Leeds v Burnley report

See link
https://www.uptheclarets.com/whistle-bl ... s-at-leeds

A very calm report in the circumstances!

CleggHall wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 28, 2020 2:55 pm

A very calm report in the circumstances!

A strange one too in that it was completed around 5:30 this morning due to me not being too well overnight. Caught up on some sleep though now, didn't get up until 12:30.

I'm still bloody angry that we were denied points because of the incompetence of the referee - but generally we played well and I was happy enough with that.

Can anybody explain why the free kick given by Jones for alleged foul by Mee ( in the penalty area) was not reviewed by VAR.

That referee will never be forgotten by Burnley fans and if he ever refs a game at the Turf when fans are back , he will quite rightly be given dogs abuse.

What makes his incompetence even more galling is the way he presents himself with a greased up sharp haircut to highlight it’s all about him.

Incompetent surely sums up the referee's performance. Others might say 'out of his depth'. Whatever it is it should not be allowed to happen again. As always, these were important points being played for and for them to be ultimately settled by nowhere even near dubious decisions was a travesty. It has been noted that in the empty stadia players can be clearly heard so perhaps Leeds just squeal louder. Still angry about the outcome.

I think it's clear this ref has been promoted far, far beyond his abilities. Possibly had a couple of decent games and, because of the shortage of refs, has been fast-tracked into a position he simply doesn't have the competence to hold.

I would say a spell back in the lower league is needed, but why should lower league teams have to put up with that sort of performance from a referee? His sheer ineptitude decides the results of games, and that can't be allowed to happen. They should bin him now and allow him to pursue a different career path. I think he'd make a good covid marshal.

FCBurnley wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 28, 2020 3:30 pm

Can anybody explain why the free kick given by Jones for alleged foul by Mee ( in the penalty area) was not reviewed by VAR.

They don’t review free kicks - not part of the VAR remit.

But they review potential handballs and fouls in the box for penalties, therefore Oliver should have reviewed Leeds goalie’s challenge on Mee and awarded a penalty.

Personally I thought Michael Oliver was more culpable than Jones.

FCBurnley wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 28, 2020 3:30 pm

Can anybody explain why the free kick given by Jones for alleged foul by Mee ( in the penalty area) was not reviewed by VAR.

The VAR official could have reviewed it to say that it was a foul by the keeper and not by Mee. Either he did review it and decided that the ref was right, or that it could have been given either way, or else he was so busy trying to get his head round the idea of not being able to review the goal that he forgot he could review the penalty.

ClaretLoup wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 28, 2020 4:02 pm

But they review potential handballs and fouls in the box for penalties, therefore Oliver should have reviewed Leeds goalie’s challenge on Mee and awarded a penalty.

Personally I thought Michael Oliver was more culpable than Jones.

I’m assuming he did review it, didn’t think it was a foul by the goalkeeper and therefore went with the on field decision. But if Jones doesn’t blow, we equalise.

Gallagher has said this morning on Sky that he didn’t think there was a foul either way and that the mistake was Jones blowing too early. I don’t agree, I thought Ben was fouled.

dsr wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 28, 2020 4:02 pm

The VAR official could have reviewed it to say that it was a foul by the keeper and not by Mee. Either he did review it and decided that the ref was right, or that it could have been given either way, or else he was so busy trying to get his head round the idea of not being able to review the goal that he forgot he could review the penalty.

Those exactly my thoughts. Thought all possible penalty claims were reviewed. Apparently not according to CT

FCBurnley wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 28, 2020 4:11 pm

Those exactly my thoughts. Thought all possible penalty claims were reviewed. Apparently not according to CT

That’s nonsense. I said they don’t review free kicks given against an attacking player.

ClaretTony wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 28, 2020 4:14 pm

That’s nonsense. I said they don’t review free kicks given against an attacking player.

You said they don’t review free kicks. No mention of attacking player. We were claiming for a foul by the keeper on Mee which would have resulted in a penalty had they decided that ref had made a clear and obvious error. But from what I saw no review was made.

Mee takes the knee
Jones takes the pee,
Popes intervention
Jones deems with intention.
I,ll get my coat !!.

Good report.

For those interested in a ref’s take on the ref, Keith Hackett has a column on him in today’s Telegraph and to say he is scathing is an understatement. Suggests his movement and positioning is a big reason for his errors.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/20 ... top-level/

FCBurnley wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 28, 2020 4:23 pm

You said they don’t review free kicks. No mention of attacking player. We were claiming for a foul by the keeper on Mee which would have resulted in a penalty had they decided that ref had made a clear and obvious error. But from what I saw no review was made.

Tony is right, they don’t review free kicks. He didn’t need to mention “attacking player” as the only way a free kick can be awarded for a foul in the area is for an offence by an attacking player.

The referee blew for a free kick against Mee. VAR then cannot check it to overrule as the referee had stopped play.

If he hadn’t blown, Barnes would have taken the shot whilst still in play and as the ball had gone in, VAR would then have checked the build up to the goal and it should have stood as we had advantage of it.

If he’d have missed or gone wide, you would hope the review would award the penalty

What this has highlighted, is the flawed system/rules for reviewing incidents.

wilks_bfc wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 28, 2020 5:46 pm

Tony is right, they don’t review free kicks. He didn’t need to mention “attacking player” as the only way a free kick can be awarded for a foul in the area is for an offence by an attacking player.

The referee blew for a free kick against Mee. VAR then cannot check it to overrule as the referee had stopped play.

If he hadn’t blown, Barnes would have taken the shot whilst still in play and as the ball had gone in, VAR would then have checked the build up to the goal and it should have stood as we had advantage of it.

If he’d have missed or gone wide, you would hope the review would award the penalty

What this has highlighted, is the flawed system/rules for reviewing incidents.

Why can't the decision be reviewed? The review would not be to overturn the free kick, but to award a penalty. It's like saying a challenge can't be reviewed for a penalty because the ball has gone out and the referee has awarded a goal kick.

Rileybobs wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 28, 2020 6:00 pm

Why can't the decision be reviewed? The review would not be to overturn the free kick, but to award a penalty. It's like saying a challenge can't be reviewed for a penalty because the ball has gone out and the referee has awarded a goal kick.

If the referee has seen the incident and stopped play before the ball is in the net then VAR cannot intervene whether it is to check the free kick that is awarded, incorrectly in this case, or an offside decision. I suppose they had to draw the line somewhere but I'm not sure it is drawn in the right place given that, as against Arsenal, the referee had blown for the free kick, yellow carded their player but had then been invited to go check the monitor by the VAR team.

bfcmik wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 28, 2020 6:22 pm

If the referee has seen the incident and stopped play before the ball is in the net then VAR cannot intervene whether it is to check the free kick that is awarded, incorrectly in this case, or an offside decision. I suppose they had to draw the line somewhere but I'm not sure it is drawn in the right place given that, as against Arsenal, the referee had blown for the free kick, yellow carded their player but had then been invited to go check the monitor by the VAR team.

The goal can't be given because the whistle had been blown, I'm not questioning that. But the VAR absolutely could have reviewed the challenge on Mee, despite the referee awarding a FK to Leeds.

Rileybobs wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 28, 2020 6:00 pm

Why can't the decision be reviewed? The review would not be to overturn the free kick, but to award a penalty. It's like saying a challenge can't be reviewed for a penalty because the ball has gone out and the referee has awarded a goal kick.

Barnes putting the ball in the net can be taken out of the equation because it came after the referee had stopped the game.

VAR could review a potential penalty but the way I’ve read it is that they can’t because a decision has been made by the on field referee to award Leeds a free kick. That’s what I was saying earlier, that free kick does not come under VAR jurisdiction.

ClaretTony wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 28, 2020 6:31 pm

Barnes putting the ball in the net can be taken out of the equation because it came after the referee had stopped the game.

VAR could review a potential penalty but the way I’ve read it is that they can’t because a decision has been made by the on field referee to award Leeds a free kick. That’s what I was saying earlier, that free kick does not come under VAR jurisdiction.

But if a player commits a foul, the ball goes out of play and the referee awards a goal kick, the VAR can review the foul and award a penalty. This scenario is no different. The VAR could overturn the on-field referees decision to give a free kick to Leeds and award Burnley a penalty.

Rileybobs wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 28, 2020 6:34 pm

But if a player commits a foul, the ball goes out of play and the referee awards a goal kick, the VAR can review the foul and award a penalty. This scenario is no different. The VAR could overturn the on-field referees decision to give a free kick to Leeds and award Burnley a penalty.

They could easily review the incident - but it isn't within their remit. Boundaries were drawn up about what VAR is allowed, and not allowed, to review without a request from the referee. They were adjusted at the start of this season (though you wouldn't think so sometimes) and, I would assume, will be reviewed again at the end of this season.

Sunday 03 January: Newcastle v Leicester: referee Robert Jones !!

bfcmik wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 28, 2020 6:45 pm

They could easily review the incident - but it isn't within their remit. Boundaries were drawn up about what VAR is allowed, and not allowed, to review without a request from the referee. They were adjusted at the start of this season (though you wouldn't think so sometimes) and, I would assume, will be reviewed again at the end of this season.

It's not in their remit to review potential penalties?

Rileybobs wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 28, 2020 6:34 pm

But if a player commits a foul, the ball goes out of play and the referee awards a goal kick, the VAR can review the foul and award a penalty. This scenario is no different. The VAR could overturn the on-field referees decision to give a free kick to Leeds and award Burnley a penalty.

From what I understand if the referee has stopped play by blowing the whistle then that is deemed to be the decision and not be able to review/overrule

When the ball goes out for a goal kick the ball is technically “still in play” (the ref doesn’t have to blow whistle to restart)

wilks_bfc wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 28, 2020 6:52 pm

From what I understand if the referee has stopped play by blowing the whistle then that is deemed to be the decision and not be able to review/overrule

When the ball goes out for a goal kick the ball is technically “still in play” (the ref doesn’t have to blow whistle to restart)

OK, substitute my goal kick analogy for an offside. A foul is committed that the referee fails to punish, the assistant raises his flag and the referee blows to award a free kick to the defending team. Are you saying that the VAR can't interject and award a penalty to the attacking team?

It's irrelevant that the referee has awarded a free kick to Leeds as he misses a foul on Mee which the VAR should review and subsequently award a penalty to Burnley. If there is some VAR guidance that states that this isn't the case then I'd love to see it.

ClaretLoup wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 28, 2020 4:02 pm

But they review potential handballs and fouls in the box for penalties, therefore Oliver should have reviewed Leeds goalie’s challenge on Mee and awarded a penalty.

Not for me. Contact sport (we like it when it suits us) No foul on Mee, No foul on the keeper by Mee, Goal by Barnes.
But I do now agree with the penalty against Pope, not in control when tackling

just a thought even though the referee blew his whistle under var check no foal on keeper so goal should stand. I thought a goal was given to Newcastle when linesman flagged offside player ran on ref blew whistle and player put the ball in the net goal given as not offside ?

just checked ref did not blow whistle sorry

boatshed bill wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 28, 2020 7:07 pm

But I do now agree with the penalty against Pope, not in control when tackling

Pope got to the ball first, so isn't Bamford the one out of control?

Bamford could have received a red card for showing studs

Neither player was in control of the ball, Pope got to the ball first and both players collided. Perhaps Pope was moving with more momentum but I don't think that's relevant. Substitute Pope for Tarkowski in that position and I think it would be unanimously credited as a great challenge. For some reason, Pope is treated differently because he's a goalkeeper.

Rileybobs wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 28, 2020 6:34 pm

But if a player commits a foul, the ball goes out of play and the referee awards a goal kick, the VAR can review the foul and award a penalty. This scenario is no different. The VAR could overturn the on-field referees decision to give a free kick to Leeds and award Burnley a penalty.

The referee has awarded a free kick which is not under the jurisdiction of VAR. As a result the game must restart with that free kick. That’s how it has been explained. Gallagher said this morning that by blowing his whistle for a free kick he had closed every other option.

burnleymik wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 28, 2020 7:21 pm

Pope got to the ball first, so isn't Bamford the one out of control?

That is so close, I can see why it was given.... undue force? slightly wreckless?

ClaretTony wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 28, 2020 7:32 pm

The referee has awarded a free kick which is not under the jurisdiction of VAR. As a result the game must restart with that free kick. That’s how it has been explained. Gallagher said this morning that by blowing his whistle for a free kick he had closed every other option.

If that's true then it's absolutely crazy. Although if Gallagher has said it then I'll take it with a pinch of salt.

How about when a player is fouled on the edge of the box and the referee gives a free kick, only for the VAR to determine that the foul was inside the box?

Rileybobs wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 28, 2020 7:49 pm

If that's true then it's absolutely crazy. Although if Gallagher has said it then I'll take it with a pinch of salt.

How about when a player is fouled on the edge of the box and the referee gives a free kick, only for the VAR to determine that the foul was inside the box?

But they still restart with the free kick - just move it into the box. There was no question of that, the free kick that Jones thought he saw was by the attacking player.

The problem here clearly remains with the fact that Jones blew his whistle. Had he not done so for a few seconds then the ball would have been in the net and a goal awarded because all goals have to be checked. So any free kick given after the ball has gone in would be checked.

this game will probably be THE match this season where the inept officials were on a different level.
The pope incident was bad enough, but there is no either or with the Ben Mee /Barnes goal . it was abysmal refereeing.
Ben Mee could have been seriously injured from that high knee in the back. There have been several dubious decisions for other teams so far this year, but yesterday was nothing short of scandalous.

ClaretTony wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 28, 2020 8:06 pm

But they still restart with the free kick - just move it into the box. There was no question of that, the free kick that Jones thought he saw was by the attacking player.

The problem here clearly remains with the fact that Jones blew his whistle. Had he not done so for a few seconds then the ball would have been in the net and a goal awarded because all goals have to be checked. So any free kick given after the ball has gone in would be checked.

Well in that scenario play is restarted with a penalty kick rather than a free kick so the referee would be changing his original decision. In our scenario the difference is that the penalty would be awarded to the team who weren’t awarded the original decision, but I don’t see how that should be relevant.

I might be wrong, in which case the VAR guidance is absolutely bonkers. But as far as I’m aware VAR should be implemented to correct clear and obvious refereeing errors, and is to be used to check for potential penalties. Unless there’s some specific guidance that says otherwise, which I haven’t seen and can’t find, then I believe that the VAR could review the foul on Mee as the incident was in the box.

boatshed bill wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 28, 2020 7:07 pm

Not for me. Contact sport (we like it when it suits us) No foul on Mee, No foul on the keeper by Mee, Goal by Barnes.
But I do now agree with the penalty against Pope, not in control when tackling

I suggest you watch the incidents again because you're talking codswallop.

Well done for writing all that without swearing.

I'm still not over it.

F***ing mad as a wasp.

fidelcastro wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 28, 2020 9:11 pm

I suggest you watch the incidents again because you're talking codswallop.

Am I?
Pope COULD be deemed to be lunging in.

boatshed bill wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 28, 2020 9:21 pm

Am I?
Pope COULD be deemed to be lunging in.

How else is he supposed to win the ball? Which he did btw!

It's a rare thing that an official and their team to receive around a 99% condemnation from a multitude of different outlets for an appalling display

THEWELLERNUT70 wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 28, 2020 9:25 pm

It's a rare thing that an official and their team to receive around a 99% condemnation from a multitude of different outlets for an appalling display

But not boatshed bill, apparently.

fidelcastro wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 28, 2020 9:24 pm

How else is he supposed to win the ball? Which he did btw!

He was a little late getting there (not his fault, but still a fact.
Had he won the ball absolutely cleanly it would have travelled towards the halfway line (in my opinion based on playing).
i'm only saying that I can understand why it was given, doesn't mean I like the decision.

THEWELLERNUT70 wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 28, 2020 9:25 pm

It's a rare thing that an official and their team to receive around a 99% condemnation from a multitude of different outlets for an appalling display

I was just thinking the same thing. Which made it all the more entertaining to see a poster on here supporting the referee

boatshed bill wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 28, 2020 9:28 pm

He was a little late getting there (not his fault, but still a fact.
Had he won the ball absolutely cleanly it would have travelled towards the halfway line (in my opinion based on playing).
i'm only saying that I can understand why it was given, doesn't mean I like the decision.

Perhaps we'd better just ban tackling then? It's the safe option if winning the ball is now going to be penalised!

fidelcastro wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 28, 2020 9:31 pm

Perhaps we'd better just ban tackling then? It's the safe option if winning the ball is now going to be penalised!

That's next season the way things are going.
You must see that I'm not approving the ref's decision, I'm just offering a possible interpretation.
I actually think the game in general was shockingly refereed (one of the reasons I'm putting forward these possibilities), but the pen is one which VAR could have overturned but didn't.
Our goal should definitely have stood, as i have already said.

Theres one or two on here that will tie themselves in absolute knots to tell you the sky is green and the grass is blue to get a reaction unfortunately. I just tend to ingore them and not give them any fuel

Some even claim to have seen a "different angle" of the incident being argued about to back their claim up. That special angle doesn't even exist 100% of the time