Couldn't find another thread so hope this isn't a duplicate....

Why oh why weren't we given a VAR penalty in the 2nd half when the referee missed the clear kick on Ashley Barnes?

Had they turned the VAR robot off or something?

Why didn't they give it? When is VAR allowed and not allowed to award stonewall penalties?

Genuine question - answers below please.

Shearer and Cahill pointed it up on MOTD, they agreed with you.

No idea why it wasn't given.

they are still looking at it

Can only assume the VAR ref had nipped to the loo.

Only feasible explanation.

Seems to be the norm in the past few weeks, perhaps agreed between officials that with penalty calls the VAR will just always agree with the referees judgement. I think they’ll only change decisions if there’s something the ref missed completely, off the ball. Plus offsides like the Spurs one at Leicester today.

It went to VAR, straight away. Nothing came from it. I’ve not seen the incident back yet though.

If it was a penalty, this is my issue with VAR, its more about protecting referees rather than making the correct decision

I was watching it on TV. Didn't look like a clear and obvious penalty to me. Barnes was looking for it.

Until it becomes the VAR actually making the decision rather then the clear and obvious error nonsense VAR will continue to be a farce...Let’s all bring something in to back up the ref getting something wrong.

Oshkoshclaret wrote:I was watching it on TV. Didn't look like a clear and obvious penalty to me. Barnes was looking for it.

Yes he was.... still a penalty though

Very straightforward penalty

Oshkoshclaret wrote:I was watching it on TV. Didn't look like a clear and obvious penalty to me. Barnes was looking for it.

Unfortunately Barnes’ reputation goes before him. The referees have been made aware of his “style” and make their decisions accordingly. If it had been Wood who had gone down we would have had a penalty or at least a VAR referral.

VAR appears to be there to back up refs and not make correct decisions.

Rowls wrote:Couldn't find another thread so hope this isn't a duplicate....

Why oh why weren't we given a VAR penalty in the 2nd half when the referee missed the clear kick on Ashley Barnes?

Had they turned the VAR robot off or something?

Why didn't they give it? When is VAR allowed and not allowed to award stonewall penalties?

Genuine question - answers below please.

Because Kevin Friend was our VAR official, it really is as simple as that

I find it laughable though that every professional pundit and scribe that saw the incident cant understand why it wasnt overturned by VAR yet one or two on here claim it wasnt a penalty

I was convinced the high boot on Hendrick in the box should’ve been given. If it was outside the box, it would be a free kick all day. And if it was aguero and not hendrick, he’s still be on the floor now clutching his face.

“He was looking for it ?”

Was he ? All I saw was that he took it round the player who kicked him - should have been an extremely easy decision for the referee and an even easier one for VAR. not even debatable.

You are getting decisions like this but yet they cancel goals like that Spurs one yesterday based on millimetres when it’s impossible to say whether they are even looking at the correct thing.

This “clear and obvious” thing just sums up the whole VAR mess - the only thing that is clear and obvious is they haven’t got a clue what they are doing.

Kevin kilbane mentioned Dyche bemoaning the lack of penalties we had last year, he gets what Dyche is saying now. No need for var iit was right in front of him, awfull decision.

bobinho wrote:I was convinced the high boot on Hendrick in the box should’ve been given. If it was outside the box, it would be a free kick all day. And if it was aguero and not hendrick, he’s still be on the floor now clutching his face.

Exactly this.
From the CFS the defender's foot seemed to connect with Hendrick's face.
His foot was certainly high and it certainly interfered with Hendrick's header.
Not even mentioned on MOTD, yet the incident was shown.

They know exactly what they're doing and they've been entirely consistent with the use of VAR in the PL this season.

I can't recall one referee's decision, other than offside or handball, that's been overturned by VAR. CaptainClaret explained it quite well in post #5 above. I think it's probably the best way for it to be used.

TVC15 wrote:“He was looking for it ?”

Was he ? All I saw was that he took it round the player who kicked him - should have been an extremely easy decision for the referee and an even easier one for VAR. not even debatable.

You are getting decisions like this but yet they cancel goals like that Spurs one yesterday based on millimetres when it’s impossible to say whether they are even looking at the correct thing.

This “clear and obvious” thing just sums up the whole VAR mess - the only thing that is clear and obvious is they haven’t got a clue what they are doing.

100% spot on
Was a supporter of var before it came in but unbelievable how a penalty wasn't given. Nice bit of skill from Ash, nips the ball past the defender who kicks his leg causing him to fall over, don't get it!

You can’t even be certain that our one against Southampton (keeper poleaxing Barnes) last season would have been overturned by VAR.

The whole thing stinks. Just look at the video and give the obvious decision. We are going to fall foul of this shambles all season.

The only good thing is that it didn’t cost points yesterday but you never know when goal difference is needed

Tall Paul wrote:They know exactly what they're doing and they've been entirely consistent with the use of VAR in the PL this season.

I can't recall one referee's decision, other than offside or handball, that's been overturned by VAR. CaptainClaret explained it quite well in post #5 above. I think it's probably the best way for it to be used.

Entirely disagree that this is the best way for it to be used.
Forget about marginal offside and handball decisions and use it to overturn it when the referee has made a mistake and missed something.
I don’t recall any fan, pundit, player or manager criticising officials for the fractional offsides and handball type of decisions before VAR came in that are being given now.
Whereas everyone thought that the one thing VAR would definitely sort out is clear penalties like Barnes yesterday and the one on Kane by Lascelles the other week.

If you would have said this is how VAR is going to be used I don’t think anyone in the game would have wanted it. Look at what the spokesman for VAR Shearer said on MOTD last night - after weeks of saying let’s get behind what it is trying to achieve he is now basically saying it’s being applied against the wrong type of incidents.

TVC15 wrote:Entirely disagree that this is the best way for it to be used.
Forget about marginal offside and handball decisions and use it to overturn it when the referee has made a mistake and missed something.
I don’t recall any fan, pundit, player or manager criticising officials for the fractional offsides and handball type of decisions before VAR came in that are being given now.
Whereas everyone thought that the one thing VAR would definitely sort out is clear penalties like Barnes yesterday and the one on Kane by Lascelles the other week.

If you would have said this is how VAR is going to be used I don’t think anyone in the game would have wanted it. Look at what the spokesman for VAR Shearer said on MOTD last night - after weeks of saying let’s get behind what it is trying to achieve he is now basically saying it’s being applied against the wrong type of incidents.

Before it came in, one of the main concerns was that all it would do is move the subjective decisions from one person (the ref) to another (the VAR ref). The way it's been implemented means this isn't an issue.

There's always going to be an element of subjectivity in penalty and red card decisions. Once they decided that they weren't going to use the pitchside monitor for the onfield ref to check and potentially change their decision, I think this is the only way it can be applied and remain consistent.

Thought it was a pen but not one that should have been overturned once the ref didnt give it. What I would say is that the contact wasnt that strong and Barnes threw his hands up in the air and went down like he had been shot.

The way Barnes went down is exactly what a lot of folk on this board go mad about when opposition players do it calling them soft and cheats whilst we think ourselves so virtuous.

I think the analogy Ive seen on here is about if that contact happened stood at work. Well if someone lightly kicked Barnes shin no way would he throw his arms up, fall over in a heap and scream in agony. He'd probably just flinch his leg and give the other bloke a smack round the chops.

Garbage refereeing, compounded by non-use of the technology supposed to limit the effect of garbage refereeing.

Garbage.

bobinho wrote:I was convinced the high boot on Hendrick in the box should’ve been given. If it was outside the box, it would be a free kick all day. And if it was aguero and not hendrick, he’s still be on the floor now clutching his face.

Glad you pointed it out, because I thought it should have been a pen as well. Hard on the Norwich lad, as I'm sure he was just going for the ball, but by the letter of the law it was clear and dangerous play.
Especially when you think of the one Koscielny got at the Emirates, when he was bent double going for the ball.

The problem here isnt VAR but the way the English referees are using it, or not using it would be more correct.
They use it abroad and dont appear to have the issues we have here, because abroad they dont feel they have a need to protect the man in the middle.

I would still scrap VAR, and replace it by referees being forced to give post match interviews. If they knew thet had to justify their decisions to the media I'm sure they would get a lot more right.

Wasn’t sure at the time on the game but it’s an absolutely clear cut penalty.

Colburn_Claret wrote:Glad you pointed it out, because I thought it should have been a pen as well. Hard on the Norwich lad, as I'm sure he was just going for the ball, but by the letter of the law it was clear and dangerous play.
Especially when you think of the one Koscielny got at the Emirates, when he was bent double going for the ball.

It wasn't in the penalty area.

Colburn_Claret wrote:The problem here isnt VAR but the way the English referees are using it, or not using it would be more correct.
They use it abroad and dont appear to have the issues we have here, because abroad they dont feel they have a need to protect the man in the middle.

I would still scrap VAR, and replace it by referees being forced to give post match interviews. If they knew thet had to justify their decisions to the media I'm sure they would get a lot more right.

Why would they get a lot more right if they had to give an interview after the game? I don’t see how the two correlate.

Devils_Advocate wrote:Thought it was a pen but not one that should have been overturned once the ref didnt give it. What I would say is that the contact wasnt that strong and Barnes threw his hands up in the air and went down like he had been shot.

The way Barnes went down is exactly what a lot of folk on this board go mad about when opposition players do it calling them soft and cheats whilst we think ourselves so virtuous.

I think the analogy Ive seen on here is about if that contact happened stood at work. Well if someone lightly kicked Barnes shin no way would he throw his arms up, fall over in a heap and scream in agony. He'd probably just flinch his leg and give the other bloke a smack round the chops.

The reason players do that is because it seems to be the only way you usually get decisions, if you go down naturally they get ignored

Tall Paul wrote:It wasn't in the penalty area.

It was in the 6 yard box!!!!!

Burnley1989 wrote:The reason players do that is because it seems to be the only way you usually get decisions, if you go down naturally they get ignored

Yep I agree

Colburn_Claret wrote:It was in the 6 yard box!!!!!

I think we must be talking about different incidents. I was thinking of the one close to the touchline where the Norwich player's boot was very high and close to Hendrick's head. I can't think of the one you mean.

Tall Paul wrote:I think we must be talking about different incidents. I was thinking of the one close to the touchline where the Norwich player's boot was very high and close to Hendrick's head. I can't think of the one you mean.

It was when Jeff went in to head the ball across the box in and the defender stuck his boot in which would have been straight at his head.

Rowls wrote:Couldn't find another thread so hope this isn't a duplicate....

Why oh why weren't we given a VAR penalty in the 2nd half when the referee missed the clear kick on Ashley Barnes?

Had they turned the VAR robot off or something?

Why didn't they give it? When is VAR allowed and not allowed to award stonewall penalties?

Genuine question - answers below please.

Question also is why didn't the referee give it. He wss on the spot. Useless.

Genuine question. Are the officials biased aganst Barnes? And perhaps Burnley. Looks like it to me and I hope Dyche took him to task after the game.

Tall Paul wrote:I think we must be talking about different incidents. I was thinking of the one close to the touchline where the Norwich player's boot was very high and close to Hendrick's head. I can't think of the one you mean.

I’m assuming he means the one following a throw in on BL side.
Barnes flicked it on and Jeff was coming in on far post.
It looked like it was an open goal for a header in and from the JMU couldn’t understand how he had missed.
Seeing the replay on MOTD shows it was a high boot which could have put him off

Tall Paul wrote:Before it came in, one of the main concerns was that all it would do is move the subjective decisions from one person (the ref) to another (the VAR ref). The way it's been implemented means this isn't an issue.

There's always going to be an element of subjectivity in penalty and red card decisions. Once they decided that they weren't going to use the pitchside monitor for the onfield ref to check and potentially change their decision, I think this is the only way it can be applied and remain consistent.

Consistent I agree - but consistently trying to fix a problem that was never identified as a problem by fans or players / managers before is not what the game needed or wanted.
From what I remembered a lot of people were saying before VAR came in that they did not expect VAR to get things 100% correct but that it would reduce the number of mistakes and injustices significantly - for example the referee missing a blatant foul or falling for a clear dive or a player putting the ball in the back of the net with his hand (like Voles did or Boly did last season for Wolves). It’s these kind of things that upset fans so much because they can often make the difference between staying up and relegation.
Very clearly it’s not the only way that can be applied - nobody actually thought it was going to be applied in this way and we have already seen it applied in at least 4 different ways since it came into world football - we have the pilot schemes in Europe, the international tournaments, how it’s applied in current European comps and the way we are applying it now in this country.

If we wanted to apply it in a way that ignored these ridiculous offside and handball decisions then we could. Fans don’t really care that it’s being passed from one subjective view to another - they just want a lot more of the big decisions which officials get blatantly wrong to be overturned.

The problem is that VAR is being decided by more refs
They are clearly looking to protect their guys
It shouldn't be "clear and obvious mistake" as that is again down to opinion (an error of judgement is simply that, and should be corrected)
For me, VAR should be supervised by a former player with a ref at the side in case of rule clarification
I was at the match, down that end, and initially was unsure but MOTD agreed 100% that a pen should have been given for Barnes
TV replays confirmed that

bfccrazy wrote:It was when Jeff went in to head the ball across the box in and the defender stuck his boot in which would have been straight at his head.

Fair enough, I didn't think there was any suggestion at the time that could've been a foul/penalty.

Tall Paul wrote:Fair enough, I didn't think there was any suggestion at the time that could've been a foul/penalty.

Was looking on at it from in the CFS and my immediate thoughts were that it could definitely be given..... from memory though it wasn’t long after we went 2-0 up which could have swayed the refs thoughts. It wasn’t a “huge moment” at 2-0 up.

Despite my earlier post, I have now seen the camera angle from JHU.
It doesn't look as bad from there.
I would love to see it from a camera in the CFS (my view).
It looked in real time, to be a very high boot, around his head.

Oshkoshclaret wrote:I was watching it on TV. Didn't look like a clear and obvious penalty to me. Barnes was looking for it.

Given that it was a straightforward kick on shin, I believe you should review your thought.

bfccrazy wrote:Was looking on at it from in the CFS and my immediate thoughts were that it could definitely be given..... from memory though it wasn’t long after we went 2-0 up which could have swayed the refs thoughts. It wasn’t a “huge moment” at 2-0 up.

What difference does the scoreline make,if it's a penalty,it's a penalty,the state of the game should have have no bearing on decisions,fortunately it didn't impact on the end result,but if VAR can't or won't overturn some of the obvious errors what is the point in the technology.

Tottenham can rightly feel aggrieved to see their 2nd goal ruled out yesterday,and that call did change the game,all the replays i've seen are at best inconclusive,and in that instance the benefit of the doubt should favour the attacking team.

On the replay Barnes actually gets fouled twice. He flicks it over the Norwich lad who catches his thigh and then he trips his other foot. And still no pen.

VAR means we get punished twice. Soft penalties will still be given against us and upheld by VAR. And we still won't get stonewall pens. I mean, if you're not getting them against Norwich, a newly promoted team, at home, and you're already two-nil up, and the game is nearly done, and you get fouled twice, then how are you meant to get one when you need it against a bigger team?????

tiger76 wrote:What difference does the scoreline make,if it's a penalty,it's a penalty,the state of the game should have have no bearing on decisions,fortunately it didn't impact on the end result,but if VAR can't or won't overturn some of the obvious errors what is the point in the technology.

Tottenham can rightly feel aggrieved to see their 2nd goal ruled out yesterday,and that call did change the game,all the replays i've seen are at best inconclusive,and in that instance the benefit of the doubt should favour the attacking team.

I’ve heard that the technology available to the VAR official is more advanced than the primitive fat red line shown on TV. Even still, we can only work to the level of accuracy that the available technology gives - which is what’s being done. I don’t have a problem with it. There will also be a margin of error of a few millimetres
with goal line technology.

I can’t believe the ref didn’t give it - it happened right in front of him!

As regards VAR, I’m beginning to suspect that the Premier League, in the way they’ve chosen to apply it, is deliberately trying to discredit it so we’ll all agree to scrapping it. It’s no secret that the big clubs don’t want it.

So I'm confused about the operation of the review system. When something goes to VAR - is there one VAR official who is making decisions on all incidents referred to the system, is there a VAR official allocated to each game, what is happening when there may be multiple VAR incidents to be decided at the same time? Yesterday would Kevin Friend have been like the supervisor or the sole decision maker?

Its a team of 2 people. One of them monitors Up The Clarets to see whats upsetting the posters about VAR and advises the other one who then makes the decision he thinks will trigger them the most.

Seems to be working very well at the moment

Cajun wrote:So I'm confused about the operation of the review system. When something goes to VAR - is there one VAR official who is making decisions on all incidents referred to the system, is there a VAR official allocated to each game, what is happening when there may be multiple VAR incidents to be decided at the same time? Yesterday would Kevin Friend have been like the supervisor or the sole decision maker?

It’s two referees watching the game on a screen, when they see an incident they press a button which timestamps that moment of play for review.

The only incident where Stockly Park contacted the Ref (other than the two goals) was for the Barnes penalty shout.