I?m not buying the, no penalty analysis

[7sisters]

Claiming that Pope got something on it to divert the ball away is utter horse****.
The game can?t be analysed at such a micro influenced level.
The only reason Pope got any contact at all was due to it coming off of Gyokeres sideways touch.
Had Pope genuinely got there first I could have accepted all the other stuff, but the plain truth was the he was beaten to the ball and stuck out a leg.
Ridicules. You ?ll not see a penalty incident like that not given for the rest of the season anywhere.

[Peter]

Claiming that Pope got something on it to divert the ball away is utter horse****.
The game can?t be analysed at such a micro influenced level.
The only reason Pope got any contact at all was due to it coming off of Gyokeres sideways touch.
Had Pope genuinely got there first I could have accepted all the other stuff, but the plain truth was the he was beaten to the ball and stuck out a leg.
Ridicules. You ?ll not see a penalty incident like that not given for the rest of the season anywhere.

Note that Pope himself makes absolutely no complaint. Even he thinks it is a penalty

99 times out of 100, that doesn't get overturned. Calling it a clear and obvious error is utterly ridiculous.

[Maravilloso Marvo]

Note that Pope himself makes absolutely no complaint. Even he thinks it is a penalty

99 times out of 100, that doesn't get overturned. Calling it a clear and obvious error is utterly ridiculous.

That's the thing right? Clear and obvious often get's mis-used when people complain about VAR, talking about it when the ball has gone out of play or when the ball hits an attackers arm etc. But this is EXACTLY the thing that clear and obvious does apply to. We should only overturn an on-field decision if the ref has made a clear and obvious error. The fact it took them 5 minutes and they clearly had to argue it amongst themselves, tells you it was anything but a clear and obvious error by the ref.

[WES]

That's the thing right? Clear and obvious often get's mis-used when people complain about VAR, talking about it when the ball has gone out of play or when the ball hits an attackers arm etc. But this is EXACTLY the thing that clear and obvious does apply to. We should only overturn an on-field decision if the ref has made a clear and obvious error. The fact it took them 5 minutes and they clearly had to argue it amongst themselves, tells you it was anything but a clear and obvious error by the ref.

The VAR was Darren England

Which explains much imo. Ironically, the worst referee in England

[7sisters]

That's the thing right? Clear and obvious often get's mis-used when people complain about VAR, talking about it when the ball has gone out of play or when the ball hits an attackers arm etc. But this is EXACTLY the thing that clear and obvious does apply to. We should only overturn an on-field decision if the ref has made a clear and obvious error. The fact it took them 5 minutes and they clearly had to argue it amongst themselves, tells you it was anything but a clear and obvious error by the ref.

For me, it?s simple. Pope?s beaten to the ball and sticks out a leg. Anything happening after that is irrelevant.

[Peter]

The VAR was Darren England

Which explains much imo. Ironically, the worst referee in England

Surely not the worst?

The guy on the pitch is pretty ****ing bad

[Maravilloso Marvo]

Jarred Gillett? Isn't he an aussie? It's just who we are mate...

[Peter]

Jarred Gillett? Isn't he an aussie? It's just who we are mate...

He was the VAR who insisted on giving Saliba a red card at Bournemouth for denying a clear goal scoring opportunity to a bloke on the half way line who was never within 20 feet of the ball... 'clear and obvious error' again.

[Peter]

The VAR was Darren England

Which explains much imo. Ironically, the worst referee in England

To be fair, they could have given the handball against Gabriel. I was fully expecting them to give it..... I suppose we can at least be grateful for that.

[PSRB]

Jarred Gillett? Isn't he an aussie? It's just who we are mate...

He's also a Liverpool fan

[redgunamo]

That's the thing right? Clear and obvious often get's mis-used when people complain about VAR, talking about it when the ball has gone out of play or when the ball hits an attackers arm etc. But this is EXACTLY the thing that clear and obvious does apply to. We should only overturn an on-field decision if the ref has made a clear and obvious error. The fact it took them 5 minutes and they clearly had to argue it amongst themselves, tells you it was anything but a clear and obvious error by the ref.

What if it only becomes clear and obvious AFTER you've argued about it for five minutes

Seriously though, there used to be an understanding that the ref couldn't give something unless he'd actually seen it.

[redgunamo]

He's also a Liverpool fan

I don't mind that so much. Favouritism towards one or other club is more or less a given in the league format of the national sport.

Same with pundits, everyone can be deemed to have a bias, however noncontiguous, but that doesn't necessarily mean they can't do the job.

[Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult]

For me, it?s simple. Pope?s beaten to the ball and sticks out a leg. Anything happening after that is irrelevant.

Two things I don't understand.....

Firstly, they say cos he touched the ball, his leg can stay where it is, it doesn't have to give way or whatever the term is. But when Vik tried to skip over it, he bent his knee up and forward and took him out with it. If that was hand-ball, his knee wouldn't be in a natural position and it would be ball to hand or knee to leg or whatever.

Secondly, when he blew, B had the ball in the box. If he hadn't blown, we could have made something of that. Dec must have been near the edge of the box for a cut back with a 'keeper not set.

If they're gonna do this, they have to let it play out while it's being looked at. We lost twice over because of that. At least when they don't play advantage, you keep the ball.

How are either of these things fair?

The one good thing was B's interview saying we don't get decisions there and the clear and obvious bit. He's not that sort of player so if he's peeved, it shows they're getting siege mentality.

Pity we didn't kick off at OT and get dicked two points, imo. I could imagine Big Gabby doing a Keown one day.

[Pat Vegas]

Claiming that Pope got something on it to divert the ball away is utter horse****.
The game can?t be analysed at such a micro influenced level.
The only reason Pope got any contact at all was due to it coming off of Gyokeres sideways touch.
Had Pope genuinely got there first I could have accepted all the other stuff, but the plain truth was the he was beaten to the ball and stuck out a leg.
Ridicules. You ?ll not see a penalty incident like that not given for the rest of the season anywhere.

We do seem to be a club where they experiement sudden rule changes, like Rice being sent off for touching a ball, Martinelli 2 yellow cards, Henry's quick freekicks, Lewis Skelly red card.

Also pretty sure Saliba 'touched' the ball when he got sent off against Bournemouth.

I don't like VAR for this. even when the ref looks he is only fed certain angles. Such as when Havertz 'no contact' for his penalty claim. only when after there is an angle where he is clipped.

[Peter]

We do seem to be a club where they experiement sudden rule changes, like Rice being sent off for touching a ball, Martinelli 2 yellow cards, Henry's quick freekicks, Lewis Skelly red card.

Also pretty sure Saliba 'touched' the ball when he got sent off against Bournemouth.

I don't like VAR for this. even when the ref looks he is only fed certain angles. Such as when Havertz 'no contact' for his penalty claim. only when after there is an angle where he is clipped.

Calafiori got in trouble over a new towel rule