Just watched it a few more times. Pope won the ball, what else is he supposed to do in that situation, he absolutely must challenge for the ball and in that instance he had already won the ball before he collided with Bamford?

It's just a brilliant tackle by Pope.

Even Lineker and Savage are saying how was that a penalty on twitter

Looking at that picture it could also have been a red card for Bamford !! (With any other referee than Jones)

Amazed this passed a VAR review

I don’t know how much more cleanly a keeper can win the ball without it being given as a penalty.

We all know, as fans, that “heart in mouth” feeling when you think the ref could blow for a penalty - I didn’t get that at all.

It was just a case of “well done Popey, you’ve got Ben Mee out of jail there.”

Then when the ref is peeping I started thinking it was offside.

Then I started thinking he was booking Bamford for diving.

Then I thought it must be offside.

Even when it became clear he was signalling for a penalty I thought, “oh well, VAR will just have to overturn it.”

It’s a truly shocking decision.

Yes, amazing how it wasn't looked at by VAR

If that had been Mee or Tarky outside the area, everyone would be saying what a great tackle it was

It will have been looked at by VAR

Rowls wrote: ↑

Sun Dec 27, 2020 2:49 pm

I don’t know how much more cleanly a keeper can win the ball without it being given as a penalty.

We all know, as fans, that “heart in mouth” feeling when you think the ref could blow for a penalty - I didn’t get that at all.

It was just a case of “well done Popey, you’ve got Ben Mee out of jail there.”

Then when the ref is peeping I started thinking it was offside.

Then I started thinking he was booking Bamford for diving.

Then I thought it must be offside.

Even when it became clear he was signalling for a penalty I thought, “oh well, VAR will just have to overturn it.”

It’s a truly shocking decision.

That is all roughly what I was thinking at the time

Belgianclaret wrote: ↑

Sun Dec 27, 2020 2:48 pm

Amazed this passed a VAR review

Learning ref. First big decision. Not going to undermine him, despite appalling decision.

Personally, I would castrate him and let him watch the crows eat his bits....for their first course.

I’m not sure what grates me the most - the decision from the ref or the seemingly complete lack of VAR intervention or scrutiny. When it was given I was sure it would be overturned either from Oliver or through the ref spotting his mistake on the screen review.

So much ‘it’s only Burnley so we’ll let it ride’ about it.

claptrappers_union wrote: ↑

Sun Dec 27, 2020 2:50 pm

It will have been looked at by VAR

Ref club

cockneyclaret wrote: ↑

Sun Dec 27, 2020 2:43 pm

Even Lineker and Savage are saying how was that a penalty on twitter

Seen Savages post but the only ones from Lineker have been about the “foul” on their keeper by Mee

Just had a thought?

Did those in VAR think it was a 12:30 kick off?

Maybe they weren’t setup and ready

Spijed wrote: ↑

Sun Dec 27, 2020 2:49 pm

Yes, amazing how it wasn't looked at by VAR

All penalties are looked at by VAR.

My best guess would be that the ref didn't see that Pope won the ball, and VAR did see that Pope won the ball but agreed with the commentators that he didn't win it by "enough" to overturn the referee. Or perhaps he didn't look at that replay - it was a very quick review.

dsr wrote: ↑

Sun Dec 27, 2020 3:02 pm

All penalties are looked at by VAR.

My best guess would be that the ref didn't see that Pope won the ball, and VAR did see that Pope won the ball but agreed with the commentators that he didn't win it by "enough" to overturn the referee. Or perhaps he didn't look at that replay - it was a very quick review.

Maybe VAR didn’t think it was “clear or obvious error” (is that still part of the criteria? I’ve lost track with changes)

I’m not sticking up for the decision, just trying to think of reasons why it wasn’t overturned

wilks_bfc wrote: ↑

Sun Dec 27, 2020 3:05 pm

Maybe VAR didn’t think it was “clear or obvious error” (is that still part of the criteria? I’ve lost track with changes)

I’m not sticking up for the decision, just trying to think of reasons why it wasn’t overturned

That's what I don't get. It's been universal for years that if the defender gets a touch of the ball then it's not a foul. Why was this different? It makes no sense.

The Penalty was given for the follow through and was supported by the VAR experts.
Where Pope is supposed to put his body is beyond me, he turns slightly away from Bamford who sees what's coming and turns slightly away from him. So in this situation as going for the ball with feet is not allowed clearly Pope should have gone in head first and risked injury.

In a similar manner, at the other end, a goalkeeper comes in and challenges with his knees into an unsighted player's back player and again clearly follows through - this is ignored by the ref and VAR.

No consistency, no sense and no protection for the players. This was what VAR was supposed to cut out, what a failure

dsr wrote: ↑

Sun Dec 27, 2020 3:02 pm

All penalties are looked at by VAR.

My best guess would be that the ref didn't see that Pope won the ball, and VAR did see that Pope won the ball but agreed with the commentators that he didn't win it by "enough" to overturn the referee. Or perhaps he didn't look at that replay - it was a very quick review.

There was a penalty decision in the Villa v Brighton game - initially given by the ref to Villa. However, it was overturned because the Brighton player got the faintest of touches. Obviously in that game the slightest touch on the ball seemed to matter.

IanMcL wrote: ↑

Sun Dec 27, 2020 2:55 pm

Learning ref. First big decision. Not going to undermine him, despite appalling decision.

Personally, I would castrate him and let him watch the crows eat his bits....for their first course.

He would probably enjoy that

Spijed wrote: ↑

Sun Dec 27, 2020 3:11 pm

There was a penalty decision in the Villa v Brighton game - initially given by the ref to Villa. However, it was overturned because the Brighton player got the faintest of touches. Obviously in that game the slightest touch on the ball seemed to matter.

Exactly. It makes no sense. I am tending towards the idea that the VAR man thought it was so obvious that he didn't bother looking to see if Pope touched the ball.

Its bullshit. In real time you can see the ball is plead out you can see Pope takes the ball. Bamford isn't getting there or any of it when he follows through as well

SalisburyClaret wrote: ↑

Sun Dec 27, 2020 3:10 pm

The Penalty was given for the follow through and was supported by the VAR experts.
Where Pope is supposed to put his body is beyond me, he turns slightly away from Bamford who sees what's coming and turns slightly away from him. So in this situation as going for the ball with feet is not allowed clearly Pope should have gone in head first and risked injury.

In a similar manner, at the other end, a goalkeeper comes in and challenges with his knees into an unsighted player's back player and again clearly follows through - this is ignored by the ref and VAR.

No consistency, no sense and no protection for the players. This was what VAR was supposed to cut out, what a failure

Pope was there first and got the ball cleanly. Bamford late with foot up.

Both players then clash as the bodies momentum continues.

B'tard, effing w asking s hit of a referee totally wrong. VAR not undermining their junior p rick.

Never a fan of biased referees, regardless of how new they are to the game.

And when you consider the Pickford/VVD incident it really does need questioning

I can honestly say, I don’t know the rules of football.

I was expecting Robinson to say at half time it wasn’t a penalty being in the goalkeeper’s union and all... but everyone was in agreement that it was the right decision.

It was a just a tackle in my opinion

burnleymik wrote: ↑

Sun Dec 27, 2020 2:38 pm

It's just a brilliant tackle by Pope.

EqPuA0VW4AEiz3i.jpg

Theirs a bloke on Melbourne clarets Facebook page claiming that photo is photoshopped, and it’s a clear penalty.

RammyClaret61 wrote: ↑

Sun Dec 27, 2020 3:23 pm

Theirs a bloke on Melbourne clarets Facebook page claiming that photo is photoshopped, and it’s a clear penalty.

As I said at the time, if a defender makes that tackle it would never have been given as a penalty. Pope gets the ball 1st. Everything else doesn't matter, you can turn yourself inside saying its a penalty, but its null and void after Pope gets the ball

wilks_bfc wrote: ↑

Sun Dec 27, 2020 3:20 pm

And when you consider the Pickford/VVD incident it really does need questioning

Then we need to ask the ref that day why no penalty was given. One Michael Oliver!!! I give up.

Basically a keeper can't challenge a striker running on goal in the penalty area. One is going towards the goal and another away from it so some form of collision is inevitable. As we've seen today the ball is irrelevant so any challenge is almost certainly a penalty. Not sure when that became the rule but it seems that that's where we are.

It's an entertainment business... the paying masses want goals.

It was never a pen, and I said at the time and am still ripping about it 4 hours later having seen it 50 times from every angle.

It's a nonsense

Belgianclaret wrote: ↑

Sun Dec 27, 2020 2:48 pm

Amazed this passed a VAR review

I'm not I've seen plenty of decisions given that I have disagreed with

claptrappers_union wrote: ↑

Sun Dec 27, 2020 3:20 pm

I can honestly say, I don’t know the rules of football.

I was expecting Robinson to say at half time it wasn’t a penalty being in the goalkeeper’s union and all... but everyone was in agreement that it was the right decision.

It was a just a tackle in my opinion

I'm beginning to think that var is not designed to make things better but more of a tool to manipulate things even more

I can accept the ref not getting things right but the var ref has no excuse whatsoever
If he thinks that it's the right decision then after the game they should state why and explain the actual rule regarding the incident

Poor old Devils_Advocate:

He’s put so much effort into his fishing here today and he’s been outdone by the BBC’s Matej Mann who went with the subtler approach:

“Bamford's early penalty was met by protests on and off the field as Pope may have had the faintest of touches on the ball”

claptrappers_union wrote: ↑

Sun Dec 27, 2020 2:50 pm

It will have been looked at by VAR

VAR is there to protect the referees.

It all goes to show that football is f$€4ed absolutely f$€ked with decisions like this and as for VAR, what is that about if it doesn't get used to overrule a quite clear and wrong decision.

After today’s performance by the refereeing team all I can deduce is that the betting syndicate must have put in a big bribe, time will tell

Those two decisions today show everything that's wrong with football and exactly why VAR is a total waste of time.

2020 in a nutshell

Wasn't pen. Ever! So what the hell is VAR doing?? Bin it if you're not going to bloody use it.
And stop "protecting" goalkeepers who are just utter crap! If they can't catch a simple ball with players round them without dropping it, then why the hell are they playing at this level??? Not every touch on a goalkeeper is a bloody foul!!! Most contact is actually initiated by them!!!

It was a penalty for the same reason our goal was disallowed, it was against Leeds.
The questions about VAR and more so about corruption need to be asked. It is blatant and right in front of everyone. What we saw today was a match that I am sure was fixed. VAR was brought in to stop these ‘errors’ but not not use VAR and the premier league only using VAR and the monitors when it suits them shows there is something deeply wrong and disturbing within the english game.
I am positive money was the motivator in some form today.
The 3 points went to the wrong side in football terms but the premier league will believe the result was ‘correct’ as the 3 points went to ‘the correct team’. The ref and other officials did as they were told today, and probably got a nice Christmas bonus for it.

The current state of refereeing is an attempt at mass intimidation by the purveyors of Capitalist deregulated anarchy based on a woman's prerogative to change her mind, as the apex of political feminism.

It's the Ray Winston Bet 365, I'm in your home 'veiled threat to all' via media.

It's a simulation of freedom of choice brought about by the idea that their are no values per se, currently in vogue in art circles.

Someone is trying to bring down the West via a 'Tulip Craze' of astronomical values placed on football players and art works of dubious merit.

The irony is that the sport itself is carrying out its own downfall.

Let’s face it, for some really odd reason goalkeepers are treated as totally different entities from other players.

Swap Pope for Tarkowski in that situation and everyone is saying that’s a fantastic challenge. There’s absolutely no doubt about it.

Swap Meslier for Ayling in the other situation and a penalty is given every day of the week.

It stinks.

thelaughingclaret wrote: ↑

Sun Dec 27, 2020 4:59 pm

What we saw today was a match that I am sure was fixed.
I am positive money was the motivator in some form today.
The ref and other officials did as they were told today, and probably got a nice Christmas bonus for it.

Rileybobs wrote: ↑

Sun Dec 27, 2020 6:57 pm

Swap Meslier for Ayling in the other situation and a penalty is given every day of the week.

For handball, presumably?

Tall Paul wrote: ↑

Sun Dec 27, 2020 7:03 pm

For handball, presumably?

No, for the knee in Mee's back before he handles it.

Mondsley wrote: ↑

Sun Dec 27, 2020 3:33 pm

Then we need to ask the ref that day why no penalty was given. One Michael Oliver!!! I give up.

That Pickford tackle on VVD should have been a straight red, I'm sure the fact Pickford is the current England goalkeeper had absolutely no bearing on the decision whatsoever.

And apparently Michael Oliver is ranked amongst the best officials, if he's one of the best goodness knows how bad the rest of them are.

The reason it wasn't a penalty is that Liverpool were offside during that passage of play, but that's about the only thing they got right in the whole shambles.

Rileybobs wrote: ↑

Sun Dec 27, 2020 7:06 pm

No, for the knee in Mee's back before he handles it.

Possibly. If not, it definitely would've been given for the handball though.