Dermot - No Foul

This Forum is the main messageboard to discuss all things Claret and Blue and beyond
Hibsclaret
Posts: 3939
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2017 4:00 pm
Been Liked: 1233 times
Has Liked: 490 times

Dermot - No Foul

Post by Hibsclaret » Mon Jan 20, 2020 12:00 pm

Apparently no foul on Cork good tackle....

What about Pieters at Wolves....oh that ones a foul and pen...

Absolute joke these people are. Apparently the Zaha one at Man City is not a pen too. Here’s a thought you get a handball given immediately as a pen for City by the same ref. This has to be overturned. If a Man City player gets touched the ref immediately gives the pen so it is less likely to be overturned as clear and obvious error. This is why we are seeing on field decisions for the ‘bigger club’ given initially. If it’s the smaller team they don’t get the decision and VAR can’t overturn it when it’s marginal.

The absolute key is the initial onfield decision and that is where we are seeing absolute bias to the big clubs.
These 2 users liked this post: summitclaret IanMcL

dsr
Posts: 15132
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:47 pm
Been Liked: 4548 times
Has Liked: 2241 times

Re: Dermot - No Foul

Post by dsr » Mon Jan 20, 2020 12:08 pm

Cork was clearly tackled from behind in my view. Gallagher presumably thinks it either wasn't a tackle from behind, or else that he won the ball cleanly and didn't touch or impede Cork.

TVC15
Posts: 8211
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:09 pm
Been Liked: 3321 times
Has Liked: 601 times

Re: Dermot - No Foul

Post by TVC15 » Mon Jan 20, 2020 12:15 pm

If that is not a foul I am not sure what is anymore.
He clearly slid into Cork`s foot before getting the ball.

If the weekends are not bad enough with the VAR decisions every Monday morning they wheel out the ex referees to give a further view. Why ? These referees are the same ones who were so bad that we had to bring VAR in....why should they be any better now ?
These 2 users liked this post: MT03ALG Juan Tanamera

tiger76
Posts: 25697
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2017 9:43 pm
Been Liked: 4644 times
Has Liked: 9849 times
Location: Glasgow

Re: Dermot - No Foul

Post by tiger76 » Mon Jan 20, 2020 12:18 pm

You could argue about the foul on Cork,but we should still have defended our box better,also we probably got away with Mee moving his arm towards the ball,that could easily have resulted in another penalty for Leicester,swings and roundabouts i suppose,what annoyed me more was the theatrics of Maddison whenever anybody went within inches of him.

Hibsclaret
Posts: 3939
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2017 4:00 pm
Been Liked: 1233 times
Has Liked: 490 times

Re: Dermot - No Foul

Post by Hibsclaret » Mon Jan 20, 2020 12:18 pm

The ref at Chelsea couldn’t wait to give the penalty against Lowton. Yesterday he can’t wait to give the one for Leicester. Our one on Barnes early in the season or the 3 at Sheff U they are not as keen to give anything.

The onfield decision is absolutely the key and we get nothing tbh. You can argue that the Mee one we were a bit fortunate but only because the ref basically missed it. If he sees it he gives it, no doubt about that and even these clowns cannot argue it to be clear and obvious to overturn.

Spijed
Posts: 17112
Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2016 12:33 pm
Been Liked: 2892 times
Has Liked: 1294 times

Re: Dermot - No Foul

Post by Spijed » Mon Jan 20, 2020 12:18 pm

We did get away with Ben Mee's disguised handball though, when he lent towards the ball with his shoulder/upper arm.

Hibsclaret
Posts: 3939
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2017 4:00 pm
Been Liked: 1233 times
Has Liked: 490 times

Re: Dermot - No Foul

Post by Hibsclaret » Mon Jan 20, 2020 12:20 pm

Defending our box has nothing to do with a bad decision. The bad decision created the 2 on 2 situation so VAR should rule the goal out.

UpTheClaretsFCBK
Posts: 1334
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2017 10:17 pm
Been Liked: 372 times
Has Liked: 14 times
Location: Blackburn

Re: Dermot - No Foul

Post by UpTheClaretsFCBK » Mon Jan 20, 2020 12:23 pm

I was watching on TV and had the benefit of two or three replays, at half time I said to a friend I didn't think it was a foul. Now I've seen in 7 or 8 times on various highlights, I think it is a foul.

The way the ball moved off Cork made it look like the tackling player made the contact.

It just illustrates how difficult the job actually is.

Whether it is or it isn't, yet again one of our centre midfielders has put themselves under pressure and lost the ball, which is the more pressing issue in my opinion.
This user liked this post: BertiesBeehole

arise_sir_charge
Posts: 3233
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:36 am
Been Liked: 1768 times
Has Liked: 41 times

Re: Dermot - No Foul

Post by arise_sir_charge » Mon Jan 20, 2020 12:24 pm

Should VAR Have ruled the goal out, yes.

Should we have defended better, yes.
This user liked this post: MT03ALG

NL Claret
Posts: 2003
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2016 12:37 pm
Been Liked: 515 times
Has Liked: 209 times

Re: Dermot - No Foul

Post by NL Claret » Mon Jan 20, 2020 12:26 pm

If the tackle had been on maddison or Barnes it would have been a free kick and a yellow card.
These 2 users liked this post: Hibsclaret MT03ALG

fidelcastro
Posts: 7235
Joined: Sun Feb 28, 2016 8:45 pm
Been Liked: 2194 times
Has Liked: 2175 times

Re: Dermot - No Foul

Post by fidelcastro » Mon Jan 20, 2020 12:31 pm

NL Claret wrote:
Mon Jan 20, 2020 12:26 pm
If the tackle had been on maddison or Barnes it would have been a free kick and a yellow card.
You can prove this, can you?

:shock:

Devils_Advocate
Posts: 12343
Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2016 2:43 pm
Been Liked: 5201 times
Has Liked: 920 times

Re: Dermot - No Foul

Post by Devils_Advocate » Mon Jan 20, 2020 12:33 pm

Definitely a foul but what do people think about Cork moving his left foot away from the ball and into the path of the incoming challenge?

Still a foul for me but I've seen plenty of people on here complain when an opposition player does it to us with some going so far at to call it cheating

Ashingtonclaret46
Posts: 3771
Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2016 9:15 am
Been Liked: 1828 times
Has Liked: 2613 times
Location: Ashington, Northumberland

Re: Dermot - No Foul

Post by Ashingtonclaret46 » Mon Jan 20, 2020 12:40 pm

Mark Halsey reckons that Mee should have been sent off for his tangle of legs with Barnes which led to the penalty because if denied a goalscoring opportunity.

IanMcL
Posts: 30123
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 5:27 pm
Been Liked: 6340 times
Has Liked: 8651 times

Re: Dermot - No Foul

Post by IanMcL » Mon Jan 20, 2020 12:41 pm

It was a tackle from behind! The outcome was to bring Cork down, to prevent his continual movement to retrieve the ball. In other words, taking him out of the game.

Free kick, for any team, anywhere.....

If VAR worked like rugby, he would take Cork's protest on board, publicly ask VAR man to look at the tackle, as he was 'unsighted'. That would come up on the big screen, that I can't see but some can, and a decision made. "I still think tackle ok - goal" or "Tackler clearly takes out the player and prevents him going forward. No goal. Free kick".

Instead...it's only Burnley...play on.
This user liked this post: MT03ALG

TVC15
Posts: 8211
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:09 pm
Been Liked: 3321 times
Has Liked: 601 times

Re: Dermot - No Foul

Post by TVC15 » Mon Jan 20, 2020 12:50 pm

Ashingtonclaret46 wrote:
Mon Jan 20, 2020 12:40 pm
Mark Halsey reckons that Mee should have been sent off for his tangle of legs with Barnes which led to the penalty because if denied a goalscoring opportunity.
That’s crazy - nobody is sent off for that. Aren’t a big proportion of penalties / fouls in the area denying goal scoring opportunities ?
If you were going up for a header and someone blatantly pushed you in the back....even if you had an open net opportunity stood on the line about to head it in - that would still not be a sending off !!
Monday morning is becoming a joke bringing out these ex referees to give their viewpoints - the likes of Halsey had big egos when they were in charge of refereeing a game - don’t give him a microphone now he has nothing to do with the game !!

NottsClaret
Posts: 3576
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:05 am
Been Liked: 2588 times
Has Liked: 1 time

Re: Dermot - No Foul

Post by NottsClaret » Mon Jan 20, 2020 12:55 pm

Ashingtonclaret46 wrote:
Mon Jan 20, 2020 12:40 pm
Mark Halsey reckons that Mee should have been sent off for his tangle of legs with Barnes which led to the penalty because if denied a goalscoring opportunity.
I thought they'd tweaked the law on that, so it's just a yellow unless it's a handball on the line or something like that. They still had a goalscoring opportunity with the pen, just tough that they missed it. In hindsight, it looked the right decision by Mee to bring him down.

Have to admit we got lucky with the handball claim also against Mee, that could easily have been another pen for Pope to save.

SalisburyClaret
Posts: 4077
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 1:32 pm
Been Liked: 1104 times
Has Liked: 709 times

Re: Dermot - No Foul

Post by SalisburyClaret » Mon Jan 20, 2020 12:59 pm

If Dermot says no foul - you know it’s a foul

If Halsey says anything - ignore him
This user liked this post: MT03ALG

Ashingtonclaret46
Posts: 3771
Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2016 9:15 am
Been Liked: 1828 times
Has Liked: 2613 times
Location: Ashington, Northumberland

Re: Dermot - No Foul

Post by Ashingtonclaret46 » Mon Jan 20, 2020 1:04 pm

NottsClaret wrote:
Mon Jan 20, 2020 12:55 pm
I thought they'd tweaked the law on that, so it's just a yellow unless it's a handball on the line or something like that. They still had a goalscoring opportunity with the pen, just tough that they missed it. In hindsight, it looked the right decision by Mee to bring him down.

Have to admit we got lucky with the handball claim also against Mee, that could easily have been another pen for Pope to save.
TVC15 wrote:
Mon Jan 20, 2020 12:50 pm
That’s crazy - nobody is sent off for that. Aren’t a big proportion of penalties / fouls in the area denying goal scoring opportunities ?
If you were going up for a header and someone blatantly pushed you in the back....even if you had an open net opportunity stood on the line about to head it in - that would still not be a sending off !!
Monday morning is becoming a joke bringing out these ex referees to give their viewpoints - the likes of Halsey had big egos when they were in charge of refereeing a game - don’t give him a microphone now he has nothing to do with the game !!
All that this says to me is that the game I once loved is going to the dogs, driven by crazy Law makers and aided and abetted in no small way by TV and the media in general who seem to be searching for the perfect game. Anyone who watches any sport at any level can tell them that, in spite of all their efforts, they will never achieve the perfect game!
This user liked this post: Silkyskills1

Dark Cloud
Posts: 6586
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2016 9:03 am
Been Liked: 1981 times
Has Liked: 3299 times

Re: Dermot - No Foul

Post by Dark Cloud » Mon Jan 20, 2020 1:08 pm

It was a clear foul (as seen on replay) I give Anthony Taylor a bit of benefit as he only saw it the once, live and it may have looked ok, but replays show clearly that it wasn't and how Gallagher can say otherwise I really don't know.

Tall Paul
Posts: 7170
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:07 am
Been Liked: 2560 times
Has Liked: 690 times

Re: Dermot - No Foul

Post by Tall Paul » Mon Jan 20, 2020 1:09 pm

NottsClaret wrote:
Mon Jan 20, 2020 12:55 pm
I thought they'd tweaked the law on that, so it's just a yellow unless it's a handball on the line or something like that. They still had a goalscoring opportunity with the pen, just tough that they missed it. In hindsight, it looked the right decision by Mee to bring him down.

Have to admit we got lucky with the handball claim also against Mee, that could easily have been another pen for Pope to save.
The tweak was that it can only be a yellow card if the defender is making an attempt to play the ball, which Mee wasn't. I'm not sure it was denying a clear goalscoring opportunity in this case though.

Rowls
Posts: 13163
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2016 11:00 pm
Been Liked: 5065 times
Has Liked: 5124 times
Location: Montpellier, France

Re: Dermot - No Foul

Post by Rowls » Mon Jan 20, 2020 1:14 pm

Devils_Advocate wrote:
Mon Jan 20, 2020 12:33 pm
Still a foul for me but I've seen plenty of people on here complain when an opposition player does it to us with some going so far at to call it cheating
You've failed to make a key distinction between to separate kind of incidents:

A. Moving your leg into the path of an opponent with a deliberate intent to create a clash in order to dive. This IS cheating.

B. Moving your leg into what *might* be the path of an opponent in order to protect the ball. This is attempting to protect the ball from the opponent.

These are clearly different and Cork was clearly attempting the second 'B' option when he was fouled.

Belial
Posts: 1678
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:10 pm
Been Liked: 381 times
Has Liked: 320 times
Location: On a crazy train

Re: Dermot - No Foul

Post by Belial » Mon Jan 20, 2020 1:21 pm

tiger76 wrote:
Mon Jan 20, 2020 12:18 pm
You could argue about the foul on Cork,but we should still have defended our box better,also we probably got away with Mee moving his arm towards the ball,that could easily have resulted in another penalty for Leicester,swings and roundabouts i suppose,what annoyed me more was the theatrics of Maddison whenever anybody went within inches of him.
The most irritating little sh1t on the Turf this year. The way he smirked after 'winning' his foul in the corner summed him up

Spike
Posts: 2682
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 1:07 pm
Been Liked: 594 times
Has Liked: 1225 times

Re: Dermot - No Foul

Post by Spike » Mon Jan 20, 2020 1:33 pm

it was 100% a foul on Cork. with VAR and the referee so close how are we expected to trust these officials .Who are best incompetent and at worst cheats.

The way referees chat more to ones teams players more than other needs to stop. that smacks favouritism.

We get booked for dissent but Grealish and the entire City and united teams can confront the refs in a very threatening manner and newt is done.

I even for the first time in my life agreed with Poyet the other day. He wasn't talking about our game but said if the entire crowd and some fairminded pundits can see it an VAR still allows it there must be something wrong

This is why VAR wont work when its the same dodgy refs supervising it

claretspice
Posts: 5660
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:13 am
Been Liked: 2801 times
Has Liked: 138 times

Re: Dermot - No Foul

Post by claretspice » Mon Jan 20, 2020 1:43 pm

Seemed to me to be quite straight forward - tackle was from the side rather than behind (i.e. not through the legs) and although the ball was played, the ankle was clipped first. That's a foul, every single time. So whilst I haven't seen exactly what Gallagher said, I can't understand the logic.

As for the handball, I haven't seen it back but at the time it looked speculative and based on the ball being fired at Mee at pace from relatively short distance.

TVC15
Posts: 8211
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:09 pm
Been Liked: 3321 times
Has Liked: 601 times

Re: Dermot - No Foul

Post by TVC15 » Mon Jan 20, 2020 1:48 pm

claretspice wrote:
Mon Jan 20, 2020 1:43 pm
Seemed to me to be quite straight forward - tackle was from the side rather than behind (i.e. not through the legs) and although the ball was played, the ankle was clipped first. That's a foul, every single time. So whilst I haven't seen exactly what Gallagher said, I can't understand the logic.

As for the handball, I haven't seen it back but at the time it looked speculative and based on the ball being fired at Mee at pace from relatively short distance.
100% a foul on Cork like you say but it should have also been a penalty - it wasn’t that close range and Mee moved his arm towards the ball even though he kept his hands behind his back - it was a daft thing for him to do and it should have been a pen.
First half though no way was that a foul on Schmeichel - he was not even touched and Taylor ended up putting the ball in the net. And neither was it a foul on Evans by Wood and Wood should have been in a great position to score before being wrongly pulled up. Really poor refereeing.
This user liked this post: BOYSIE31

Devils_Advocate
Posts: 12343
Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2016 2:43 pm
Been Liked: 5201 times
Has Liked: 920 times

Re: Dermot - No Foul

Post by Devils_Advocate » Mon Jan 20, 2020 1:50 pm

Rowls wrote:
Mon Jan 20, 2020 1:14 pm
You've failed to make a key distinction between to separate kind of incidents:

A. Moving your leg into the path of an opponent with a deliberate intent to create a clash in order to dive. This IS cheating.

B. Moving your leg into what *might* be the path of an opponent in order to protect the ball. This is attempting to protect the ball from the opponent.

These are clearly different and Cork was clearly attempting the second 'B' option when he was fouled.
Its a fair opinion and I dont think its black and white hence me asking the question.

Personally I think Cork under pressure was aware the tackle coming so put his foot between the ball and the tackle so the player had to foul him to get to the ball.

I dont see any fundamental difference in the Chelsea player seeing Lowtons tackle coming in and putting his foot between the ball and the tackle.

I cant remember exact examples off top of my head but i've seen it a few times where an opposition player has moved his foot away from the ball into the path of the Burnley players tackle and there's always a lot of posters on here complaining about it.

Dark Cloud
Posts: 6586
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2016 9:03 am
Been Liked: 1981 times
Has Liked: 3299 times

Re: Dermot - No Foul

Post by Dark Cloud » Mon Jan 20, 2020 1:53 pm

Totally agree re the one which Schmeichel flapped at in the first half. My mate watching on tele messaged me straight away in the ground to say nobody impeded him in any way and he'd no idea what the ref had given. That should have been a goal.

Stayingup
Posts: 5551
Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2016 8:02 pm
Been Liked: 914 times
Has Liked: 2726 times

Re: Dermot - No Foul

Post by Stayingup » Mon Jan 20, 2020 1:56 pm

fidelcastro wrote:
Mon Jan 20, 2020 12:31 pm
You can prove this, can you?

:shock:
[/quote


Stupid comment.

TVC15
Posts: 8211
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:09 pm
Been Liked: 3321 times
Has Liked: 601 times

Re: Dermot - No Foul

Post by TVC15 » Mon Jan 20, 2020 1:57 pm

Tall Paul wrote:
Mon Jan 20, 2020 1:09 pm
The tweak was that it can only be a yellow card if the defender is making an attempt to play the ball, which Mee wasn't. I'm not sure it was denying a clear goalscoring opportunity in this case though.
Not sure that’s how it is applied though. I can’t think of a sending off where a penalty was given and there was no attempt to play the ball - and there must have been some. A push on a player has got to be the most obvious example as a lot of the time if they are pushing in the area they are not making an attempt to play the ball. Look at the Wolves penalty on Saturday where he was pushed (and fouled by the other player too !)

Hibsclaret
Posts: 3939
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2017 4:00 pm
Been Liked: 1233 times
Has Liked: 490 times

Re: Dermot - No Foul

Post by Hibsclaret » Mon Jan 20, 2020 2:03 pm

TVC15 wrote:
Mon Jan 20, 2020 1:48 pm
First half though no way was that a foul on Schmeichel - he was not even touched and Taylor ended up putting the ball in the net. And neither was it a foul on Evans by Wood and Wood should have been in a great position to score before being wrongly pulled up. Really poor refereeing.
Spot on. These are the ones where there is most obvious bias for me. When was the last time we got a free kick in our box for a foul on Pope. What on earth has he seen to blow his whistle. We have very limited chances in a game to score a goal and on two of them yesterday he blows for nothing...

The only good thing was Evans making the error for the winner given his bs from the game at the crisp bowl....

ElectroClaret
Posts: 17773
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:07 pm
Been Liked: 4044 times
Has Liked: 1846 times

Re: Dermot - No Foul

Post by ElectroClaret » Mon Jan 20, 2020 2:05 pm

Foul on Cork, but even if it wasn't, he was dawdling with the ball, fatal against a side like that lot.

As for the Mee handball, I'm really struggling ( but glad)
to work out why it wasn't given as a peno. He clearly leans into the ball (as highlighted on MOTD). Penalty all day long. Of course, the conspiracy theorists, the ones who claim all the refs are against us, will blithely gloss over that one. :mrgreen:

Had it been up the other end, there'd have been streams of lava running out of this site. ;)

Tricky Trevor
Posts: 8321
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 10:06 pm
Been Liked: 2439 times
Has Liked: 1978 times

Re: Dermot - No Foul

Post by Tricky Trevor » Mon Jan 20, 2020 2:05 pm

Devils_Advocate wrote:
Mon Jan 20, 2020 12:33 pm
Definitely a foul but what do people think about Cork moving his left foot away from the ball and into the path of the incoming challenge?

Still a foul for me but I've seen plenty of people on here complain when an opposition player does it to us with some going so far at to call it cheating
The difference between Cork and Zaha is Cork is protecting the ball, which pro footballers have legally done forever, and Zaha runs like Bambi and throws his leg out to the side as soon as a defender gets near enough.
I didn’t see it as Cork moving his left foot away from the ball but rather that he placed his foot between the ball and the tackle.
Zaha has got away with this stunt for far too long and I hope refs are finally on to him.

Tall Paul
Posts: 7170
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:07 am
Been Liked: 2560 times
Has Liked: 690 times

Re: Dermot - No Foul

Post by Tall Paul » Mon Jan 20, 2020 2:07 pm

TVC15 wrote:
Mon Jan 20, 2020 1:57 pm
Not sure that’s how it is applied though. I can’t think of a sending off where a penalty was given and there was no attempt to play the ball - and there must have been some. A push on a player has got to be the most obvious example as a lot of the time if they are pushing in the area they are not making an attempt to play the ball. Look at the Wolves penalty on Saturday where he was pushed (and fouled by the other player too !)
You probably can't think of one because it's very rare that a foul meets all three criteria of being inside the penalty area, denying a clear goalscoring opportunity and not being an attempt to play the ball. Haven't seen the Wolves one, but I suspect it probably wasn't deemed to be denying a goalscoring opportunity.

I can definitely remember one not long after the law change, but can't remember the specific match without looking it up.

fidelcastro
Posts: 7235
Joined: Sun Feb 28, 2016 8:45 pm
Been Liked: 2194 times
Has Liked: 2175 times

Re: Dermot - No Foul

Post by fidelcastro » Mon Jan 20, 2020 2:10 pm

"Stupid comment" - stayingup

Why?

You've just made a comment that you can't possibly know or substantiate.

dpinsussex
Posts: 3554
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:15 am
Been Liked: 1047 times
Has Liked: 1187 times
Location: Reading

Re: Dermot - No Foul

Post by dpinsussex » Mon Jan 20, 2020 2:18 pm

Ashingtonclaret46 wrote:
Mon Jan 20, 2020 12:40 pm
Mark Halsey reckons that Mee should have been sent off for his tangle of legs with Barnes which led to the penalty because if denied a goalscoring opportunity.
Two ways of looking at this challenge.

Not even a yellow for me. Was clumsy at worst.

If that is classed as an obvious goal scoring and in the penalty area, Mee made a genuine attempt to play the ball with the lower body. Therefore pen and yellow.
This user liked this post: Ashingtonclaret46

Hibsclaret
Posts: 3939
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2017 4:00 pm
Been Liked: 1233 times
Has Liked: 490 times

Re: Dermot - No Foul

Post by Hibsclaret » Mon Jan 20, 2020 2:20 pm

ElectroClaret wrote:
Mon Jan 20, 2020 2:05 pm
Foul on Cork, but even if it wasn't, he was dawdling with the ball, fatal against a side like that lot.

As for the Mee handball, I'm really struggling ( but glad)
to work out why it wasn't given as a peno. He clearly leans into the ball (as highlighted on MOTD). Penalty all day long. Of course, the conspiracy theorists, the ones who claim all the refs are against us, will blithely gloss over that one. :mrgreen:

Had it been up the other end, there'd have been streams of lava running out of this site. ;)
I’m sorry but dawdling on the ball does not excuse a foul being unpunished. As for the Mee handball you are correct but the only reason it is not given is because the ref didn’t see it imo. VAR cannot class that as a clear and obvious error. He couldn’t wait to blow for the pen he saw and also the non fouls on the keeper and Evans.....

It’s funny how our goal is a clear and obvious error at the crisp bowl and the foul on Cork is not. I wonder why there are conspiracy theorists....

TVC15
Posts: 8211
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:09 pm
Been Liked: 3321 times
Has Liked: 601 times

Re: Dermot - No Foul

Post by TVC15 » Mon Jan 20, 2020 2:26 pm

Tall Paul wrote:
Mon Jan 20, 2020 2:07 pm
You probably can't think of one because it's very rare that a foul meets all three criteria of being inside the penalty area, denying a clear goalscoring opportunity and not being an attempt to play the ball. Haven't seen the Wolves one, but I suspect it probably wasn't deemed to be denying a goalscoring opportunity.

I can definitely remember one not long after the law change, but can't remember the specific match without looking it up.
“Clear goalscoring opportunity” is probably too vague then. If you are going up for a header and six yards out and are pushed surely that is a clear goal scoring opportunity - like the Liverpool header yesterday.
If as he was going up and was pushed in the back then there is no way the player would be sent off.
It seems like it would only be applied if a player was going to tap into an open net - and was brought down - and even then I can’t think of one where it has happened but they may be pretty rare like you say.

Ashingtonclaret46
Posts: 3771
Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2016 9:15 am
Been Liked: 1828 times
Has Liked: 2613 times
Location: Ashington, Northumberland

Re: Dermot - No Foul

Post by Ashingtonclaret46 » Mon Jan 20, 2020 2:31 pm

dpinsussex wrote:
Mon Jan 20, 2020 2:18 pm
Two ways of looking at this challenge.

Not even a yellow for me. Was clumsy at worst.

If that is classed as an obvious goal scoring and in the penalty area, Mee made a genuine attempt to play the ball with the lower body. Therefore pen and yellow.
Agree with you on all of that and I didn't think that it was a yellow. It was a tangle of legs at worst and would probably not have been given a couple of seasons ago, however, the game at this level is moving in a very strange direction as far as I am concerned ----not good!

Burnleyareback2
Posts: 2664
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:07 pm
Been Liked: 772 times
Has Liked: 1426 times
Location: Mostly Europe

Re: Dermot - No Foul

Post by Burnleyareback2 » Mon Jan 20, 2020 2:42 pm

Dark Cloud wrote:
Mon Jan 20, 2020 1:08 pm
It was a clear foul (as seen on replay) I give Anthony Taylor a bit of benefit as he only saw it the once, live and it may have looked ok, but replays show clearly that it wasn't and how Gallagher can say otherwise I really don't know.
If only there was a way that he could check it himself and watch it back......!
This user liked this post: Dark Cloud

Tall Paul
Posts: 7170
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:07 am
Been Liked: 2560 times
Has Liked: 690 times

Re: Dermot - No Foul

Post by Tall Paul » Mon Jan 20, 2020 2:51 pm

TVC15 wrote:
Mon Jan 20, 2020 2:26 pm
“Clear goalscoring opportunity” is probably too vague then. If you are going up for a header and six yards out and are pushed surely that is a clear goal scoring opportunity - like the Liverpool header yesterday.
If as he was going up and was pushed in the back then there is no way the player would be sent off.
It seems like it would only be applied if a player was going to tap into an open net - and was brought down - and even then I can’t think of one where it has happened but they may be pretty rare like you say.
The definition of denying a clear goalscoring opportunity is the same as it's always been.

dpinsussex
Posts: 3554
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:15 am
Been Liked: 1047 times
Has Liked: 1187 times
Location: Reading

Re: Dermot - No Foul

Post by dpinsussex » Mon Jan 20, 2020 2:52 pm

TVC15 wrote:
Mon Jan 20, 2020 2:26 pm
“Clear goalscoring opportunity” is probably too vague then. If you are going up for a header and six yards out and are pushed surely that is a clear goal scoring opportunity - like the Liverpool header yesterday.
If as he was going up and was pushed in the back then there is no way the player would be sent off.
It seems like it would only be applied if a player was going to tap into an open net - and was brought down - and even then I can’t think of one where it has happened but they may be pretty rare like you say.
Referees have to consider 4 things for a DOGSO
C Control of the ball
D Direction of travel
D Distance from goal
D Defendera in the immediate vicinity.

Tick all four of those and it is classified as a DOGSO. Any not ticked then it can only be a foul.

There was a dogso on saturday by the bournmouth captain. That said was dogso using hand.

Header scenario if a defender right next to him it isnt an OBVIOUS goal scoring opportunity.

Hope that helps everyone with understanding what goes through the referees mind when considering the outcome of the foul
This user liked this post: Ashingtonclaret46

TVC15
Posts: 8211
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:09 pm
Been Liked: 3321 times
Has Liked: 601 times

Re: Dermot - No Foul

Post by TVC15 » Mon Jan 20, 2020 3:22 pm

dpinsussex wrote:
Mon Jan 20, 2020 2:52 pm
Referees have to consider 4 things for a DOGSO
C Control of the ball
D Direction of travel
D Distance from goal
D Defendera in the immediate vicinity.

Tick all four of those and it is classified as a DOGSO. Any not ticked then it can only be a foul.

There was a dogso on saturday by the bournmouth captain. That said was dogso using hand.

Header scenario if a defender right next to him it isnt an OBVIOUS goal scoring opportunity.

Hope that helps everyone with understanding what goes through the referees mind when considering the outcome of the foul
Thanks for this.
So pretty daft for an ex top level referee to suggest Mee should have been sent off then given I’m not sure a single one of the criteria was met ?
Do you know of any examples where there has been a sending off in the area where it was not a player saving the ball from going in with his hand ?
I’m struggling to think of any and you would think there are some examples of the criteria being met.

Rowls
Posts: 13163
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2016 11:00 pm
Been Liked: 5065 times
Has Liked: 5124 times
Location: Montpellier, France

Re: Dermot - No Foul

Post by Rowls » Mon Jan 20, 2020 3:25 pm

Devils_Advocate wrote:
Mon Jan 20, 2020 1:50 pm
I dont see any fundamental difference in the Chelsea player seeing Lowtons tackle coming in and putting his foot between the ball and the tackle.
Well we'd have to get inside the player's heads to be 100% but the evidence surrounding the incidents is more than enough for me.

Cork was trying to protect the ball. He had no chance of staying on his feet because a man slides through from the back of him. He is in a dangerous position and has nothing to gain from diving. He risks only giving the ball away in a dangerous position.

The Chelsea player Willian was not trying to protect the ball. He had actually kicked the ball out of play for a goal kick. There was no reason for him to fall over other than his own actions. He has nothing to lose other than perhap a booking for diving. He has a lot to gain from diving, as he did.

OK, we can't prove it unless we open their heads up or they confess and tell the truth. But it's obvious to anyone with a brain.

A bit like how I can't prove you're only playing up to your username.
This user liked this post: bfcmik

mdd2
Posts: 6012
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2016 8:47 pm
Been Liked: 1665 times
Has Liked: 700 times

Re: Dermot - No Foul

Post by mdd2 » Mon Jan 20, 2020 3:41 pm

In response to Ash claret it is/was the imperfections that make/made the game with talking points for days after the event. I would be happy if VAR was only used to pick out the cheats who would then get a straight red and 4 game ban in my football el derado
This user liked this post: Ashingtonclaret46

dougcollins
Posts: 6586
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2016 12:23 am
Been Liked: 1778 times
Has Liked: 1773 times
Location: Yarkshire

Re: Dermot - No Foul

Post by dougcollins » Mon Jan 20, 2020 3:59 pm

Foul or no, Cork loses the ball way too much in those positions and I would say he has cost use more than the under-fire Mee in that respect.

Ashingtonclaret46
Posts: 3771
Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2016 9:15 am
Been Liked: 1828 times
Has Liked: 2613 times
Location: Ashington, Northumberland

Re: Dermot - No Foul

Post by Ashingtonclaret46 » Mon Jan 20, 2020 4:15 pm

Rowls wrote:
Mon Jan 20, 2020 3:25 pm
Well we'd have to get inside the player's heads to be 100% but the evidence surrounding the incidents is more than enough for me.

Cork was trying to protect the ball. He had no chance of staying on his feet because a man slides through from the back of him. He is in a dangerous position and has nothing to gain from diving. He risks only giving the ball away in a dangerous position.

The Chelsea player Willian was not trying to protect the ball. He had actually kicked the ball out of play for a goal kick. There was no reason for him to fall over other than his own actions. He has nothing to lose other than perhap a booking for diving. He has a lot to gain from diving, as he did.

OK, we can't prove it unless we open their heads up or they confess and tell the truth. But it's obvious to anyone with a brain.

A bit like how I can't prove you're only playing up to your username.
A Chelsea player tried exactly the same thing on Saturday at Newcastle by dangling his leg to try to get a penalty. Fortunately, the referee was not conned, unlike Kevin Friend the previous week. This scenario is happening more and more in the game, as is the process of one player suddenly slowing down or almost stopping when two players are chasing for the ball and winning a free kick. In years gone by there would certainly not have been a free kick awarded in most cases because the ref would have told them to get on with the game!
This user liked this post: Rowls

houseboy
Posts: 7065
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2017 4:43 pm
Been Liked: 2238 times
Has Liked: 1617 times
Location: Baxenden

Re: Dermot - No Foul

Post by houseboy » Mon Jan 20, 2020 4:25 pm

Hibsclaret wrote:
Mon Jan 20, 2020 2:03 pm
Spot on. These are the ones where there is most obvious bias for me. When was the last time we got a free kick in our box for a foul on Pope. What on earth has he seen to blow his whistle. We have very limited chances in a game to score a goal and on two of them yesterday he blows for nothing...

The only good thing was Evans making the error for the winner given his bs from the game at the crisp bowl....
I reorded the game on telly to watch for anything afterwards and the 'disallowed' goal after the alleged impeading of the goalkeeper was greeted with amazement by the commentary team. Nobody but nobody could see what the free kick was given for and it showed that no-one had actually gone anywhere near him. There were a few talking points in the game but the disallowed goal doesn't seem to be getting as much attention as the 'given' goal that shouldn't have been. In theory it was us who should have been 1-0 up at half time (but then they may have turned it round like we did - who knows).

Hipper
Posts: 5681
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 1:33 pm
Been Liked: 1175 times
Has Liked: 918 times

Re: Dermot - No Foul

Post by Hipper » Mon Jan 20, 2020 4:40 pm

UpTheClaretsFCBK wrote:
Mon Jan 20, 2020 12:23 pm
I was watching on TV and had the benefit of two or three replays, at half time I said to a friend I didn't think it was a foul. Now I've seen in 7 or 8 times on various highlights, I think it is a foul.

The way the ball moved off Cork made it look like the tackling player made the contact.

It just illustrates how difficult the job actually is.

Whether it is or it isn't, yet again one of our centre midfielders has put themselves under pressure and lost the ball, which is the more pressing issue in my opinion.
That's exactly the same with me. It wasn't an obvious foul and the 'tackle' came more from the side then behind. But after numerous slow motion views I see it as a foul, but not really a clear and obvious one

Schmeichel's flap was in part caused by a minor push in the back by Cork. It may not have been much but why do it then?

Mee's penalty with Barnes involved both using their arms out of site of anyone but Barnes clearly got the better of Mee. Mee therefore flung himself to the ground to give the impression he was being fouled as it was obvious he was losing out (if Barnes couldn't score he was going to go to ground anyway eventually - that's what he does). Mee didn't fool the ref and he was rightly penalised and given a yellow.

In the second penalty incident Mee deliberately lowers his body and arm to prevent the ball passing him. The commentators suggested it was his chest but it wasn't. Very lucky to get away this as it was clear and obvious, and would have led to a second penalty and surely a red card.

On the referee rating thread Anthony Taylor generally got low marks and the main reason, if I try to exclude biases, is that he didn't penalise lots of niggardly fouls and fell for some (but by no means all) of the cheating that goes on (my view was he had an excellent game but there we go).

It seems that these days we require spot on accuracy as well as making sure no game changing decisions are wrongly given. In fact it was these demands that have led to the introduction of VAR. Yesterday's game had VAR and yet there were two game changing decisions (Leicester's first goal and the second 'penalty') that were given and not given. In other words VAR has not changed much from before.

The problem is we have such a high expectation of referees which seem to me beyond realistic. We expect them to decide instantly on fouls and cheating when the pace of the game is so fast. It's just not possible. I've said it before but to me it's quite remarkable how much they get right.

We should accept this, that football is a sport and not an exact science. Ditch VAR and let the referee have full control for better or worse. Then we can enjoy the game better.
This user liked this post: Ashingtonclaret46

dpinsussex
Posts: 3554
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:15 am
Been Liked: 1047 times
Has Liked: 1187 times
Location: Reading

Re: Dermot - No Foul

Post by dpinsussex » Mon Jan 20, 2020 4:41 pm

TVC15 wrote:
Mon Jan 20, 2020 3:22 pm
Thanks for this.
So pretty daft for an ex top level referee to suggest Mee should have been sent off then given I’m not sure a single one of the criteria was met ?
Do you know of any examples where there has been a sending off in the area where it was not a player saving the ball from going in with his hand ?
I’m struggling to think of any and you would think there are some examples of the criteria being met.
Penalty and dogso red card inside the area would need to be an,upper body offence for example a rugby tackle. Clearly isnt attempting to play the ball legally

Hibsclaret
Posts: 3939
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2017 4:00 pm
Been Liked: 1233 times
Has Liked: 490 times

Re: Dermot - No Foul

Post by Hibsclaret » Mon Jan 20, 2020 5:05 pm

Hipper wrote:
Mon Jan 20, 2020 4:40 pm
That's exactly the same with me. It wasn't an obvious foul and the 'tackle' came more from the side then behind. But after numerous slow motion views I see it as a foul, but not really a clear and obvious one

Schmeichel's flap was in part caused by a minor push in the back by Cork. It may not have been much but why do it then?

Mee's penalty with Barnes involved both using their arms out of site of anyone but Barnes clearly got the better of Mee. Mee therefore flung himself to the ground to give the impression he was being fouled as it was obvious he was losing out (if Barnes couldn't score he was going to go to ground anyway eventually - that's what he does). Mee didn't fool the ref and he was rightly penalised and given a yellow.

In the second penalty incident Mee deliberately lowers his body and arm to prevent the ball passing him. The commentators suggested it was his chest but it wasn't. Very lucky to get away this as it was clear and obvious, and would have led to a second penalty and surely a red card.

On the referee rating thread Anthony Taylor generally got low marks and the main reason, if I try to exclude biases, is that he didn't penalise lots of niggardly fouls and fell for some (but by no means all) of the cheating that goes on (my view was he had an excellent game but there we go).

It seems that these days we require spot on accuracy as well as making sure no game changing decisions are wrongly given. In fact it was these demands that have led to the introduction of VAR. Yesterday's game had VAR and yet there were two game changing decisions (Leicester's first goal and the second 'penalty') that were given and not given. In other words VAR has not changed much from before.

The problem is we have such a high expectation of referees which seem to me beyond realistic. We expect them to decide instantly on fouls and cheating when the pace of the game is so fast. It's just not possible. I've said it before but to me it's quite remarkable how much they get right.

We should accept this, that football is a sport and not an exact science. Ditch VAR and let the referee have full control for better or worse. Then we can enjoy the game better.
You make some valid points. However, to suggest the minor push on Schmeichel shouldn’t be done there was really nothing to support him blowing for a foul because it is never a foul. No over expectation on someone getting a very basic decision right. There was a similar one with Evans where he was quick to blow. This is one of the reasons VAR hasn’t changed much as you put it.

If refs are to improve with VAR they need to let the game flow in attacks and then at least we get to an outcome that VAR can check, certainly where there is minimal contact. Imo there is a lot of evidence of where the ‘clear and obvious’ rubbish appears to favour bigger teams. Why on earth is the ref in the City game giving a pen for handball so quickly, for example. Do we really think he gives Palace that decision onfield? Very unlikely imo.

I also would not describe the Mee handball as ‘clear and obvious’ when his arms are by his side. If it is given onfield it should have been upheld by VAR much like not being given it should be upheld as no pen (as it was). I’m amazed he didn’t see it as he gave them every marginal decision except that one.

Post Reply