Ref Watch on the two penalty claims

[ClaretTony]

1 Foul on Koleosho not given

Dermot Gallagher - penalty
Stephen Warnock - penalty
Sue Smith - penalty

2 Foul on Koleosho given

Dermot Gallagher - no penalty
Stephen Warnock - penalty
Sue Smith - penalty

[quoonbeatz]

He only gave the second because he knew he should have given the first. When you look at the United pen yesterday which was near identical, it shows what a bad decision our first one was.

[Herts Clarets]

Both were penalties. The second one the defender treads on his ankle, first one is a blatant trip.

[Dark Cloud]

Surely the complete lack of dissention and arguments from WH when the second penalty was given tells us something.

[Jamesy]

It just serves to highlight what we already know. VAR is not fit for purpose. Or should I say the clowns managing the process.
We are now at a ridiculous stage where none of us know how the decision is going to go. It’s a lottery to be quite honest.
Top level football is not enjoyable anymore because of VAR.

[elwaclaret]

First one was blatant hanging out a leg… second one stood on his foot.

Both penalties. This is what VAR was primarily for… but they’d rather spend hours drawing lines for off sides than doing their job.

I was in favour of VAR but it’s implementation is a complete shambles… and that is giving officials the benefit of doubt…

[IanMcL]

Everyone other than the ref and Pawson VAR agree it was a clear penalty. It was OBVIOUS that the defender stuck his leg out and tripped Koleosho.

Prem want Burnley out.
Corrupt.

[Bosscat]

First one was blatant hanging out a leg… second one stood on his foot.

Both penalties. This is what VAR was primarily for… but they’d rather spend hours drawing lines for off sides than doing their job.

I was in favour of VAR but it’s implementation is a complete shambles… and that is giving officials the benefit of doubt…

this

[Wokingclaret]

Think we were done in the Palace match too, that was a red card assault on Trafford

[claptrappers_union]

I'm past the point of pretending that I understand the rules.

What was the reason Gallagher thought Kolesho's appeal was the right decision?

However.... I genuinely suspect the officials were making amends for the penalty that was given though. That was softer compared to our first shout.

[Big Vinny K]

Would like to see the stats on how long VAR decisions are taking for the non televised games which do not involve the big clubs.
They were very quick to come to a decision on ours on Saturday whereas how many times in the last few weeks have we seen them taking 3 minutes on the TV games ?

As said it’s not really VAR that is the biggest issue. It’s the inconsistency in how they are applying it and the idiots involved in running it.

[beddie]

I’m more interested in what Howard Webb thought.

[PaintYorkClaretnBlue]

We’ll probably get a letter of apology, not sure how many points you get awarded with those?

[dsr]

The problem with inconsistency is caused by the ticky-tackiness of the decisions. If they have reached the point where Martial's obvious dive can be considered a penalty simply because his left foot touched the defender, then it means the most trivial of touches can be considered to be a foul - but only if the forward takes a dive.

If they redefined tripping to be causing someone to fall over, as opposed to touching them and watching them fly, then it would be easier to be consistent.

[bfcmik]

However.... I genuinely suspect the officials were making amends for the penalty that was given though. That was softer compared to our first shout.

It may have been 'softer' but it was still a definite penalty.

[Taffy on the wing]

He only gave the second because he knew he should have given the first. When you look at the United pen yesterday which was near identical, it shows what a bad decision our first one was.

I thought the Utd player deliberately hooked his leg around the defenders'.....tripping himself up.
The Koleosho one was easier to call IMO......peno all day long.

The league is bent!

[groove]

Koleosho's final touch was awful. The ball was well on its way out of play when there was contact. If his final touch was a bit more deft, or he had the ball at his feet, it's a penalty.I think the ref got it right.

[alboclaret]

The problem with inconsistency is caused by the ticky-tackiness of the decisions. If they have reached the point where Martial's obvious dive can be considered a penalty simply because his left foot touched the defender, then it means the most trivial of touches can be considered to be a foul - but only if the forward takes a dive.

If they redefined tripping to be causing someone to fall over, as opposed to touching them and watching them fly, then it would be easier to be consistent.

What you say makes total sense, but you can thank Arsen wenger for the reason we can't use this common sense ruling after he threatened legal action after player was sent off for diving but hab been "touched" meaning, according to wenger that you cannot say for certain the touch didnt make him fall/dive like that. Since then (yrs ago now,) you "have the right to go down" which is utter bollix

[Jakubclaret]

First 1 a definite penalty for me the second 1 not, ideally you want the right calls awarded when it's right, not things being overlooked & then squared up later.

[elwaclaret]

Interesting right now in theFulham game…

[elwaclaret]

Less contact than our non penalty on Saturday, turned over by VAR

[Conroysleftfoot]

What a load of cobblers VAR is.

[DAVETHEVICAR]

Was never a penalty in a million years
Wilson dived

[claptrappers_union]

It may have been 'softer' but it was still a definite penalty.

I won't argue, I don't even know how penalties are awarded anymore.

[Rileybobs]

Ref was only shown the one angle, and in slow-mo - and again was presented with a still image of the ‘contact’ when approaching the screen. It really is farcical. The angle from behind Wilson shows the simulation, regardless of whether there was any minimal contact.

Still, it will be extremely funny watching Gary O’Neill’s post match interview.

[SydneyClaret]

First one I give the referee the benefit of the doubt. No doubt whatsoever, from his angle it looks like Kolly tripped over the defender. However, that’s what VAR is for and there was no excuse for Pawson not to give it. Disgraceful VAR.

Second one referee saw it and got it right. Then Pawson seemed to spend a minute looking for reasons not to give it.

Referees should be able to rely on VAR to correct human error however they can’t, putting even more unnecessary pressure on them to get every decision right first time.

[dsr]

I don't think it's necessarily the referees' fault. It's the powers behind the referees who are telling them how to referee. Salisbury used to be a decent referee if I remember rightly, but he isn't now - his method of refereeing tonight was to give a free kick when someone dived and asked for one, and to book the opponent if the man screamed loudly enough. This is how they are taught to referee - to give a free kick for every dive unless they are certain that it wasn't a foul. They are clearly being taught that in cases of potential penalties, not only should they look at the slow motion, but that they should only look at the slow motion. There is no way that every single "elite group" (ha ha) referee has simultaneously decided that you can learn nothing from watching it at normal speed.

I'm pleased when we get a new ref (new to the PL), like the one last Saturday, because he hasn't yet learned that he has to stop play if at all possible and has to assume that no player ever dives. But it'll come.

What we need is to disband the PGSOL and start again. For a season and a half, let the referees referee the game, not with VAR looking over one shoulder and the PGSOL looking over the other, but single-handedly like they always used to. It won't be less controversial and it will make the game better.