I thought I'd take a look to see what Dermot Gallagher had to say about the decision at Brighton. To be fair, he said ours was one last week so he doesn't always go with the referee. I agree with what he's said, but not so sure why it is a brilliant decision not to flag Ashley Barnes offside, he's in his own half.




INCIDENT: Just after the 70-minute mark, there were appeals for a Brighton penalty after Jeff Hendrick appeared to handle the ball in the area, but nothing was given by referee Stuart Attwell. Burnley then broke down the field with Brighton goalkeeper Mat Ryan swiping at the legs of Ashley Barnes, which the referee gave as a penalty.

DERMOT'S VERDICT: Unfortunate for the referee and Brighton.

DERMOT SAYS: It was a definitely a handball and it isn't spotted because Hendrick turns into the referee. The arm is on the left-hand side, Stuart is behind him and as he turns in, he doesn't see the arm come around that makes it handball.

Then what happens is the worst scenario for the referee. Burnley break - and it was a brilliant decision by the linesman not to give offside against Barnes, by the way - who is taken down, Wood shoots wide and then the move comes back for a penalty. It's just unfortunate. Using the player reaction is a reasonable barometer, but it isn't gospel.

we finally had a stroke of luck, makes up for Murray diving for his pen last season

Gallagher was also spot on about the decision not to give a penalty for handball against McNeil in the first half, unlike Peter Walton on BT who said it should have been a pen. Atwell had already given us a free kick for dangerous play before the ball struck McNeil, so the penalty appeal was irrelevant.

Yes. As I commented on rate the ref, I thought that Attwell got just about everything right on Saturday.
The Hendrick decision turned out to be a wrong one, but it wasn't a bad decision, because he could only give what he could see, and there's no way that he could have spotted a deliberate handball by Jeff from his position and angle.
Brighton fans and staff should be directing there ire towards his inept assistant, who appeared to have a decent view.
Peter Walton appears to be stealing a wage.

Paulclaret wrote:Gallagher was also spot on about the decision not to give a penalty for handball against McNeil in the first half, unlike Peter Walton on BT who said it should have been a pen. Atwell had already given us a free kick for dangerous play before the ball struck McNeil, so the penalty appeal was irrelevant.

But he then restarted the game with a dropped ball which just muddied the incident further.

gawthorpe_view wrote:But he then restarted the game with a dropped ball which just muddied the incident further.

Just watched it again and you're right. I'd forgotten and just went off what Gallagher said this morning on Sky. It does seem as though there is a high boot in there before the handball, but Atwell certainly doesn't appear to give a foul.

I must admit that the title of this thread did confuse me for a minute.

Paulclaret wrote:Gallagher was also spot on about the decision not to give a penalty for handball against McNeil in the first half, unlike Peter Walton on BT who said it should have been a pen. Atwell had already given us a free kick for dangerous play before the ball struck McNeil, so the penalty appeal was irrelevant.

So 1 ref says 1 thing n the other says the opposite, so how the heck is var going to be used correctly from next season? Should be interesting!

claretdj wrote:So 1 ref says 1 thing n the other says the opposite, so how the heck is var going to be used correctly from next season? Should be interesting!

Correction --1 ex-ref says 1 thing and the other ex-ref says the opposite ----they will not be involved in VAR as far as I know.

However, I do agree that it could well cause problems not least the fact that play would have probably been brought back for a Brighton penalty although the referee had already awarded one to Burnley. Imagine that scenario in added time when Burnley were needing a win to become champions and Brighton needed a win to pip them. Everybody happy!

Regarding our penalty - I thought Wood's effort constituted advantage and was surprised it was brought back when our forward had missed a sitter.
So, would they have ruled Woods shot out had it gone in and made us take a penalty instead?

Was a strange set of events.

Definite handball by Hendrick, then Barry s goes down far too easily. We get an open net that wood fires wide then after that we get the penalty!

Not sure what the ref was thinking but glad we got the benefit.

it confused me too dermotdermot

I’m not surprised, Dermot.

duncandisorderly wrote:Regarding our penalty - I thought Wood's effort constituted advantage and was surprised it was brought back when our forward had missed a sitter.
So, would they have ruled Woods shot out had it gone in and made us take a penalty instead?

It's ten years or more (probably quite a lot more) since that rule was changed. The referee is now allowed to let play run on for a few seconds to see if it is appropriate to play the advantage rule. He doesn't have to make the decision instantly.

And remember that the advantage rule is still, so far as I know, that the ref will only refrain from giving the foul if by doing so he is giving an advantage to the offending team. So the only way he would not give the penalty is if he felt it was to Brighton's advantage to give it, after seeing Wood shoot wide. Obviously it wasn't to Brighton's advantage to give it, so he gave it.

Ashingtonclaret46 wrote:However, I do agree that it could well cause problems not least the fact that play would have probably been brought back for a Brighton penalty although the referee had already awarded one to Burnley. Imagine that scenario in added time when Burnley were needing a win to become champions and Brighton needed a win to pip them. Everybody happy!

Something similar happened in the MLS a few weeks ago. One team scored and the goal was given, but VAR changed things. The goal was disallowed and the ball was taken to the other end of the pitch for a penalty.

Then there was the farcical one in the Bundesliga game between Mainz & Freiburg at the end of last season. The players had gone in for half time when the referee was informed that he should have given Mainz a penalty. So he brought the players back out, Mainz scored the penalty and then they all went back in for half time.

duncandisorderly wrote:Regarding our penalty - I thought Wood's effort constituted advantage and was surprised it was brought back when our forward had missed a sitter.
So, would they have ruled Woods shot out had it gone in and made us take a penalty instead?

That's actually very good refereeing because he's seen the potential for an advantage and given himself a few seconds to see what happened. I think that's what happened so had Wood scored it would have stood. Atkinson and Dean are our best two referees in this situation, they have that fantastic ability to give themselves that short period of time to review a potential advantage, unlike some referees who blow far too quickly.

Have I got this wrong? I've always believed that referees are not allowed to give any side an 'advantage'.
As mentioned by DSR above they can only prevent an advantage being gained by a side as a result of committing an offence.
So often I hear commentators say "The ref. brought the play back because there was no advantage" when, in reality, he brought it back to stop an advantage being had by the offenders.

Laws of the game: Law 5 - The Referee.
http://www.thefa.com/football-rules-gov ... he-referee" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
ADVANTAGE
allows play to continue when an offence occurs and the non-offending team will benefit from the advantage and penalises the offence if the anticipated advantage does not ensue at that time or within a few seconds

Brandon wrote:Laws of the game: Law 5 - The Referee.
http://www.thefa.com/football-rules-gov ... he-referee" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
ADVANTAGE
allows play to continue when an offence occurs and the non-offending team will benefit from the advantage and penalises the offence if the anticipated advantage does not ensue at that time or within a few seconds

Referee's decision, however, will this be the case when VAR is in use? Will the off field opinions come into play if the referee does not do exactly what it says on the tin? Just asking!