MOTD 2 Leeds v Burnley

[Hibsclaret]

There's no denying that the two decisions went against us and in theory cost us three points.

However when we've got this referee bashing out of the system perhaps we should look at the team's performance.

We had a large part of the game left after the Ben Mee incident to rectify the damage caused - being 1-0 down - and failed to do so. That's what I take from what I saw. To our credit we stopped a team with as good an attack as Leeds from being a major threat on our goal and we took the game to them, BUT, we failed to really threaten a team with such a poor defensive reputation. I hope our management look at that. It is something they can control.

The referee didn't help but it was the Burnley players/management that lost the game.

It’s not the players or game management that got the 2 key decisions incorrect. The players should have got the deserved one nil win which was the result of the game if the officials do their job. Absolute nonsense to suggest the players lost a game they should win with accurate fair reffing....

[Pstotto]

The Leeds keeper punched the ball before their was contact and both Mee and the keeper were not interfering with the following football action.

[dsr]

The Leeds keeper punched the ball before their was contact and both Mee and the keeper were not interfering with the following football action.

The Leeds keeper didn't punch the ball at all, he tried to catch it, and he got to Mee significantly before the ball got there.

[Giftonsnoidea]

Clattenburg saying in today's Mail "Ben Mee did absolutely nothing wrong and Burnley's equaliser should have stood."

Quality ref, wasn’t biased, maybe that’s why he swerved the premier league , seems he got a lot of hassle down the years from players and the powers that be .

[dsr]

Clattenburg saying in today's Mail "Ben Mee did absolutely nothing wrong and Burnley's equaliser should have stood."

Keith Hackett in the Daily Telegraph saying it was a clearly wrong decision and casting doubt on Jones' ability to be a PL referee. I've never seen such a scathing judgement on a ref by an ex-ref.

[dsr]

The problem I have with the Leeds penalty being correctly given, as many people think it was, is that it means Pope was wrong to diva at Bamford's feet and in fact it will always be a foul when a keeper dives at the forward's feet. We saw it at Newcastle when Pope messed up his kick and dived to block the shot; the forward missed but his momentum meant he fell over Pope before the ball went out and it was given as a penalty.

(The rule had changed again before the next game when Barnes did the same thing, but it wasn't a foul that time.)

If a forward is running into the area and is about to have a shot, is there literally nothing a goalkeeper can do? Even if the goalkeeper makes a save, when the forward is too close to the keeper to stop, must it always be a foul? It's certainly another new interpretation of the rule, and it would be good if the FA could clarify the position.

[scouseclaret]

What did Clattenberg and Hackett say about the first incident?

[dsr]

Hackett didn't mention the Leeds penalty. It was all about the Burnley disallowed goal and his general positioning and decision making.

[Zlatan]

After speaking to my son earlier today he suggested the Leeds penalty was valid because although Pope got the ball he didn’t win it cleanly and took Bamford in the same action.

It’s ok, I’ve disowned him and cancelled his season ticket forthwith.

[Hibsclaret]

I’m getting absolutely hacked off with good tackles being given as free kicks or pens tbh. What happened to if you get the ball first, providing you don’t endanger the opponent with too much force, it is not a foul.

The Pope one yesterday he gets the ball so good tackle and play on. Westwood gets booked for mouthing off (correctly) when he gets the ball and a free kick is given against him by the clueless chap in charge...

[Hibsclaret]

It’s ok, I’ve disowned him and cancelled his season ticket forthwith.

Well done...but to make sure the punishment fully fits the crime he should be made to spend an afternoon counselling Bamford in his car the next time his current club won’t pay his electricity bill

[NewClaret]

After speaking to my son earlier today he suggested the Leeds penalty was valid because although Pope got the ball he didn’t win it cleanly and took Bamford in the same action.

It’s ok, I’ve disowned him and cancelled his season ticket forthwith.

Tbh I can take the first. I can see why you’d argue it’s not (what else is Pope supposed to do? And he did win it. And Bamford really ran in to him) but also, he did take Bamford out after winning the ball and stopped him from recovering to score. Will take that on the chin.

You can’t get t’other one wrong though.

Also annoyed at Tarky’s yellow then Dallas getting a talking to!!

[tiger76]

Hackett didn't mention the Leeds penalty. It was all about the Burnley disallowed goal and his general positioning and decision making.

The Bamford pen I can live with, its' subjective but probably a 50/50 call, which on this occasion went in the striker's favour, what gets my goat is you then have a similar call at the other end, and he instantly blows up for a foul by Ben Mee, and worse than that he doesn't even allow the incident to play out, so therefore Barnes great finish counts for nowt, it's the inconsistency that drives me how can he justify protecting one keeper but not the other.

And yes several viewers including many ex referees have commented on the fact that Jones struggled to keep up with the play on many occasions, if he can't himself into prime position to evidence what's occurring then he's bound to make mistakes, sadly for us all the big calls went against us this time, mainly due to this blokes incompetence, and lack of fitness, surely this should be a pre-requisite to officiate at elite level, everybody knows how quick the PL is these days, and if this bloke can't even get himself in decent shape to follow the play, then he'll never make it at this level.

[FactualFrank]

Just had a chat with my next-door neighbour (Leeds fan) and he agreed that 1-1 would have been a fair result. Nice to see that not all Leeds fans are complete wallops.

[wilks_bfc]

Just had a chat with my next-door neighbour (Leeds fan) and he agreed that 1-1 would have been a fair result. Nice to see that not all Leeds fans are complete wallops.

Can add 2 more to that list, as they also thought we deserved a 1-1


Unfortunately I also had a walloper chirp up on my timeline

[kaptin1]

Just watching The Foootball Show on Sky Sports News. Dermot Gallagher says no foul on Ben Mee but should of been allowed to carry on and see the outcome, he also said Leeds was a definite pen. Stephen Warnock and the female presenter both disagreed definite foul on Ben Mee and no foul on Bamford so no pen for Leeds. Our refereeing standards are rubbish everybody knows both decisions are incorrect apart from the guys who are meant to know and understand the game better than the rest of us. I despair

I’ve still no idea why the penalty against Pope was given. Both players going in for a 50:50 and both clearly got a foot on the ball at the same time. That isn’t even up for debate. If the reason was excessive force then that was true of both players as Bamford was running full tilt and had his leg stretched out. If anything, Bamford’s challenge was the more dangerous of the two as his foot is high. If he misses the ball he clattered straight into Pope with his studs up. Bamford goes over because he is running and has momentum while Pope is already on the ground. I can accept the referee making a mistake in real time but there is absolutely no reason why VAR should not be overruling that one as it’s a clear and obvious error.

As for the one at the other end, don’t even get me started there...

[Pstotto]

The Leeds keeper touched the ball with his hands before contact with Mee.

Will poked the ball do?

Fingered it?

Patted it away?

[Raggus]

The Leeds keeper touched the ball with his hands before contact with Mee.

Will poked the ball do?

Fingered it?

Patted it away?

Look at the photos before you post your tripe

[Raggus]

[attachment=0]0CAD2F2D-A955-48A5-BEC3-7BB5DBFB8E0D.jpeg[/attachment

Clearly touches the ball first

[Zlatan]

[attachment=0]0CAD2F2D-A955-48A5-BEC3-7BB5DBFB8E0D.jpeg[/attachment

Clearly touches the ball first

This is one of those spot the balls... where the real ball is 4 inches off the screen but Leeds fans put the X on the keepers gloves

[Goody1975]

After speaking to my son earlier today he suggested the Leeds penalty was valid because although Pope got the ball he didn’t win it cleanly and took Bamford in the same action.

It’s ok, I’ve disowned him and cancelled his season ticket forthwith.

My point in all of this is, would the decision have been seen differently if the part of Pope's body that touched the ball was his hand?

I suggest it would.

[Zlatan]

My point in all of this is, would the decision have been seen differently if the part of Pope's body that touched the ball was his hand?

I suggest it would.

That’s the exact scenario I put to my lad and he was flummoxed at that point kids eh, play fifa for 14 hours a day and know it all

Of course if Pope had gone in head first he would be in hospital now.

[Pstotto]

I stand corrected.

He does touch the ball but after that photo.

I've checked.

However I hardly think my error compares to the ref's...

[Pstotto]

No VAR for the foul on Mee and the whistle means the goal could not have had VAR and yet the penalty could?

However if the linesman had flagged for a goal, does that not count any more?

Last season there was a controversy either Leicester or Bournemouth at home.

I can't remember but there may have been a discrepancy regarding this whistle/VAR/linesman confusion.

[FactualFrank]

Look at the photos before you post your tripe

That tickled me.