NEVER EVER

Vegas Claret · Post by **Vegas Claret** » Sun Aug 25, 2019 7:04 pm

It's a pen
https://www.reddit.com/r/soccer/comment ... 7_pk_foul/

FactualFrank · Post by **FactualFrank** » Sun Aug 25, 2019 7:05 pm

Vegas Claret wrote:It's a pen
https://www.reddit.com/r/soccer/comment ... 7_pk_foul/

What gets me is that Dyche also grabs his water when we concede a penalty. Is this an attempted positive move to get VAR to rule it out?

Burnley1989 · Post by **Burnley1989** » Sun Aug 25, 2019 7:05 pm

whiffa wrote:I agree it was a penalty, but let me know where you've pulled that gem of a stat' from!

Find me someone who doesn’t? It’s obviously not a stat I’ve taken the time to run a poll on? Why be a clever ****?

Goobs · Post by **Goobs** » Sun Aug 25, 2019 7:05 pm

it wasn't a clear and obvious error by Pawson as Pieters does make contact only with the player hence why Var backs the ref. Had he not given it neither would VAR IMO it's soft but not entirely wrong unfortunately.

CombatClaret · Post by **CombatClaret** » Sun Aug 25, 2019 7:06 pm

Wembley09 wrote:Course it was a penalty.. VAR check all angles.. it's not a inplay instant judgment decision.
Like said above if that was us, we would be fuming if it wasn't given.

VAR makes things 100% fair (wether certain rules are fair or not) but VAR follows the rule by the letter. We will get rightful decisions from VAR in the months to come.

Is it "100% fair"?

All the pundits when faced with these incidents quote the VAR folk that they planned at the start of the season to "set a high bar" when it comes to overturning referee decisions.

So VAR is not giving the right decisions because a political decision has been made to back the person who may or may not be making the right or wrong call.

So with the exception of offsides it's really still all in the hands of the ref.

Wembley09 · Post by **Wembley09** » Sun Aug 25, 2019 7:10 pm

I think they follow the rules to what they are.
I think if you went back 10 years, even if VAR was here then there would be the same discussion. We have had post game reviews where certain pundits feel it should have been given, and others call for common sense etc.

Like, could this have been given.. could this have not. It's a game of opinions, but the rule is the rule and if the video assistant referee (who I am sure is a fully trained referee) feels it's a foul or not etc, then it must be given.

Pstotto · Post by **Pstotto** » Sun Aug 25, 2019 7:10 pm

I think Pieters was stretching to block the shot, Jimenez was practically doing the splits before any contact, the ball bounces of whoever in a melee of no consequence to the outcome.

Had Pieters not got in a tangle it wouldn't have made any difference.

Not sure whether Jimenez committed a foul of obstruction as I don't know the rules regarding that.

A very dubious penalty.

If Pieters was at fault it was his instinctive reaction to Jimenez as was his instinctive reaction fault at Arsenal.

claptrappers_union · Post by **claptrappers_union** » Sun Aug 25, 2019 7:13 pm

The incident is reviewed anyway, decision given or not.

I predict overruled decisions will rarely happen.

Good call from the ref today though... but for Man City and Spurs - they were cheated by poor decisions protected by other refs at Stockley Park

Wembley09 · Post by **Wembley09** » Sun Aug 25, 2019 7:13 pm

I'm a Burnley fan through and through 100%.
But I can see why it could have ground for being given.

Taken to a 3 man panel, would they all agree to overturn it? I assume probably not, maybe 2 - 1 if we were lucky.
But these top official guys, people who lay down the law.. they would follow the book regardless. Unless your a super club, but even Man City have suffered with it.

Pstotto · Post by **Pstotto** » Sun Aug 25, 2019 7:18 pm

So the result can be overturned like a red card?

Steve1956 · Post by **Steve1956** » Sun Aug 25, 2019 7:20 pm

Pstotto wrote:So the result can be overturned like a red card?

Get back in your greenhouse.....tending your flowering courgettes

whiffa · Post by **whiffa** » Sun Aug 25, 2019 7:24 pm

Burnley1989 wrote:Find me someone who doesn’t? It’s obviously not a stat I’ve taken the time to run a poll on? Why be a clever ****?

I think the point was that you were being a "clever ****" - ironic.

FactualFrank · Post by **FactualFrank** » Sun Aug 25, 2019 7:25 pm

Why do I keep thinking of All Saints when I see this thread?

Belgianclaret · Post by **Belgianclaret** » Sun Aug 25, 2019 7:34 pm

By the way, I still don't think it was a penalty

Burnley1989 · Post by **Burnley1989** » Sun Aug 25, 2019 7:37 pm

whiffa wrote:I think the point was that you were being a "clever ****" - ironic.

Have a nice evening mate, I’m not arguing with someone on a message board

Roosterbooster · Post by **Roosterbooster** » Sun Aug 25, 2019 7:37 pm

Wembley09 wrote:VAR makes things 100% fair

One of the stupidest things I've ever read on here

All we've had since VAR was introduced is disagreements - even among neutrals. It still relies on subjective interpretation. So how can that be 100% fair???

CombatClaret · Post by **CombatClaret** » Sun Aug 25, 2019 7:45 pm

Foshiznik wrote:For clubs like us, I believe VAR is more fair to us. The big club bias we've seen against us appears to be something that VAR can remove from the game. It's the main reason I am personally for VAR.

So when VAR said at the start of the season they would set a "high bar" on overturning decisions, essentially saying they will always back the ref and in the 30 games so far, many of which have featurde controversy over denied or given pens all times the refs decision has stood.

So a subjective decision was made to back one man's subjective decision. How does this make the game fairer?

bob-the-scutter · Post by **bob-the-scutter** » Sun Aug 25, 2019 7:47 pm

Personally I would have given a free kick to us for simulation!

Firthy · Post by **Firthy** » Sun Aug 25, 2019 8:16 pm

Whatever nationality he is, he's a cheating ******. He doesn't e even go for the ball, he just sticks his foot in front of Pieters outstretched leg knowing he'll get contact and then acts like a ******* drama queen.

This shows everything that is wrong about modern football and the penalty system. The punishment definitely outweighs the crime and encourages these cheats to play for a penalty rather than try and score a legitimate goal.

ClaretRock · Post by **ClaretRock** » Sun Aug 25, 2019 8:52 pm

Just seen the replay. Never a pen how VAR could uphold that decision is beyond me. Contact on the man is questionable, and got a toe on the ball.

claret10 · Post by **claret10** » Sun Aug 25, 2019 8:55 pm

Yes Jiminez has been clever...but nobody without claret tinted glasses thinks that is not a penalty. Imagine the meltdown on here if we didn't get given that one!

Rick_Muller · Post by **Rick_Muller** » Sun Aug 25, 2019 8:56 pm

Vegas Claret wrote:It's a pen
https://www.reddit.com/r/soccer/comment ... 7_pk_foul/

Thanks for the replay Vegas, I can now see how Pieters was fouled first before the Wolves player went to ground, and I have a question for you - should the Wolves player be retrospectively punished for simulation, he certainly rolled about quite a lot, surely influencing the ref?

Darnhill Claret · Post by **Darnhill Claret** » Sun Aug 25, 2019 8:58 pm

Ball struck their man just below the knee and our mans boot made contact with his boot or leg or foot. Almost certainly a penalty but the camera view I saw wasn’t a close up. Doesn’t have to be intentional.

Vegas Claret · Post by **Vegas Claret** » Sun Aug 25, 2019 8:59 pm

Rick_Muller wrote:Thanks for the replay Vegas, I can now see how Pieters was fouled first before the Wolves player went to ground, and I have a question for you - should the Wolves player be retrospectively punished for simulation, he certainly rolled about quite a lot, surely influencing the ref?

I would expect all our strikers to do exactly what Jiminez did, Dyche had no problem with it either in his post match interviews

Darnhill Claret · Post by **Darnhill Claret** » Sun Aug 25, 2019 9:00 pm

Had to go for it as the guy was in oceans of space if he had got control of it. Shame he collided with his leg, but why shouldn’t the Wolves guy be placing his leg there.

Foulthrow · Post by **Foulthrow** » Sun Aug 25, 2019 10:41 pm

This is going to be Burnley's issue when it comes to VAR. It clearly wasn't a penalty. Wolves would never get that against one of the 'Big Six', never mind in the last ten seconds of a game. Burnley would never get a penalty for that. Ever. FACT.

But Wolves get it against Burnley, because it's Burnley, and no-one gives a sh*t, cos it's Burnley. It will be brushed over with a chuckle on MOTD2 tonight and not analysed to the nth degree had it been a 'Big Six' team.

So, as VAR only overturns "clear and obvious" errors we still have soft pennos given against us whilst at same time getting nowt in return. Cheers for that.

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Sun Aug 25, 2019 11:40 pm

The reason it wasn't overturned is that there is a widespread school of thought that if a player falls on the floor and screams in pain, then he must have been fouled. There is a certain class of referee who is utterly unaware that sometimes - just sometimes - players exaggerate the impact. They think if he screams, he is badly hurt.

And then VAR looks at it and sees there was some contact. Yes, someone touched him. Clearly he was indeed badly hurt, because someone touched him and he screamed - there can be no other explanation but that it was a foul. Obviously.

I wonder if it would do Pawson (and others) any good to watch a rugby match occasionally? See how many rugby players scream when they are tackled. Bearing in mind that what makes a fair tackle in rugby would be several kinds of foul in football. Footballers are such babyish cheats. And it's abysmal that referees don't know that, or that they pretend not to know that.

Rileybobs · Post by **Rileybobs** » Sun Aug 25, 2019 11:42 pm

dsr wrote:The reason it wasn't overturned is that there is a widespread school of thought that if a player falls on the floor and screams in pain, then he must have been fouled. There is a certain class of referee who is utterly unaware that sometimes - just sometimes - players exaggerate the impact. They think if he screams, he is badly hurt.

And then VAR looks at it and sees there was some contact. Yes, someone touched him. Clearly he was indeed badly hurt, because someone touched him and he screamed - there can be no other explanation but that it was a foul. Obviously.

I wonder if it would do Pawson (and others) any good to watch a rugby match occasionally? See how many rugby players scream when they are tackled. Bearing in mind that what makes a fair tackle in rugby would be several kinds of foul in football. Footballers are such babyish cheats. And it's abysmal that referees don't know that, or that they pretend not to know that.

It is worth bearing in mind that a player doesn’t have to be hurt to be fouled in football. And it wouldn’t do a football referee much good to watch rugby as it’s an entirely different game with different laws.

GodIsADeeJay81 · Post by **GodIsADeeJay81** » Sun Aug 25, 2019 11:43 pm

https://www.skysports.com/football/wolv ... ley/408010" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Feel free to watch it again.

However the back of his foot was kicked by our defender in the penalty area.

tim_noone · Post by **tim_noone** » Mon Aug 26, 2019 12:01 am

I loved the fact that the Newcastle Lad did something Harry Kane's quite Good at and dived....and Purposely Dived across Kane.that was a clever move and a Penalty for me.....

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Mon Aug 26, 2019 12:57 am

Rileybobs wrote:It is worth bearing in mind that a player doesn’t have to be hurt to be fouled in football. And it wouldn’t do a football referee much good to watch rugby as it’s an entirely different game with different laws.

Actually, I thought I made it fairly clear that I knew that. The point of a football referee watching a rugby game would be so that he might realise that men do not scream in pain when they get pushed over or tripped. (Come to think of it, they could watch womens' rugby and see that women don't scream either.) Therefore when a footballer screams in pain he is clearly trying to deceive and should be ignored.

Rileybobs · Post by **Rileybobs** » Mon Aug 26, 2019 12:59 am

dsr wrote:Actually, I thought I made it fairly clear that I knew that. The point of a football referee watching a rugby game would be so that he might realise that men do not scream in pain when they get pushed over or tripped. (Come to think of it, they could watch womens' rugby and see that women don't scream either.) Therefore when a footballer screams in pain he is clearly trying to deceive and should be ignored.

They may be trying to deceive but if they have been kicked or tripped then they have been fouled, whether they scream like a baby or not.

FactualFrank · Post by **FactualFrank** » Mon Aug 26, 2019 1:06 am

Rileybobs wrote:They may be trying to deceive but if they have been kicked or tripped then they have been fouled, whether they scream like a baby or not.

Wow

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Mon Aug 26, 2019 1:55 am

Rileybobs wrote:They may be trying to deceive but if they have been kicked or tripped then they have been fouled, whether they scream like a baby or not.

Tell the referees that. There are so many times in the game when two players touch; why aren't they all free kicks? Why should a player who dives and rolls get a free kick, or in this case a penalty, while a player who does not scream and cry gets nothing? Is it good for the game?

It's all of the same symptoms as the financial problem. The FA and leagues knew there was a problem with clubs' finances, but buried their heads in the sand and hoped it would go away. The FA and Leagues knew there was a problem with player dissent, but buried their heads in the sand and hoped it would go away. The FA and Leagues know there is a problem with diving and cheating, but guess what? they bury their heads in the sand and hope it will go away. The powers that be in the FA and in the League want prestige, they want money, and they want the problems to go away. They haven't got the backbone to try and do anything about them. They're stealing a living.

Vegas Claret · Post by **Vegas Claret** » Mon Aug 26, 2019 3:56 am

for all those complaining, our manager thinks it's a penalty albeit a soft one. I've seen 3 post match interviews and he says the same in them all.

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Mon Aug 26, 2019 7:54 am

claret10 wrote:Yes Jiminez has been clever...but nobody without claret tinted glasses thinks that is not a penalty. Imagine the meltdown on here if we didn't get given that one!

And we most certainly wouldn’t have got it. Very much a home team decision and hat one, ‘soft’ is an understatement!

Firthy · Post by **Firthy** » Mon Aug 26, 2019 9:08 am

Regardless of the fact that it was or wasn't a penalty, this scourge of trying to win a penalty rather than trying to stay on your feet to actually try and score is what's ruining modern day football. Between this and VAR, football is losing it's attraction as a non stop physical sport. There is so much dishonesty these days with players diving, feigning injury, trying to get players sent off and harassing the ref that the negatives in the game are getting more coverage than the positives.

I really don't know where football goes from here because it has become ingrained in the game. Guess we just have to accept that even with VAR, decisions will always seem wrong depending on which side you're on. With penalties, the punishment doesn't always fit the crime but until they come up with something better than we're stuck with it and we'll still be having this discussion in 10 years time.

standishclarets · Post by **standishclarets** » Mon Aug 26, 2019 2:00 pm

As much as I'm gutted like everyone else, a penalty has been given and converted during the time added on. But another view.......

Maybe the game could have finished before the penalty incident if we had 'run the clock down' in last few minutes. I lost count of the number of opportunities we had in time added on, when the ball was sent upfield, to hold the ball up, take it into the corner and play for maybe a corner or throw-in. Woods in particular was guilty of letting the ball get past him, of being easily 'muscled' off the ball or miss-controlling and losing possession.

We lost by a very narrow margin. Holding the ball up might have given us that margin we needed.

jojomk1 · Post by **jojomk1** » Mon Aug 26, 2019 2:06 pm

Seem to recall we got one in exactly the same way at home to B'stards some years ago

agreenwood · Post by **agreenwood** » Mon Aug 26, 2019 2:22 pm

It’s a penalty in the sense that Jimenez is very clever in moving his leg in front of Pieters just before the latter makes contact with the ball. There’s not really anything VAR can do to overturn it given the contact.

It’s soft though and I suspect had it not been given, VAR wouldn’t have overruled that either.