What’s the difference.

[newchurchbfc]

Dangerous play no contact Luke Shaw Penalty and Vyds getting his head punched off No Penalty

[Bosscat]

Kevin #&£^/₩@ Friend ...

[Jel]

Between light and hard?

[Red Fox Rocks Socks]

Between light and hard?

You can sleep with a light on…..

[Bosscat]

You can sleep with a light on…..

[ClaretTony]

The difference is that Friend believed Krul had made contact with the ball

[ClaretMov]

The difference is that Friend believed Krul had made contact with the ball

Var could clearly see he made contact with Vydra's head first

[Spijed]

The difference is that Friend believed Krul had made contact with the ball

I presume that once a corner or goal kick is awarded by the ref then var can no longer intervene in any penalty incident.

[ChrisG]

I presume that once a corner or goal kick is awarded by the ref then var can no longer intervene in any penalty incident.

Not sure, but didn't we once get a penalty awarded after we'd conceded a goal at the other end? Bournemouth I think. You'd think if a goal can be overruled, then so can a corner.

[claretblue]

Not sure, but didn't we once get a penalty awarded after we'd conceded a goal at the other end? Bournemouth I think. You'd think if a goal can be overruled, then so can a corner.

it can...and should've been!

[Rowls]

I presume that once a corner or goal kick is awarded by the ref then var can no longer intervene in any penalty incident.

Exactly. Them's the rules.

Makes perfect sense.

You can actually stab somebody to death in England and as long as a referee has awarded a corner within the council parish then there's nothing that can be done to overturn the decision.

[ClaretTony]

Var could clearly see he made contact with Vydra's head first

VAR didn't intervene. Friend said the goalkeeper had played the ball (which he hadn't) and given a corner.

[ClaretTony]

Not sure, but didn't we once get a penalty awarded after we'd conceded a goal at the other end? Bournemouth I think. You'd think if a goal can be overruled, then so can a corner.

Totally different. Against Bournemouth, play continued while VAR checked the potential penalty which had not been seen by the referee. The fact that they scored while the check was going on didn't matter.

With this one, Friend saw it, Friend made a decision after which VAR could not intervene. We all know he got the decision wrong.

[ClaretTony]

I presume that once a corner or goal kick is awarded by the ref then var can no longer intervene in any penalty incident.

If he'd given a goal kick then the get out of the goalkeeper believed to have touched the ball would not have come into play. VAR would have looked and given the penalty.

[IanMcL]

Exactly. Them's the rules.

Makes perfect sense.

You can actually stab somebody to death in England and as long as a referee has awarded a corner within the council parish then there's nothing that can be done to overturn the decision.

So that's why that cheating, tosser of a disgraceful w anker profession gets away with it.

[RMutt]

The difference is that Friend believed Krul had made contact with the ball

I presume the ref last night also believed Shaw made contact with the ball so I can't see the difference? If the ball had stayed in play after the Krul incident, are you saying VAR could have looked at it? If that's the case its a further nonsense to add to the the already ridiculous situation with VAR,

[dsr]

I presume that once a corner or goal kick is awarded by the ref then var can no longer intervene in any penalty incident.

That can't be true. Virtually all VAR decisions are given after the referee has made a decision. In our Bournemouth game, the ref had blown his whistle and signalled goal for Bournemouth before VAR overruled. If Bournemouth had missed and the ref had signalled goal kick for Bournemouth, it wouldn't have stopped VAR, any more that it would if a corner had been given at the other end,

Man U got a penalty in the Champions League at PSG, in the last minute, a couple of years back - after the ref had signalled corner.

[Spijed]

That can't be true. Virtually all VAR decisions are given after the referee has made a decision. In our Bournemouth game, the ref had blown his whistle and signalled goal for Bournemouth before VAR overruled. If Bournemouth had missed and the ref had signalled goal kick for Bournemouth, it wouldn't have stopped VAR, any more that it would if a corner had been given at the other end,

Man U got a penalty in the Champions League at PSG, in the last minute, a couple of years back - after the ref had signalled corner.

If that's the case then why are we told Var is continually looking at incidents throught the match. If so, they would have alerted Kevin Friend that the keeper got the player before the ball.

Likewise, when Ben Mee got a knee in his back at Leeds last season.

[ClaretTony]

I presume the ref last night also believed Shaw made contact with the ball so I can't see the difference? If the ball had stayed in play after the Krul incident, are you saying VAR could have looked at it? If that's the case its a further nonsense to add to the the already ridiculous situation with VAR,

The ref gave a penalty didn’t he? That automatically means VAR gets involved.

As for the Krul incident, I’m saying because Friend had indicated that he’d touched the ball first then there is no Vr Intervention. The fact that it went out of play and a corner was given made it obvious that he believed Krul had touched it.

[RMutt]

The ref gave a penalty didn’t he? That automatically means VAR gets involved.

As for the Krul incident, I’m saying because Friend had indicated that he’d touched the ball first then there is no Vr Intervention. The fact that it went out of play and a corner was given made it obvious that he believed Krul had touched it.

Right, I think I’ve got you now. So to sum up, both refs believed the player got the ball first. Last night the follow through was deemed dangerous and a penalty was given, on the pitch and by VAR, but the other Saturday the ref deemed the follow through to be not dangerous. So the difference is the refs interpretation of dangerous?

[kaptin1]

Why does it matter that he touched the ball if it’s still dangerous play? Plenty of red cards and fouls given these days where the player gets a foot on the ball first and then cleans the man out. Is there a different rule when it comes to goalkeepers punching?

[timshorts]

Man U got a penalty in the Champions League at PSG, in the last minute, a couple of years back - after the ref had signalled corner.

That's a redshirt incident.

It's commonplace in most laws to find that offences cannot be committed by the crown, serving MP's or by teams that wear red shirts. Goes back to old army uniform officer privilege.

[dsr]

The ref gave a penalty didn’t he? That automatically means VAR gets involved.

As for the Krul incident, I’m saying because Friend had indicated that he’d touched the ball first then there is no Vr Intervention. The fact that it went out of play and a corner was given made it obvious that he believed Krul had touched it.

VAR is to correct cleas by the referee. If the referee believes that the defender got the ball and the video replay proves him wrong, then VAR will tell him so and a penalty can be given.

Presumably the VAR man last week felt that there was a small chance that the ball had grazed Krul's knuckles so there was only a 99% chance that the ref was wrong, which didn't in his mind count as clear and obvious. Or else he applied the two unwritten rules of PL football, that goalkeepers can do what they want and the Burnley can't have penalties, and chose to ignore it. Just like the Ben Mee one at Leeds last year, or the Chris Wood's shirt pulled against Southampton last back end.

[Rowls]

Can we all please stop talking about Krul "not getting the ball first" or "Krul touching the ball after". Whether he got a bit of the ball or not (he didn't) doesn't matter. He punched Vydra in the head.

[PaintYorkClaretnBlue]

Var would have looked at it, I just think that the var ref was as incompetent as Friend and agreed with his decision. The inconsistency is the most annoying factor, in some cases it has to be beyond all reasonable doubt for the decision to be overturned, ie a clear and obvious mistake. On others it is on the balance of probability ie depends if a big club can be given an advantage.