The penalty against Pope.

This Forum is the main messageboard to discuss all things Claret and Blue and beyond
burnleymik
Posts: 5117
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2018 9:00 pm
Been Liked: 1171 times
Has Liked: 2916 times

The penalty against Pope.

Post by burnleymik » Sun Dec 27, 2020 2:35 pm

Just watched it a few more times. Pope won the ball, what else is he supposed to do in that situation, he absolutely must challenge for the ball and in that instance he had already won the ball before he collided with Bamford?

burnleymik
Posts: 5117
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2018 9:00 pm
Been Liked: 1171 times
Has Liked: 2916 times

Re: The penalty against Pope.

Post by burnleymik » Sun Dec 27, 2020 2:38 pm

It's just a brilliant tackle by Pope.
EqPuA0VW4AEiz3i.jpg
EqPuA0VW4AEiz3i.jpg (450.78 KiB) Viewed 4857 times
This user liked this post: MT03ALG

cockneyclaret
Posts: 1375
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:45 am
Been Liked: 278 times
Has Liked: 3308 times

Re: The penalty against Pope.

Post by cockneyclaret » Sun Dec 27, 2020 2:43 pm

Even Lineker and Savage are saying how was that a penalty on twitter
Last edited by cockneyclaret on Sun Dec 27, 2020 2:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.

MT03ALG
Posts: 2084
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2016 10:50 pm
Been Liked: 429 times
Has Liked: 4555 times
Location: COTTON TREE

Re: The penalty against Pope.

Post by MT03ALG » Sun Dec 27, 2020 2:43 pm

Looking at that picture it could also have been a red card for Bamford !! (With any other referee than Jones)
These 2 users liked this post: IanMcL bfcjg

Belgianclaret
Posts: 2559
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:41 am
Been Liked: 953 times
Has Liked: 167 times

Re: The penalty against Pope.

Post by Belgianclaret » Sun Dec 27, 2020 2:48 pm

Amazed this passed a VAR review
This user liked this post: burnleymik

Rowls
Posts: 13241
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2016 11:00 pm
Been Liked: 5096 times
Has Liked: 5159 times
Location: Montpellier, France

Re: The penalty against Pope.

Post by Rowls » Sun Dec 27, 2020 2:49 pm

I don’t know how much more cleanly a keeper can win the ball without it being given as a penalty.

We all know, as fans, that “heart in mouth” feeling when you think the ref could blow for a penalty - I didn’t get that at all.

It was just a case of “well done Popey, you’ve got Ben Mee out of jail there.”

Then when the ref is peeping I started thinking it was offside.

Then I started thinking he was booking Bamford for diving.

Then I thought it must be offside.

Even when it became clear he was signalling for a penalty I thought, “oh well, VAR will just have to overturn it.”

It’s a truly shocking decision.
These 11 users liked this post: MT03ALG Claret RammyClaret61 Goodclaret Redbeard Stayingup mybloodisclaret longsidepies bf2k Dark Cloud bfcjg

Spijed
Posts: 17121
Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2016 12:33 pm
Been Liked: 2895 times
Has Liked: 1294 times

Re: The penalty against Pope.

Post by Spijed » Sun Dec 27, 2020 2:49 pm

Yes, amazing how it wasn't looked at by VAR

wilks_bfc
Posts: 11498
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:33 pm
Been Liked: 3181 times
Has Liked: 1865 times
Contact:

Re: The penalty against Pope.

Post by wilks_bfc » Sun Dec 27, 2020 2:50 pm

If that had been Mee or Tarky outside the area, everyone would be saying what a great tackle it was
This user liked this post: burnleymik

claptrappers_union
Posts: 5868
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2016 10:40 pm
Been Liked: 1766 times
Has Liked: 356 times
Location: The Banana Stand

Re: The penalty against Pope.

Post by claptrappers_union » Sun Dec 27, 2020 2:50 pm

It will have been looked at by VAR

Claret
Posts: 1218
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:57 pm
Been Liked: 400 times
Has Liked: 655 times

Re: The penalty against Pope.

Post by Claret » Sun Dec 27, 2020 2:51 pm

Rowls wrote:
Sun Dec 27, 2020 2:49 pm
I don’t know how much more cleanly a keeper can win the ball without it being given as a penalty.

We all know, as fans, that “heart in mouth” feeling when you think the ref could blow for a penalty - I didn’t get that at all.

It was just a case of “well done Popey, you’ve got Ben Mee out of jail there.”

Then when the ref is peeping I started thinking it was offside.

Then I started thinking he was booking Bamford for diving.

Then I thought it must be offside.

Even when it became clear he was signalling for a penalty I thought, “oh well, VAR will just have to overturn it.”

It’s a truly shocking decision.
That is all roughly what I was thinking at the time

IanMcL
Posts: 30315
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 5:27 pm
Been Liked: 6363 times
Has Liked: 8705 times

Re: The penalty against Pope.

Post by IanMcL » Sun Dec 27, 2020 2:55 pm

Belgianclaret wrote:
Sun Dec 27, 2020 2:48 pm
Amazed this passed a VAR review
Learning ref. First big decision. Not going to undermine him, despite appalling decision.

Personally, I would castrate him and let him watch the crows eat his bits....for their first course.
These 2 users liked this post: FCBurnley Stayingup

burnmark
Posts: 2475
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:50 am
Been Liked: 602 times
Has Liked: 477 times

Re: The penalty against Pope.

Post by burnmark » Sun Dec 27, 2020 2:55 pm

I’m not sure what grates me the most - the decision from the ref or the seemingly complete lack of VAR intervention or scrutiny. When it was given I was sure it would be overturned either from Oliver or through the ref spotting his mistake on the screen review.

So much ‘it’s only Burnley so we’ll let it ride’ about it.

IanMcL
Posts: 30315
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 5:27 pm
Been Liked: 6363 times
Has Liked: 8705 times

Re: The penalty against Pope.

Post by IanMcL » Sun Dec 27, 2020 2:55 pm

claptrappers_union wrote:
Sun Dec 27, 2020 2:50 pm
It will have been looked at by VAR
Ref club

wilks_bfc
Posts: 11498
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:33 pm
Been Liked: 3181 times
Has Liked: 1865 times
Contact:

Re: The penalty against Pope.

Post by wilks_bfc » Sun Dec 27, 2020 2:56 pm

cockneyclaret wrote:
Sun Dec 27, 2020 2:43 pm
Even Lineker and Savage are saying how was that a penalty on twitter
Seen Savages post but the only ones from Lineker have been about the “foul” on their keeper by Mee

wilks_bfc
Posts: 11498
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:33 pm
Been Liked: 3181 times
Has Liked: 1865 times
Contact:

Re: The penalty against Pope.

Post by wilks_bfc » Sun Dec 27, 2020 2:58 pm

Just had a thought?

Did those in VAR think it was a 12:30 kick off?

Maybe they weren’t setup and ready

dsr
Posts: 15222
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:47 pm
Been Liked: 4575 times
Has Liked: 2263 times

Re: The penalty against Pope.

Post by dsr » Sun Dec 27, 2020 3:02 pm

Spijed wrote:
Sun Dec 27, 2020 2:49 pm
Yes, amazing how it wasn't looked at by VAR
All penalties are looked at by VAR.

My best guess would be that the ref didn't see that Pope won the ball, and VAR did see that Pope won the ball but agreed with the commentators that he didn't win it by "enough" to overturn the referee. Or perhaps he didn't look at that replay - it was a very quick review.

wilks_bfc
Posts: 11498
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:33 pm
Been Liked: 3181 times
Has Liked: 1865 times
Contact:

Re: The penalty against Pope.

Post by wilks_bfc » Sun Dec 27, 2020 3:05 pm

dsr wrote:
Sun Dec 27, 2020 3:02 pm
All penalties are looked at by VAR.

My best guess would be that the ref didn't see that Pope won the ball, and VAR did see that Pope won the ball but agreed with the commentators that he didn't win it by "enough" to overturn the referee. Or perhaps he didn't look at that replay - it was a very quick review.
Maybe VAR didn’t think it was “clear or obvious error” (is that still part of the criteria? I’ve lost track with changes)

I’m not sticking up for the decision, just trying to think of reasons why it wasn’t overturned

dsr
Posts: 15222
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:47 pm
Been Liked: 4575 times
Has Liked: 2263 times

Re: The penalty against Pope.

Post by dsr » Sun Dec 27, 2020 3:09 pm

wilks_bfc wrote:
Sun Dec 27, 2020 3:05 pm
Maybe VAR didn’t think it was “clear or obvious error” (is that still part of the criteria? I’ve lost track with changes)

I’m not sticking up for the decision, just trying to think of reasons why it wasn’t overturned
That's what I don't get. It's been universal for years that if the defender gets a touch of the ball then it's not a foul. Why was this different? It makes no sense.

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

Re: The penalty against Pope.

Post by SalisburyClaret » Sun Dec 27, 2020 3:10 pm

The Penalty was given for the follow through and was supported by the VAR experts.
Where Pope is supposed to put his body is beyond me, he turns slightly away from Bamford who sees what's coming and turns slightly away from him. So in this situation as going for the ball with feet is not allowed clearly Pope should have gone in head first and risked injury.

In a similar manner, at the other end, a goalkeeper comes in and challenges with his knees into an unsighted player's back player and again clearly follows through - this is ignored by the ref and VAR.

No consistency, no sense and no protection for the players. This was what VAR was supposed to cut out, what a failure
These 2 users liked this post: bf2k WalkdenClaret

Spijed
Posts: 17121
Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2016 12:33 pm
Been Liked: 2895 times
Has Liked: 1294 times

Re: The penalty against Pope.

Post by Spijed » Sun Dec 27, 2020 3:11 pm

dsr wrote:
Sun Dec 27, 2020 3:02 pm
All penalties are looked at by VAR.

My best guess would be that the ref didn't see that Pope won the ball, and VAR did see that Pope won the ball but agreed with the commentators that he didn't win it by "enough" to overturn the referee. Or perhaps he didn't look at that replay - it was a very quick review.
There was a penalty decision in the Villa v Brighton game - initially given by the ref to Villa. However, it was overturned because the Brighton player got the faintest of touches. Obviously in that game the slightest touch on the ball seemed to matter.

FCBurnley
Posts: 9820
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 3:56 pm
Been Liked: 1997 times
Has Liked: 1142 times

Re: The penalty against Pope.

Post by FCBurnley » Sun Dec 27, 2020 3:11 pm

IanMcL wrote:
Sun Dec 27, 2020 2:55 pm
Learning ref. First big decision. Not going to undermine him, despite appalling decision.

Personally, I would castrate him and let him watch the crows eat his bits....for their first course.
He would probably enjoy that

dsr
Posts: 15222
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:47 pm
Been Liked: 4575 times
Has Liked: 2263 times

Re: The penalty against Pope.

Post by dsr » Sun Dec 27, 2020 3:12 pm

Spijed wrote:
Sun Dec 27, 2020 3:11 pm
There was a penalty decision in the Villa v Brighton game - initially given by the ref to Villa. However, it was overturned because the Brighton player got the faintest of touches. Obviously in that game the slightest touch on the ball seemed to matter.
Exactly. It makes no sense. I am tending towards the idea that the VAR man thought it was so obvious that he didn't bother looking to see if Pope touched the ball.

BabylonClaret
Posts: 3095
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2016 10:51 pm
Been Liked: 710 times
Has Liked: 619 times

Re: The penalty against Pope.

Post by BabylonClaret » Sun Dec 27, 2020 3:13 pm

Its bullshit. In real time you can see the ball is plead out you can see Pope takes the ball. Bamford isn't getting there or any of it when he follows through as well

IanMcL
Posts: 30315
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 5:27 pm
Been Liked: 6363 times
Has Liked: 8705 times

Re: The penalty against Pope.

Post by IanMcL » Sun Dec 27, 2020 3:15 pm

SalisburyClaret wrote:
Sun Dec 27, 2020 3:10 pm
The Penalty was given for the follow through and was supported by the VAR experts.
Where Pope is supposed to put his body is beyond me, he turns slightly away from Bamford who sees what's coming and turns slightly away from him. So in this situation as going for the ball with feet is not allowed clearly Pope should have gone in head first and risked injury.

In a similar manner, at the other end, a goalkeeper comes in and challenges with his knees into an unsighted player's back player and again clearly follows through - this is ignored by the ref and VAR.

No consistency, no sense and no protection for the players. This was what VAR was supposed to cut out, what a failure
Pope was there first and got the ball cleanly. Bamford late with foot up.

Both players then clash as the bodies momentum continues.

B'tard, effing w asking s hit of a referee totally wrong. VAR not undermining their junior p rick.

FactualFrank
Posts: 25445
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2016 12:46 am
Been Liked: 6930 times
Has Liked: 11660 times
Location: Leeds

Re: The penalty against Pope.

Post by FactualFrank » Sun Dec 27, 2020 3:17 pm

Never a fan of biased referees, regardless of how new they are to the game.

wilks_bfc
Posts: 11498
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:33 pm
Been Liked: 3181 times
Has Liked: 1865 times
Contact:

Re: The penalty against Pope.

Post by wilks_bfc » Sun Dec 27, 2020 3:20 pm

And when you consider the Pickford/VVD incident it really does need questioning

claptrappers_union
Posts: 5868
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2016 10:40 pm
Been Liked: 1766 times
Has Liked: 356 times
Location: The Banana Stand

Re: The penalty against Pope.

Post by claptrappers_union » Sun Dec 27, 2020 3:20 pm

I can honestly say, I don’t know the rules of football.

I was expecting Robinson to say at half time it wasn’t a penalty being in the goalkeeper’s union and all... but everyone was in agreement that it was the right decision.

It was a just a tackle in my opinion

RammyClaret61
Posts: 3094
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2016 9:46 pm
Been Liked: 1110 times
Has Liked: 301 times
Location: Melbourne, Australia.

Re: The penalty against Pope.

Post by RammyClaret61 » Sun Dec 27, 2020 3:23 pm

burnleymik wrote:
Sun Dec 27, 2020 2:38 pm
It's just a brilliant tackle by Pope.

EqPuA0VW4AEiz3i.jpg
Theirs a bloke on Melbourne clarets Facebook page claiming that photo is photoshopped, and it’s a clear penalty.

burnleymik
Posts: 5117
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2018 9:00 pm
Been Liked: 1171 times
Has Liked: 2916 times

Re: The penalty against Pope.

Post by burnleymik » Sun Dec 27, 2020 3:29 pm

RammyClaret61 wrote:
Sun Dec 27, 2020 3:23 pm
Theirs a bloke on Melbourne clarets Facebook page claiming that photo is photoshopped, and it’s a clear penalty.
:lol: :lol:

THEWELLERNUT70
Posts: 3452
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 11:13 pm
Been Liked: 1032 times
Has Liked: 2039 times

Re: The penalty against Pope.

Post by THEWELLERNUT70 » Sun Dec 27, 2020 3:32 pm

As I said at the time, if a defender makes that tackle it would never have been given as a penalty. Pope gets the ball 1st. Everything else doesn't matter, you can turn yourself inside saying its a penalty, but its null and void after Pope gets the ball

Mondsley
Posts: 434
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 7:11 am
Been Liked: 136 times
Has Liked: 29 times

Re: The penalty against Pope.

Post by Mondsley » Sun Dec 27, 2020 3:33 pm

wilks_bfc wrote:
Sun Dec 27, 2020 3:20 pm
And when you consider the Pickford/VVD incident it really does need questioning
Then we need to ask the ref that day why no penalty was given. One Michael Oliver!!! I give up.

aggi
Posts: 8830
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:31 am
Been Liked: 2116 times

Re: The penalty against Pope.

Post by aggi » Sun Dec 27, 2020 3:33 pm

Basically a keeper can't challenge a striker running on goal in the penalty area. One is going towards the goal and another away from it so some form of collision is inevitable. As we've seen today the ball is irrelevant so any challenge is almost certainly a penalty. Not sure when that became the rule but it seems that that's where we are.

mybloodisclaret
Posts: 2240
Joined: Tue May 03, 2016 8:04 pm
Been Liked: 699 times
Has Liked: 4021 times

Re: The penalty against Pope.

Post by mybloodisclaret » Sun Dec 27, 2020 4:00 pm

It's an entertainment business... the paying masses want goals.

It was never a pen, and I said at the time and am still ripping about it 4 hours later having seen it 50 times from every angle.

It's a nonsense

Stacky_claret
Posts: 271
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 8:23 pm
Been Liked: 76 times
Has Liked: 224 times

Re: The penalty against Pope.

Post by Stacky_claret » Sun Dec 27, 2020 4:11 pm

Belgianclaret wrote:
Sun Dec 27, 2020 2:48 pm
Amazed this passed a VAR review
I'm not I've seen plenty of decisions given that I have disagreed with

Stacky_claret
Posts: 271
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 8:23 pm
Been Liked: 76 times
Has Liked: 224 times

Re: The penalty against Pope.

Post by Stacky_claret » Sun Dec 27, 2020 4:18 pm

claptrappers_union wrote:
Sun Dec 27, 2020 3:20 pm
I can honestly say, I don’t know the rules of football.

I was expecting Robinson to say at half time it wasn’t a penalty being in the goalkeeper’s union and all... but everyone was in agreement that it was the right decision.

It was a just a tackle in my opinion
I'm beginning to think that var is not designed to make things better but more of a tool to manipulate things even more

I can accept the ref not getting things right but the var ref has no excuse whatsoever
If he thinks that it's the right decision then after the game they should state why and explain the actual rule regarding the incident

Rowls
Posts: 13241
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2016 11:00 pm
Been Liked: 5096 times
Has Liked: 5159 times
Location: Montpellier, France

Re: The penalty against Pope.

Post by Rowls » Sun Dec 27, 2020 4:19 pm

Poor old Devils_Advocate:

He’s put so much effort into his fishing here today and he’s been outdone by the BBC’s Matej Mann who went with the subtler approach:

“Bamford's early penalty was met by protests on and off the field as Pope may have had the faintest of touches on the ball

AndyClaret
Posts: 1349
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2019 2:08 pm
Been Liked: 217 times
Has Liked: 543 times

Re: The penalty against Pope.

Post by AndyClaret » Sun Dec 27, 2020 4:19 pm

claptrappers_union wrote:
Sun Dec 27, 2020 2:50 pm
It will have been looked at by VAR
VAR is there to protect the referees.

ALP
Posts: 1149
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:16 am
Been Liked: 1466 times
Has Liked: 388 times
Contact:

Re: The penalty against Pope.

Post by ALP » Sun Dec 27, 2020 4:32 pm

It all goes to show that football is f$€4ed absolutely f$€ked with decisions like this and as for VAR, what is that about if it doesn't get used to overrule a quite clear and wrong decision.
This user liked this post: Zlatan

Giftonsnoidea
Posts: 1360
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2016 9:56 pm
Been Liked: 225 times
Has Liked: 248 times

Re: The penalty against Pope.

Post by Giftonsnoidea » Sun Dec 27, 2020 4:39 pm

After today’s performance by the refereeing team all I can deduce is that the betting syndicate must have put in a big bribe, time will tell

Firthy
Posts: 4978
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:04 am
Been Liked: 1613 times
Has Liked: 275 times

Re: The penalty against Pope.

Post by Firthy » Sun Dec 27, 2020 4:50 pm

Those two decisions today show everything that's wrong with football and exactly why VAR is a total waste of time.

Vegas Claret
Posts: 30627
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:00 am
Been Liked: 11034 times
Has Liked: 5645 times
Location: clue is in the title

Re: The penalty against Pope.

Post by Vegas Claret » Sun Dec 27, 2020 4:54 pm

2020 in a nutshell

Dark Cloud
Posts: 6637
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2016 9:03 am
Been Liked: 2004 times
Has Liked: 3337 times

Re: The penalty against Pope.

Post by Dark Cloud » Sun Dec 27, 2020 4:56 pm

Wasn't pen. Ever! So what the hell is VAR doing?? Bin it if you're not going to bloody use it.
And stop "protecting" goalkeepers who are just utter crap! If they can't catch a simple ball with players round them without dropping it, then why the hell are they playing at this level??? Not every touch on a goalkeeper is a bloody foul!!! Most contact is actually initiated by them!!!
Last edited by Dark Cloud on Sun Dec 27, 2020 5:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.

thelaughingclaret
Posts: 900
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2016 5:23 pm
Been Liked: 291 times
Has Liked: 99 times

Re: The penalty against Pope.

Post by thelaughingclaret » Sun Dec 27, 2020 4:59 pm

It was a penalty for the same reason our goal was disallowed, it was against Leeds.
The questions about VAR and more so about corruption need to be asked. It is blatant and right in front of everyone. What we saw today was a match that I am sure was fixed. VAR was brought in to stop these ‘errors’ but not not use VAR and the premier league only using VAR and the monitors when it suits them shows there is something deeply wrong and disturbing within the english game.
I am positive money was the motivator in some form today.
The 3 points went to the wrong side in football terms but the premier league will believe the result was ‘correct’ as the 3 points went to ‘the correct team’. The ref and other officials did as they were told today, and probably got a nice Christmas bonus for it.
This user liked this post: Giftonsnoidea

Pstotto
Posts: 6224
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2016 12:11 pm
Been Liked: 1024 times
Has Liked: 763 times

Re: The penalty against Pope.

Post by Pstotto » Sun Dec 27, 2020 5:38 pm

The current state of refereeing is an attempt at mass intimidation by the purveyors of Capitalist deregulated anarchy based on a woman's prerogative to change her mind, as the apex of political feminism.

It's the Ray Winston Bet 365, I'm in your home 'veiled threat to all' via media.

It's a simulation of freedom of choice brought about by the idea that their are no values per se, currently in vogue in art circles.

Someone is trying to bring down the West via a 'Tulip Craze' of astronomical values placed on football players and art works of dubious merit.

The irony is that the sport itself is carrying out its own downfall.

Rileybobs
Posts: 16844
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:37 pm
Been Liked: 6951 times
Has Liked: 1479 times
Location: Leeds

Re: The penalty against Pope.

Post by Rileybobs » Sun Dec 27, 2020 6:57 pm

Let’s face it, for some really odd reason goalkeepers are treated as totally different entities from other players.

Swap Pope for Tarkowski in that situation and everyone is saying that’s a fantastic challenge. There’s absolutely no doubt about it.

Swap Meslier for Ayling in the other situation and a penalty is given every day of the week.

It stinks.
These 3 users liked this post: boatshed bill wilks_bfc Zlatan

ElectroClaret
Posts: 17935
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:07 pm
Been Liked: 4068 times
Has Liked: 1853 times

Re: The penalty against Pope.

Post by ElectroClaret » Sun Dec 27, 2020 7:03 pm

thelaughingclaret wrote:
Sun Dec 27, 2020 4:59 pm
What we saw today was a match that I am sure was fixed.
I am positive money was the motivator in some form today.
The ref and other officials did as they were told today, and probably got a nice Christmas bonus for it.
:roll:

Tall Paul
Posts: 7175
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:07 am
Been Liked: 2564 times
Has Liked: 692 times

Re: The penalty against Pope.

Post by Tall Paul » Sun Dec 27, 2020 7:03 pm

Rileybobs wrote:
Sun Dec 27, 2020 6:57 pm
Swap Meslier for Ayling in the other situation and a penalty is given every day of the week.
For handball, presumably?

Rileybobs
Posts: 16844
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:37 pm
Been Liked: 6951 times
Has Liked: 1479 times
Location: Leeds

Re: The penalty against Pope.

Post by Rileybobs » Sun Dec 27, 2020 7:06 pm

Tall Paul wrote:
Sun Dec 27, 2020 7:03 pm
For handball, presumably?
No, for the knee in Mee's back before he handles it.

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

Re: The penalty against Pope.

Post by tiger76 » Sun Dec 27, 2020 7:07 pm

Mondsley wrote:
Sun Dec 27, 2020 3:33 pm
Then we need to ask the ref that day why no penalty was given. One Michael Oliver!!! I give up.
That Pickford tackle on VVD should have been a straight red, I'm sure the fact Pickford is the current England goalkeeper had absolutely no bearing on the decision whatsoever.

And apparently Michael Oliver is ranked amongst the best officials, if he's one of the best goodness knows how bad the rest of them are.

The reason it wasn't a penalty is that Liverpool were offside during that passage of play, but that's about the only thing they got right in the whole shambles.

Tall Paul
Posts: 7175
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:07 am
Been Liked: 2564 times
Has Liked: 692 times

Re: The penalty against Pope.

Post by Tall Paul » Sun Dec 27, 2020 7:13 pm

Rileybobs wrote:
Sun Dec 27, 2020 7:06 pm
No, for the knee in Mee's back before he handles it.
Possibly. If not, it definitely would've been given for the handball though.

Post Reply