season ticket holder at Goodison and he was rather angry after (not that he'd seen the incident ... he was going on hearsay). He did moan that it was the first time that VAR had awarded a pen that the ref hadn't given. So what ... it was always going to be used for the first time at some stage!

And he complained that 'diver' Richarlison should have had an earlier pen. Nonsense ... he threw himself to the floor and then held his head ... much like what he was doing all game!

Anyway ... 3 points ... 2 consecutive home wins ... UTA!!

Richardlison had his shirt pulled and was impeded. Letter of the law var should have given a penalty. It would have been ridiculous of course but our var converts could have had ZERO complaint had it been given. Of course without Var the game would have continued with no decision on either and rightly so.

 

[Hugo Rune]

Having your foot trod on with studs by a 6ft+ player must be very painful, I’m not happy with the criticism I’ve seen of AC. It was a foul, albeit accidental.

However, if the ref has not seen it, I’m not keen on it being given. It’s the same as the handball ‘unnatural position’ rubbish (whatever hope red to hand-to-ball etc) and keepers moving off the line in a penalty. Too much detail being looked at. VAR still needs a lot of work.

 

[trueblue]

It’s a penalty. Not one most football fans would give but that’s just the way it is. I’m not sure how it meets ‘the clear and obvious’ threshold though, especially as, in previous weeks, the defender could whip out a chainsaw and amputate the striker’s leg and VAR wouldn’t have batted an eyelid if the ref gave nothing.

I suspect the real key here is that the VAR was more experienced than the on-field ref and so was happy to over-rule him. The other way round, it doesn’t work.

So after weeks of media moaning that VAR doesn’t award penalties, it has - and now the moaning about that begins. Next, they’ll get the pitchside monitors used, which is a disaster as that takes forever - and everyone will moan about that.

It’s as if a borderline penalty was never given before VAR existed. If it’s going to cause this much debate, may as well bin it - which is a shame.

 

[trueblue]

Looked a really soft penalty to me. The Everton player seemed to have his eye on the ball. Tho I guess he might have just been playing crafty. The amount of time taken for the VAR decision suggests they were none too sure either.

Have only seen the replays straight after the game but he did take a quick look at Connolly just before standing on his foot, as I remember it.

 

[trueblue]

We got lucky, possibly fortunate beneficiaries of all the non-penalty discussion from last weekend, most notably the Vertonghen / Deulofeu stone-waller that wasn't given, as that was the first penalty awarded by VAR, ie it wasn't initially given on-the-field.

Interesting discussion on 5Live with Ali Bruce-Ball expressing his view that Connolly made a meal of it which I thought was a little bit strange as he did not appeal for a penalty at all in any way.

Totally agree. The decision was actually completely consistent with last week’s in the Leicester-Burnley game, where Wood’s equaliser was ruled out because he made seemingly accidental contact with Jonny Evans. That caused very little fuss comparatively because, hey, it’s only Burnley. This is mighty Everton. Likewise, I strongly suspect if we’d lost 3-2 and had that penalty awarded against us, it would have been met with a collective shrug of the shoulders nationally and a quick dismissive comment in the MOTD studio.

 

[Hampster Gull]

VAR is ruining the game for taking spontaneity out of key moments and make this all about the rule book, the pedants.

But it’s here.

This was a clear foul and a penalty. I’ve seen loads of defenders do sly things like that, he knew what he was doing.

 

[portlock seagull]

Having your foot trod on with studs by a 6ft+ player must be very painful, I’m not happy with the criticism I’ve seen of AC. It was a foul, albeit accidental.

However, if the ref has not seen it, I’m not keen on it being given. It’s the same as the handball ‘unnatural position’ rubbish (whatever hope red to hand-to-ball etc) and keepers moving off the line in a penalty. Too much detail being looked at. VAR still needs a lot of work.

Is it a foul? By the same token any players jumping for the same ball and colliding, a clash of heads in the box must therefore always result in a penalty even as a defender might be lying cold and requiring emergency medical attention. Don’t think that’s what this technology was deployed to do. VAR HAS WRECKED FOOTBALL - there’s no denying it. You see the humans behind involved are still not droids and never will be so consequently we’ve got same inconsistencies whilst destroying the games most cherished moment for both players and fans which is scoring a GOAL. Still, as long as the nerds can enjoy the ‘drama’ of waiting up to five minutes for remote analysis from hundreds of miles away whilst no ones got a clue what’s going on in the ground and yet still they **** it up...yep, brilliant invention. #VARce #VeryAwfulReferee

 

[One Teddy Maybank]

Impeded Connolly, taken off injured.

Think it was more exhaustion and protecting him.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[trueblue]

VAR will stay - because TV love it.

Why?

 

[Bold Seagull]

But accidental is immaterial.

I think it was soft, but on the other hand did you not think Keane by treading on Connolly, impeded him in terms of having an opportunity to bring the ball down?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

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.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Think it was more exhaustion and protecting him.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yep, Murray had already been warming up and was ready to come on. Connolly was coming off regardless I think. He might have a bruised foot, but suspect he’s absolutely fine.

 

[The Camel]

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.

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

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 what you're saying is, next time I'm playing a game and the striker is trying to collect a long ball played to him, I should just tread on his foot and stop him getting there, and watch the ball sail out harmlessly for a goal kick. It's a good idea, will certainly make it easier for me