Crouch and Shearer

[cricketfieldclarets]

No, not our january targets... Very often many on here groan about pundit feedback. Crouch has just given us immense credit not only for our hard work but how technically good our players are. Some positive from someone who played with the talents he did.

Shearer was equally complimentary of the players and Dyche.

No one likes us

[Bin Ont Turf]

They didn't say that it shouldn't have been a penalty.

[FactualFrank]

I'm guessing this is Match of the Day 2?

[cricketfieldclarets]

They didn't say that it shouldn't have been a penalty.

Well they wouldn't? It was blatant!

[cricketfieldclarets]

I'm guessing this is Match of the Day 2?

No its up the clarets, pal.

[IanMcL]

It was contrived.

[tiger76]

They didn't say that it shouldn't have been a penalty.

They never really discussed the penalty at length,Crouch did state Jimenez was clever in winning the spot kick by leaving his leg hanging,which suggests an element of cynicism on his part.

They talked about the Harry Kane incident for quite a while,Shearer didn't think it was a pen,Crouch disagreed,if they're going by the fact that contact with the player is a pen,then Kane's was far more of a case than Jimenez's.

[Cubanclaret]

I thought the penalty was a nonsense

[cricketfieldclarets]

They never really discussed the penalty at length,Crouch did state Jimenez was clever in winning the spot kick by leaving his leg hanging,which suggests an element of cynicism on his part.

They talked about the Harry Kane incident for quite a while,Shearer didn't think it was a pen,Crouch disagreed,if they're going by the fact that contact with the player is a pen,then Kane's was far more of a case than Jimenez's.

But it wasn't. Pieters clearly kicked Jimenez foot from behind.

Lacelles was probably a penalty. But it wasn't clear he took him out.

But this is the problem with VAR. The subjective issue we all knew it would be!

[boatshed bill]

Two players stick their foot out for a loose ball, this would never have been a penalty until the PL

[GodIsADeeJay81]

They never really discussed the penalty at length,Crouch did state Jimenez was clever in winning the spot kick by leaving his leg hanging,which suggests an element of cynicism on his part.

They talked about the Harry Kane incident for quite a while,Shearer didn't think it was a pen,Crouch disagreed,if they're going by the fact that contact with the player is a pen,then Kane's was far more of a case than Jimenez's.

They also pointed out it wasn't a clear and obvious penalty because they said a number of people watched it with them and it was a split down the middle over it being a penalty or not.
VAR would have the same issue.

[Hibsclaret]

They also pointed out it wasn't a clear and obvious penalty because they said a number of people watched it with them and it was a split down the middle over it being a penalty or not.
VAR would have the same issue.

VAR needs to improve so we get consistency.

It can’t be right that there is no pen for City’s one today when Wolves get one for the same incident.

If it is referred to VAR they should make the decision irrespective of what the ref thought at the time of the incident. The VAR ref should make the decision.

[cricketfieldclarets]

VAR needs to improve so we get consistency.

It can’t be right that there is no pen for City’s one today when Wolves get one for the same incident.

If it is referred to VAR they should make the decision irrespective of what the ref thought at the time of the incident. The VAR ref should make the decision.

I agree on this. But this is one of many reasons why VAR shouldn't exist.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

VAR needs to improve so we get consistency.

It can’t be right that there is no pen for City’s one today when Wolves get one for the same incident.

If it is referred to VAR they should make the decision irrespective of what the ref thought at the time of the incident. The VAR ref should make the decision.

Different incidents though, wasn't Silva's foot stood on?

[Bin Ont Turf]

Well they wouldn't? It was blatant!

[Bin Ont Turf]

They never really discussed the penalty at length,Crouch did state Jimenez was clever in winning the spot kick by leaving his leg hanging,which suggests an element of cynicism on his part.

They talked about the Harry Kane incident for quite a while,Shearer didn't think it was a pen,Crouch disagreed,if they're going by the fact that contact with the player is a pen,then Kane's was far more of a case than Jimenez's.

The Wolves player did nothing wrong up until he started rolling about on the deck like he'd stood on a land mine.

That is what won the penalty.

[Dyched]

But it wasn't. Pieters clearly kicked Jimenez foot from behind.

Lacelles was probably a penalty. But it wasn't clear he took him out.

But this is the problem with VAR. The subjective issue we all knew it would be!

Both blatant for me. Look at Lascelles right foot as he is “falling”. He doesn’t just fall but uses his foot/ankle to spring himself towards Kane. Kind of like an olympic swimmers launch themselves into the water off the blocks.

[Colburn_Claret]

I think the fans understanding of VAR is different from the reality.
I thought it was there to give a definitive answer, and it isnt. The ref today gave a penalty, so VAR supported him. I'm sure if he hadn't given it, VAR would still have supported him.

[Bin Ont Turf]

It just shows how the modern day sh1te has got into the psyche of some fans.

A blatant penalty, good grief.

[AotearoaClaret]

Just listened to 606 and have to give credit to Robbie Savage for pushing back on the arrogant Wolves fan who said that we played ‘Championship football’ and that he would not pay money to watch us.

Needs to remember how much money has been pumped into Wolves in past couple of years. Kind of reminds me of the arrogance of some of Man City’s fans in the early years of the sheikh’s oil money coming in.

[AfloatinClaret]

...this is the problem with VAR. The subjective issue we all knew it would be!

How could/can VAR be anything other than 'subjective'? These decisions are being made not by a computer but a person(s) in just the same way that the match referee's decision is subjective and indeed all the opinions on here - both for and against - are also all 'subjective'.
All VAR can and will do is offer the opportunity for a 'close decision' to be given the benefit of hindsight and presumably consideration of how the incident looks when viewed from other angles besides the one which the match referee had. I haven't seen the foul at all, but clearly it was a close call - if it were otherwise then the opinions here and elsewhere would be definitive one way or the other and not a 50/50 split. Given that there are differing opinions even amongst BFC supporters, my 'gut feeling' is that it probably was a penalty; I haven't looked, but suspect there will be few people posting 'that was never a penalty' on the Wolves Forum.
As for the VAR just 'confirming' the referees original call, I would suggest that's perhaps the way it ought to be: If the referee's not 100% certain on a key decision he requests a VAR review and unless the VAR Reviewer is 100%, or at least very substantially certain that the original decision was incorrect then he should go with the match referees original decision; If a VAR reviewer's not pretty damned certain, then rather than have him overturn a decision, I'd much prefer to live with the match referee - someone I can see and hurl abuse at - rather than the 'best guess' of someone hidden from view .

[Quicknick]

How could/can VAR be anything other than 'subjective'? These decisions are being made not by a computer but a person(s) in just the same way that the match referee's decision is subjective and indeed all the opinions on here - both for and against - are also all 'subjective'.
All VAR can and will do is offer the opportunity for a 'close decision' to be given the benefit of hindsight and presumably consideration of how the incident looks when viewed from other angles besides the one which the match referee had. I haven't seen the foul at all, but clearly it was a close call - if it were otherwise then the opinions here and elsewhere would be definitive one way or the other and not a 50/50 split. Given that there are differing opinions even amongst BFC supporters, my 'gut feeling' is that it probably was a penalty; I haven't looked, but suspect there will be few people posting 'that was never a penalty' on the Wolves Forum.
As for the VAR just 'confirming' the referees original call, I would suggest that's perhaps the way it ought to be: If the referee's not 100% certain on a key decision he requests a VAR review and unless the VAR Reviewer is 100%, or at least very substantially certain that the original decision was incorrect then he should go with the match referees original decision; If a VAR reviewer's not pretty damned certain, then rather than have him overturn a decision, I'd much prefer to live with the match referee - someone I can see and hurl abuse at - rather than the 'best guess' of someone hidden from view .

Great post. I don't know what anyone is moaning about.

[claretonthecoast1882]

No, not our january targets... Very often many on here groan about pundit feedback. Crouch has just given us immense credit not only for our hard work but how technically good our players are. Some positive from someone who played with the talents he did.

Shearer was equally complimentary of the players and Dyche.

No one likes us

There are more on here that don’t like us than there are pundits who don’t

[beddie]

Yes both pundits spoke well about us,especially Crouch. As for VAR you can stick it where the sun don't shine for me.

[Pstotto]

It was a 'ball to hand' type of penalty.

[Hipper]

I wasn't impressed with much of the punditry, but then I never am! In fact as there was a debateable penalty incident in each of the three games I would have thought it a good opportunity to compare them all.

[bfcjg]

Crouch did a very good job as a pundit.

[Woodleyclaret]

The cheating Mexican conned a very inept ref
Never a penalty as Erik got to the ball and then hit the trailing leg

[GodIsADeeJay81]

The cheating Mexican conned a very inept ref
Never a penalty as Erik got to the ball and then hit the trailing leg

Screenshot_20190825-233847.png (1.94 MiB) Viewed 5030 times

Erm...

[tiger76]

Just listened to 606 and have to give credit to Robbie Savage for pushing back on the arrogant Wolves fan who said that we played ‘Championship football’ and that he would not pay money to watch us.

Needs to remember how much money has been pumped into Wolves in past couple of years. Kind of reminds me of the arrogance of some of Man City’s fans in the early years of the sheikh’s oil money coming in.

Didn't hear 606 this week,but it's amazing how many fans of teams that we beat or draw against take umbrage at our tactics,they didn't have a shot on target until the 87th minute,real excitement there for the home fans,and they had to rely on a disputable last minute penalty to steal a point,a 7th place finish has definitely gone to their heads,i'm not convinced on the opening few games they'll match that let alone beat it,they're lacking a cutting edge,despite all the pretty passing there was little end product.

[Hibsclaret]

I wasn't impressed with much of the punditry, but then I never am! In fact as there was a debateable penalty incident in each of the three games I would have thought it a good opportunity to compare them all.

Absolutely and the one of the 3 that was probably the least clear of the 3 was the only one given, against us of course.....

Laughable for Shearer saying the Kane one is not a pen against his beloved Newcastle. It was a rugby tackle

[Foulthrow]

Screenshot_20190825-233847.png

Erm...

I don't think that this pic shows it is a conclusive penalty as you could also argue that Jimenez's weight is on Pieters and therefore fouling him.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

I don't think that this pic shows it is a conclusive penalty as you could also argue that Jimenez's weight is on Pieters and therefore fouling him.

It also shows that Pieters foot was nowhere near the ball as was being stated...

This discussion reminds me of when Barnes and Matic clashed at Chelsea and certain Burnley fans were adamant that Barnes fouled Matic, along with the media of course.

[wilks_bfc]

Just like statistics you can make a picture look either for or against.

A nanosecond either way can change the perception

[GodIsADeeJay81]

Yeah I know that, which is why I posted the link to Sky's website elsewhere if people want to view it again.

[THEWELLERNUT70]

Something I picked up on at the weekend regarding VAR.
I was watching the Norwich v Chelsea game and after 'that' penalty incident for Chelsea (which imo was clear and obvious) the commentary team went over to ex ref Peter Walton who stated that there was a directive now in place for VAR that works on a tariff of probability and that the Chelsea incident mustn't have met the criteria.

WTF

How to make something that should be simple and straightforward into an unnecessary complicated mess

[Stayingup]

They never really discussed the penalty at length,Crouch did state Jimenez was clever in winning the spot kick by leaving his leg hanging,which suggests an element of cynicism on his part.

They talked about the Harry Kane incident for quite a while,Shearer didn't think it was a pen,Crouch disagreed,if they're going by the fact that contact with the player is a pen,then Kane's was far more of a case than Jimenez's.

That was definitely a penalty for the foul on Kane

[AlargeClaret]

Jimenez then collapsed and rolled over and over like a man shot with an elephant gun, should have been booked for simulation regardless . It was a very harsh pen indeed but they happen .

[beddie]

Something I picked up on at the weekend regarding VAR.
I was watching the Norwich v Chelsea game and after 'that' penalty incident for Chelsea (which imo was clear and obvious) the commentary team went over to ex ref Peter Walton who stated that there was a directive now in place for VAR that works on a tariff of probability and that the Chelsea incident mustn't have met the criteria.

WTF

How to make something that should be simple and straightforward into an unnecessary complicated mess

Completely agree. VAR is going to ruin the beautiful game.

[Hibsclaret]

That was definitely a penalty for the foul on Kane

Spot on. Interesting to hear old Dermot’s interpretation this morning where he thought it was at the time but now thought it wasn’t. What chance do you have when people review and come up with that.....

So Dermot:

Did the defender get the ball? He was nowhere near it.
Did he touch Kane before he fell? Absolutely, no doubt about that.

Stephen Warnock (EX Rowverrrrrrrs, I know...) put him straight as he understood Kane’s movement to the left was about getting into the right shape to shoot....

While you have people that don’t understand how players play football at elite level you cannot get competent decisions VAR or no VAR. That one is a clear and obvious pen and should have been given.

[tiger76]

Spot on. Interesting to hear old Dermot’s interpretation this morning where he thought it was at the time but now thought it wasn’t. What chance do you have when people review and come up with that.....

So Dermot:

Did the defender get the ball? He was nowhere near it.
Did he touch Kane before he fell? Absolutely, no doubt about that.

Stephen Warnock (EX Rowverrrrrrrs, I know...) put him straight as he understood Kane’s movement to the left was about getting into the right shape to shoot....

While you have people that don’t understand how players play football at elite level you cannot get competent decisions VAR or no VAR. That one is a clear and obvious pen and should have been given.

It does make you wonder if VAR won't overturn such an obvious error,what will it overturn,if that incident had been Mee/Tarks on Kane i wouldn't have complained one iota about a spot kick being awarded.

[martin_p]

It also shows that Pieters foot was nowhere near the ball as was being stated...

This discussion reminds me of when Barnes and Matic clashed at Chelsea and certain Burnley fans were adamant that Barnes fouled Matic, along with the media of course.

Jiminez’s foot is nowhere near the ball on that photo either!

[GodIsADeeJay81]

Jiminez’s foot is nowhere near the ball on that photo either!

Closer than Pieters though and that's enough for the ref to make his decision

[ClaretAL]

If you look at his Left leg he is already down, because he reached to fool the ref by putting his Right leg across and then acting like it had been chopped off. To some one who hasn't played the game a Pen, for those that have he bought a pen by bluffing the ref.

[martin_p]

Closer than Pieters though and that's enough for the ref to make his decision

Yes, but your point was that the picture proves Pieters was nowhere near playing the ball. The ball is nowhere near either player so proves no such thing. You need a shot of the ball actually arriving at the players.

[Hibsclaret]

It does make you wonder if VAR won't overturn such an obvious error,what will it overturn,if that incident had been Mee/Tarks on Kane i wouldn't have complained one iota about a spot kick being awarded.

Agreed. The ‘clear and obvious’ wording gives them a get out clause to continue making mistakes, whilst feigning to improve the game. The game will only be improved when we have consistency and, for me if they are to use VAR, it has to be the VAR making the decision on penalties irrespective of whether or not the onfield ref has awarded it.

[houseboy]

They didn't say that it shouldn't have been a penalty.

Actually Crouch DID say that the guy conned Pieters (or words to that effect) and said he was looking for it. He basically said he was cheating but not in so many words. Crouch and Sheera were immensely complimentary to us and it was quite refreshing to hear. They all agreed we were the best team. It was heartbreaking to concede in that way (but then that is Burnley) but I consoled myself with the fact that if someone had said before the game we'd draw I'd have taken it.

The bigger picture though is fantastic - I don't think, given the evidence of the first three games, that we have much to worry about this season. Batter Southampton. Lose undeservedly 2-1 at Arsenal (after peppering their goal with 18 shots was it).Then get a draw away to Wolves in what really should have been a win. We've got the year's third best PL striker at the moment (formwise) and defensively we look like the business again. Pope means we haven't missed Heaton yet (and I personally don't think we will). We look sharp, confident and, good grief, we are increasing our possession and actually attacking. All this and we still have, hopefully, Brady and Defour to come back (he says somewhat optimistically) with Drinkwater waiting in the wings. We are on the points I predicted after 3 games and now it's the mighty Reds up next. Anything we get from that, given their form, will be a bonus then we have winnable games against Brighton away and Norwich at home. I think 10 points from 6 opening games would have us all in dreamland guys.

To quote the great Alan Sheera: 'Sean Dyche is doing a magnificent job at Burnley'.

As you might guess I haven't felt this positive at the start of the season for many a long year.

[Bosscat]

I don't think "Crouch and Shearer" will ever replace Morecambe and Wise or Ant and Dec tbh

[houseboy]

If you look at his Left leg he is already down, because he reached to fool the ref by putting his Right leg across and then acting like it had been chopped off. To some one who hasn't played the game a Pen, for those that have he bought a pen by bluffing the ref.

It highlighted this on MOTD (or Crouch did). it's what is called 'winning' a penalty is it not these days? Do the big clubs practice this like they do set pieces and penalties? You can see how the ref was fooled but how did VAR not pick it up? As you rightly point out his OWN ACTIONS mean that he cannot possibly stay on his feet. The sooner this is cracked down on the better, with bans and immediate dismissal for those guilty. I bloody hate cheats in any game.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

Yes, but your point was that the picture proves Pieters was nowhere near playing the ball. The ball is nowhere near either player so proves no such thing. You need a shot of the ball actually arriving at the players.

We've all seen it arriving at the players, Jimenez touches it first and Pieters foot is hitting the back of Jimenez.

I can put up a picture later if it helps, but that's why the ref gave jt.