REPORT: A drab Turf Moor stalemate

[ClaretTony]

Burnley v Norwich report

See link
https://www.uptheclarets.com/a-drab-turf-moor-stalemate

[Jamesy]

Fair reflection of the game there Tony. And yes we will get tubbed 5-0 against City.

[elwaclaret]

We’ll just have to buck our trend and beat City, no problem, these things happen.

[ClaretTony]

I don’t think I’d have written so much about Friend, although I could have written much more, but I just couldn’t find anything else to write about.

[tiger76]

Pretty downbeat report, but it's hard to disagree, reminiscent of the dire display at home to West Brom last season, I suppose all we can take out of it is although we were poor we didn't lose, and who knows this point might be vital in the final shake up.

Kevin Friend has to be the worst ref in the PL, however as you rightly comment this is where VAR should intervene.

I wasn't aware this was our 100th PL game without a red, I knew it was around that number, that's a heck of a stat, and does illustrate our discipline, despite what the likes of Klopp might say.

Good news is the international break should hopefully give us time to get out injured players back up and running, and add Cornet & Roberts, plus a fully fit Vydra to this side, and we'll be a totally different proposition.

It's worth remembering we're actually doing slightly better than at the same stage last season. So I'm certainly not pressing the panic button just yet.

[ottclaret]

In another thread, you have asked for any questions you could put to Mike Riley when you meet him - you have given the first question in your report - 'what is the point of VAR?'

It hasn't reduced number of contentious decisions, hasn't evened out bias against smaller, unfashionable clubs and has sucked the enjoyment out of goal celebrations.

[tarkys_ears]

No matter how bad that game was, at least you didn't have to watch it on TV with the two worst commentators I've ever heard.

[Rowls]

Reading the match report was far more enjoyable than watching the game. That tells a story in itself.

Thanks as ever, Tony.

UTC

[Woodleyclaret]

This bxxxxxxs of letting the game flow while you kick the crap out of opponents at will needs stopping
Stonewall penalties when Hanley dropped Vids in the box and when Aarons tripped Charlie 2 yards into the box.

[RVclaret]

This bxxxxxxs of letting the game flow while you kick the crap out of opponents at will needs stopping
Stonewall penalties when Hanley dropped Vids in the box and when Aarons tripped Charlie 2 yards into the box.

You are either taking the p***, utterly clueless or need a trip to specsavers if 1. you think ‘Vids’ (I’ll assume that’s Vydra) was in the box when tripped 2. you think Taylor diving under zero contact is somehow a stonewall penalty.

[taio]

This bxxxxxxs of letting the game flow while you kick the crap out of opponents at will needs stopping
Stonewall penalties when Hanley dropped Vids in the box and when Aarons tripped Charlie 2 yards into the box.

You haven't mentioned the only stonewall penalty

[claptrappers_union]

" Did VAR even look at it? If so, there was no indication to anyone inside Turf Moor as far as I know. "

They looked at the Vydra incidents at Stockley Park, coming back with the the verdict - 'Check Complete' - baffled.

[bfcjg]

Very fair, very worrying surely after such a dire uninspiring game we can only get better ?

[BOYSIE31]

Can't blame everything on the referee - we were absolutely shocking against the worst side I have seen play in this league

[BOYSIE31]

This bxxxxxxs of letting the game flow while you kick the crap out of opponents at will needs stopping
Stonewall penalties when Hanley dropped Vids in the box and when Aarons tripped Charlie 2 yards into the box.

Think you need some glasses - none were pens and Charlie should have been booked

[Spijed]

Think you need some glasses - none were pens and Charlie should have been booked

By that definition excessive force can NEVER be used to give a foul in football if a player always gets the ball first regardless of how hard he catches a player afterwards.

[ClaretTony]

This bxxxxxxs of letting the game flow while you kick the crap out of opponents at will needs stopping
Stonewall penalties when Hanley dropped Vids in the box and when Aarons tripped Charlie 2 yards into the box.

The Hanley foul is outside the box as is the Taylor foul. There is no contact on the one on Taylor in the box.

[Silkyskills1]

If you take McNeil out of the equation(and he was poor yesterday) there wasn't a player on view for us that could beat an opponent. Dribbling used to be a skill much on view but very rarely at Turf Moor these days. The ball is constantly being moved sideways and backwards to provide slow thinking players with time to to try and maintain possession. Drab is a good description with opposition defences now relatively comfortable dealing with our laboured approach. Two goals in four home games isn't whetting my appetite for the next encounter so God only knows what the younger fans who are at the match for the first time must be thinking. A manager paid as well as he is ought to have more than just one plan in his locker.

[ClaretTony]

I thought McNeil was ok for much of the game.

It was an awful game though. They came to spoil and got away it and not always fairly.

[SalisburyClaret]

When VAR was introduced, Premier League grounds were given time to install big screens in each corner of the ground so all fans would know the status of VAR situations. Guess that one got conveniently forgotten

[Wokingclaret]

Great report.
My first match back yesterday, I now have a horse voice due to yelling at Friend all game. His performance really does question my enjoyment.

[claretblue]

the new ‘curved’ screen (smaller than the existing corner screen) in corner between Bob Lord + Jimmy Max stands will be installed this November!
Followed by large curved screen replacing existing one between North Stand + Jimmy Mac.

…sitting in North Stand Upper means I haven’t been able to view screen since it was positioned centrally in Cricket Field stand approx 2010!

[ClaretTony]

When VAR was introduced, Premier League grounds were given time to install big screens in each corner of the ground so all fans would know the status of VAR situations. Guess that one got conveniently forgotten

They weren’t. There’s never been such a requirement. Two Premier League clubs don’t have any screens - Liverpool & Man U.

[claptrappers_union]

VAR decisions are announced over the PA in stadiums where screens can’t be seen by all supporters.

Though I was in a meeting with the Premier League last month where they encouraged clubs to announce the checks anyway for spectators who are visually impaired.

Premier League clubs are not required to have big screens

[SalisburyClaret]

They weren’t. There’s never been such a requirement. Two Premier League clubs don’t have any screens - Liverpool & Man U.

My mistake - I thought this was part of the process when VAR was introduced.
What was definitely agreed was that the incidents would be shown on the large screens - is this being done? I can’t see the screens from the Longside. Also VAR decisions were to be announced over the P.A. - not that we’d hear it

[NRC]

I also thought McNeil had a decent game, and it was very useful to see him play, or at least move more central the 2nd half. That said, it really did expose how one-footed he is to the extent his only two options are to find Lowton or a midfielder behind him, or have to pivot on himself to look left to the space he vacated. The only way forward is using a cut ball with the outside of his left boot. Wood doesn’t have the mobility for that and Vydra wasn’t on the pitch

[Wokingclaret]

At one point he did the Dave Jones circle

[ClaretTony]

What was definitely agreed was that the incidents would be shown on the large screens - is this being done? I can’t see the screens from the Longside. Also VAR decisions were to be announced over the P.A. - not that we’d hear it

I've never seen anything to say that incidents would be shown, and at some grounds they can't. I'm not sure there is a need to announce them but at most grounds there is info on screens, even at Anfield when the Salah goal against us was disallowed. At Old Trafford, I've learned this morning, they use the advertising boards.

[beddie]

A fair and balanced report, although I suspect the Norwich fans wouldn’t agree, especially when a good number of their posts mention Friend had a good game. It was good to see the picture of Gibson and Dyche shaking hands after the game.

[ClaretTony]

A fair and balanced report, although I suspect the Norwich fans wouldn’t agree, especially when a good number of their posts mention Friend had a good game. It was good to see the picture of Gibson and Dyche shaking hands after the game.

Farke thought Friend was an outstanding referee and there lies the problem, when bad decisions go in your favour, nothing is said.

[claptrappers_union]

I've never seen anything to say that incidents would be shown, and at some grounds they can't. I'm not sure there is a need to announce them but at most grounds there is info on screens, even at Anfield when the Salah goal against us was disallowed. At Old Trafford, I've learned this morning, they use the advertising boards.

Decisions that (supposedly) delay the game or needs the referee to obverse the monitor tend to show a message on the big screen.

In my role, I hear the the audio from Stockly Park, and most of the decisions that support the refs decisions don’t tend to go to the screen for the fans to see. When the graphics are sent from Stockley Park, that’s when an announcement is made over the PA to support the visuals.

Overturned incidents are replayed on the screen, even the tackles, which surprises me because big screen operators are not allowed to show that during the game.

[Cirrus_Minor]

Was watching this again on match of the day. The more I see it the angrier I get. I can cope with VAR if the decision is reasonably quick and it is correct. Wood was ruled out against Leicester, correctly, albeit for being millimetres out, whilst this was clearly obviously a penalty.

Someone needs to ask why a referees decision can be overturned after going to the far end of a fart but it isn’t when a forward nearly gets his head removed by a goalkeeper.

[ClaretTony]

Was watching this again on match of the day. The more I see it the angrier I get. I can cope with VAR if the decision is reasonably quick and it is correct. Wood was ruled out against Leicester, correctly, albeit for being millimetres out, whilst this was clearly obviously a penalty.

Someone needs to ask why a referees decision can be overturned after going to the far end of a fart but it isn’t when a forward nearly gets his head removed by a goalkeeper.

Posted on another thread but didn’t go to VAR once Friend had given the corner confirming the goalkeeper had played the ball.

[Iloveyoubrady]

Posted on another thread but didn’t go to VAR once Friend had given the corner confirming the goalkeeper had played the ball.

Ridiculous that is even a rule. Obviously a ref can make a clear and obvious error by thinking the keeper got to it and put it out for a corner. VAR needs sorting. Either let it make important discussions like that to get it right or scrap it. Otherwise it’s just confusing and killing the game.

[RVclaret]

Posted on another thread but didn’t go to VAR once Friend had given the corner confirming the goalkeeper had played the ball.

Quite a ridiculous rule.

[claptrappers_union]

Posted on another thread but didn’t go to VAR once Friend had given the corner confirming the goalkeeper had played the ball.

But behind the scenes, it was checked.

The rules must be that a goalkeeper can punch people in the head now.

[ClaretTony]

Quite a ridiculous rule.

You can't have everything going to VAR I suppose. Friend, in my opinion, got it wrong in believing that Krul had touched the ball.

[nil_desperandum]

You can't have everything going to VAR I suppose. Friend, in my opinion, got it wrong in believing that Krul had touched the ball.

As has been said numerous times, whether Krul touched the ball or not is irrelevant.
It was violent conduct, wreckless, and with excessive force.
All 3 of those make it a penalty and red card

I seem to recall Andy Carroll won the ball when he was shown a straight red for assaulting Ben Mee.

[daveisaclaret]

As has been said numerous times, whether Krul touched the ball or not is irrelevant.
It was violent conduct, wreckless, and with excessive force.
All 3 of those make it a penalty and red card

I seem to recall Andy Carroll won the ball when he was shown a straight red for assaulting Ben Mee.

Carroll wasn’t shown a straight red for assaulting Mee, he did it twice in two minutes and got booked for both

[ClaretTony]

As has been said numerous times, whether Krul touched the ball or not is irrelevant.
It was violent conduct, wreckless, and with excessive force.
All 3 of those make it a penalty and red card

I seem to recall Andy Carroll won the ball when he was shown a straight red for assaulting Ben Mee.

I don’t think Carroll touched the ball but it was a yellow on the back of a previously deserved yellow.

[nil_desperandum]

Carroll wasn’t shown a straight red for assaulting Mee, he did it twice in two minutes and got booked for both

On reflection you're correct, but that's not really relevant to whether Krul's "assault" was violent conduct.
Carroll was correctly penalised for both offences.

[Dark Cloud]

One thing I think we can say about Saturday is we can and definitely have played far better, but I'm not sure Norwich can.

[ClaretTony]

One thing I think we can say about Saturday is we can and definitely have played far better, but I'm not sure Norwich can.

I think that’s the worst we’ve played this season by some distance

[Silkyskills1]

I don’t think Carroll touched the ball but it was a yellow on the back of a previously deserved yellow.

And I think anyone on the ground could see the 2nd one coming before the actual foul.