Would VAR have given it

It was a mistimed dive if you Watch it back several times, look at the time delay between the attempted tackle and the fall, yes contact was made but Ince dived

Looked a clear pen to me.

AGENT_CLARET wrote: ↑

Sun Oct 30, 2022 10:15 am

Would VAR have given it

It was a mistimed dive if you Watch it back several times, look at the time delay between the attempted tackle and the fall, yes contact was made but Ince dived

This, there was contact, but the dive was delayed, he flung both his feet backwards. I think VAR would have said no obvious error and backed the ref.

claretandy wrote: ↑

Sun Oct 30, 2022 10:17 am

This, there was contact, but the dive was delayed, he flung both his feet backwards. I think VAR would have said no obvious error and backed the ref.

Spot on, VAR wouldn't of awarded a penalty

AGENT_CLARET wrote: ↑

Sun Oct 30, 2022 10:15 am

Would VAR have given it

Yes, 100%. But I think we'd have had ours awarded too.

Don’t know if VAR would have given it tbh.

It’s only as much a penalty as ours was in the first half though.

In my opinion VAR would of awarded a penalty to us for Harwood-Bellis being thrown to the ground, they would of sent off Ince for going studs in on a Burnley player and no penalty to Reading for diving, saying all that I'd still scap it because football is much more fun without it

VAR would correctly have given it. Got away with one there. Need to see ours again tbh.

Think VAR would have given it because it was a clear error. When the opposition manager - in this case Kompany - says it was a penalty then it also supports the view that the ref made an obvious mistake.

taio wrote: ↑

Sun Oct 30, 2022 10:26 am

Think VAR would have given it because it was a clear error. When the opposition manager - in this case Kompany - says it was a penalty then it also supports the view that the ref made an obvious mistake.

Kompany said that straight after the game having seeing it once live from over 100 meters away, I did the same at the time but quickly changed my mind once seen again via many replays

The way Ince threw his left leg back proves it wasn’t a penalty and guess what it wasn’t a penalty.

AGENT_CLARET wrote: ↑

Sun Oct 30, 2022 10:29 am

Kompany said that straight after the game having seeing it once live from over 100 meters away

I don't know whether he saw a reply straight after the game or not. But I'm sure whenever he did see it back it will have reaffirmed his original view that it was a penalty.

Nobody really knows what VAR would have done, it regularly backs up bad decisions.
It was probably what I would call a Premier league penalty, there was some contact and that’s enough in that league.

In the good old days that would have been given with nom arguments. Today with a history of 'simulation' referees have got a difficult task. Players are mostly looking to 'win' a penalty.

At first glance, on TV, it looked an obvious pen - what was Maatsen doing? As clarettandy says, there was contact, and I think enough to impede Ince so a penalty, but it was only on one leg so how is it that two legs fly up in the air? In other words, typical of today's players, Ince made a meal of it. It may well be this that caused the referee not to give it, but then one could argue a yellow to Ince for diving (that would have been funny!). On the other hand Ince might argue if he doesn't go down the ref won't do anything.

In this instance we got very lucky.

You've got to be wearing claret and blue specs to say that wasn't a penalty

Pretty sure VAR would have given it, and pretty sure VAR would have given ours as well for the holding in the box

But at least the ref was consistent about ignoring stuff he really shouldn't be missing

That was a penalty, all day long. It was a stupid tackle, and with Brownhill there unnecessary.

We'd have been fuming if it was the other way. I'd feel sorry for them, if they hadn't got away with one in the first half. It evens itself out, but doesn't disguise the refs incompetence.

It was a definite penalty just like ours in the first half but the ref was crap and should have sent Ince of near the end but bottled it .

It should have been a penalty, but Ince (along with most modern day footballers) was more concerned with waiting for any slight contact rather than trying to get a shot on goal. If he’d actually been trying, Maatsan would still have fouled him and the ref would probably have given a penalty

claretandy wrote: ↑

Sun Oct 30, 2022 10:17 am

This, there was contact, but the dive was delayed, he flung both his feet backwards. I think VAR would have said no obvious error and backed the ref.

If there’s any contact he’s entitled to go down…… according to the MOTD experts

Was definitely a penalty and Maatsen ought to have received a bollocking for such a daft and rash decision. Not good enough from him whatsoever. He needs to learn and fast.

Blatant penalty and var would have given it.

Because Kompany says it’s a pen, doesn’t make it a pen. VK is an ex elite level player, and as such he is conditioned to think a certain way regarding foul play.

bobinho wrote: ↑

Sun Oct 30, 2022 11:34 am

Because Kompany says it’s a pen, doesn’t make it a pen. VK is an ex elite level player, and as such he is conditioned to think a certain way regarding foul play.

I wasn't saying that just because Kompany said it was a pen that it means it was. I said it supports the view. I've seen the replays and quickly concluded it was a stonewall penalty and a mistake by the ref. Saying otherwise is foolishly bias in my view..

Nailed on pen. Having said that so was ours on Harwood Bellis in the first half, shouldn’t have to need to fall on the floor for that to be given.

I've looked at it lots of times now and I'm convinced of a few things

1. Maatsen was careless
2. There was contact
3. The contact doesn't match the reaction
4. The referee was entirely justified in not giving a penalty
5. VAR would have given a penalty

Players exaggerate contact, and in doing so it is then almost impossible to then tell if its a foul or not. Was this a foul? Don't know. Ergo...

Poor by Maatsen and I am sure he would have felt the wrath of Kompany and Bellamys tongue, all part of his learning curve and he got away with it thankfully

bobinho wrote: ↑

Sun Oct 30, 2022 11:34 am

VK is an ex elite level player, and as such he is conditioned to think a certain way regarding foul play.

What does that even mean?

If the ref doesn't give it then it is no penalty, thosecare the rules. As mentioned it wasn't obvious.

It was a penalty
And the reason it was a penalty was because Maatsen kicked Ince in the penalty area.

VAR has consistently given decisions like this and for a lot lot less contact than there was yesterday.

Looked a stonewaller to me even from the back of the Bob Lord stand.

I keep reading,Reading should have had apenalty.We should have had a penalty and if we had scored Reading would not have had that penalty shout.The game would have changed if we had gone in front.Reading would have had to change their game plan.It would have probably opened up the game.Lets not worry that they have been hard done to as we were hard done to first.Onward and upward,oops can’t get any higher than TOP.

Blatant penalty. Even Phil Bird admitted so.

Clear penalty
And VK made no attempt to alter that view with the bull you get from so many managers - refreshing to hear
This also highlights the weakness of Maatsen at left back - great going forward but sh!te at defending

My head was in my hands as soon as he did it, I couldn't believe it when I didn't hear the cheer from the Reading fans. Penalty all day long. Ref missed some big shouts throughout the game for both sides though.

Paul Ince has the right to be miffed

Burnley1989 wrote: ↑

Sun Oct 30, 2022 11:53 am

What does that even mean?

If you need it explaining, you probably wouldn't get it anyway.

It's a penalty and its clearer than the one we didn't get in the first half. It's a really poor decision even if its probably a consequence of Tom Ince's well deserved reputation for exaggeration and a slightly dramatic fall - fairly earned reputations should always precede on these occasions. But its still a poor mistake from both ref and assistant - and a very rash, unnecessary tackle from Mastsen, whose tendency to moments of stupidity will cost us again at some point.

Pretty much whenever a penalty is debated there is always people who think it was and those who think it wasn’t. That in itself shows why the refs job is harder than many of us give them credit for.

If there is a debate on that decision then there really is no hope. It is as clear a pen as you are likely to ever see. A very poor decision to tackle from behind like that in the 91st minute of a game.

Anyone got any idea which handball Ince was banging on about? Seems to think they should have had two penalties. The Maatsen one is a stonewall penalty but I’ve no recollection of the other incident.

Yeah, it's a definite penalty and a ref watching a TV would give it.

But Ince doesn't help himself. It's a stupid challenge, and if he'd just have kept running he'd probably have got it. But after seeing it a few times, he does stick his left foot across to guarantee contact. If the ref has actually seen that movement at full speed in one instant and decided he's looking for it, then fair do's. More likely he's just missed/bottled it. We'd be fuming anyway.

Tom Ince has dived all his career, maybe the refs have just got fed up of his cheating

claretspice wrote: ↑

Sun Oct 30, 2022 1:23 pm

It's a penalty and its clearer than the one we didn't get in the first half. It's a really poor decision even if its probably a consequence of Tom Ince's well deserved reputation for exaggeration and a slightly dramatic fall - fairly earned reputations should always precede on these occasions. But its still a poor mistake from both ref and assistant - and a very rash, unnecessary tackle from Mastsen, whose tendency to moments of stupidity will cost us again at some point.

It bothers me that the focus is on the Maatsen incident without opposite and equal focus on the THB incident. At least in the latter it was sustained and clear - he was clearly bear-hugged for a clear 3 seconds, whereas in the Maatsen incident it’s a split second and more complex with Ince’s movement. Both were penalties, neither given, but can we at least have equal emphasis so that Reading don’t get away with the PR of being the victims?

Phook VAR.Better off without it.

We should have had one, as well. Anyway, who cares? We won.

NRC wrote: ↑

Sun Oct 30, 2022 2:11 pm

It bothers me that the focus is on the Maatsen incident without opposite and equal focus on the THB incident. At least in the latter it was sustained and clear - he was clearly bear-hugged for a clear 3 seconds, whereas in the Maatsen incident it’s a split second and more complex with Ince’s movement. Both were penalties, neither given, but can we at least have equal emphasis so that Reading don’t get away with the PR of being the victims?

I don't think the one on THB gets given as routinely as the Ince one and as the Sky commentator observed THB himself was a bit half hearted on his appeal. So I think its less a pen than Maatsen/Ince.

In any event you can't say a penalty on 35 minutes is definitive. In the 93rd minute, realistically it is, so the decision has more bearing on the outcome of the game.

We got the rub of the green without question.

claretspice wrote: ↑

Sun Oct 30, 2022 2:18 pm

In any event you can't say a penalty on 35 minutes is definitive. In the 93rd minute, realistically it is, so the decision has more bearing on the outcome of the game.

We got the rub of the green without question.

In your opinion…..

In my opinion the THB incident is a penalty ten times out of ten with VAR in the PL

Ours was definitely a pen if the holding is seen. That is the problem though, was it seen. A ref looking at the penalty area during a set piece can be more forgiven than when he is watching someone run with the ball into the pen area and get fouled. His focus for the set piece is more than one duel area with split seconds to check. Exactly the sort of stuff that VAR should be clearing up where it is used. As others have said better to not have VAR and let the game flow given they usually mess up the decision when anything is referred.

NRC wrote: ↑

Sun Oct 30, 2022 2:26 pm

In your opinion…..

In my opinion the THB incident is a penalty ten times out of ten with VAR in the PL

That’s the problem with VAR it would definitely not be given ten times out of ten. They would probably give it 6 or 7 times out of 10.

NRC wrote: ↑

Sun Oct 30, 2022 2:26 pm

In your opinion…..

In my opinion the THB incident is a penalty ten times out of ten with VAR in the PL

I also feel their penalty claim was stronger than our penalty claim. Both should've been given but Reading's was clearer because it was a stonewall penalty and a bigger mistake by the referee in my view.

NRC wrote: ↑

Sun Oct 30, 2022 2:26 pm

In your opinion…..

In my opinion the THB incident is a penalty ten times out of ten with VAR in the PL

If that's your opinion fair enough. I think you are wrong. I think its rarely a pen with VAR - Tarkowski didn't get one for us away at Everton last season, for example.

taio wrote: ↑

Sun Oct 30, 2022 2:32 pm

I also feel their penalty claim was stronger than our penalty claim. Both should've been given but Reading's was clearer because it was a stonewall penalty and a bigger mistake by the referee in my view.

There’s no degrees of penalty…. Ball is placed at 15 yards not 12, or the taker has to take it with his eyes closed…. It doesn’t matter if a penalty was more so than another, or a bigger mistake than another, it’s still a penalty. I get it might be a bigger talking point, but it’s not more of a penalty. I just don’t like the idea of Reading being victims