That Reading penalty
-
- Posts: 3140
- Joined: Mon Feb 01, 2016 8:14 am
- Been Liked: 1157 times
- Has Liked: 1076 times
That Reading penalty
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
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
Last edited by AGENT_CLARET on Sun Oct 30, 2022 10:16 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 4751
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:47 pm
- Been Liked: 953 times
- Has Liked: 238 times
Re: That Reading penalty
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.AGENT_CLARET wrote: ↑Sun Oct 30, 2022 10:15 amWould 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
-
- Posts: 3140
- Joined: Mon Feb 01, 2016 8:14 am
- Been Liked: 1157 times
- Has Liked: 1076 times
Re: That Reading penalty
Spot on, VAR wouldn't of awarded a penaltyclaretandy wrote: ↑Sun Oct 30, 2022 10:17 amThis, 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.
Re: That Reading penalty
Yes, 100%. But I think we'd have had ours awarded too.
-
- Posts: 13269
- Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2016 11:00 pm
- Been Liked: 5102 times
- Has Liked: 5174 times
- Location: Montpellier, France
Re: That Reading penalty
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.
It’s only as much a penalty as ours was in the first half though.
-
- Posts: 3140
- Joined: Mon Feb 01, 2016 8:14 am
- Been Liked: 1157 times
- Has Liked: 1076 times
Re: That Reading penalty
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
Last edited by AGENT_CLARET on Sun Oct 30, 2022 10:26 am, edited 1 time in total.
This user liked this post: Silverturf
-
- Posts: 4075
- Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2016 9:40 pm
- Been Liked: 1508 times
- Has Liked: 581 times
Re: That Reading penalty
VAR would correctly have given it. Got away with one there. Need to see ours again tbh.
Re: That Reading penalty
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.
-
- Posts: 3140
- Joined: Mon Feb 01, 2016 8:14 am
- Been Liked: 1157 times
- Has Liked: 1076 times
Re: That Reading penalty
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
Last edited by AGENT_CLARET on Sun Oct 30, 2022 10:31 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: That Reading penalty
The way Ince threw his left leg back proves it wasn’t a penalty and guess what it wasn’t a penalty.
This user liked this post: AGENT_CLARET
Re: That Reading penalty
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.AGENT_CLARET wrote: ↑Sun Oct 30, 2022 10:29 amKompany said that straight after the game having seeing it once live from over 100 meters away
-
- Posts: 380
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:55 pm
- Been Liked: 177 times
- Has Liked: 311 times
- Location: Ribble Valley
- Contact:
Re: That Reading 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.
It was probably what I would call a Premier league penalty, there was some contact and that’s enough in that league.
Re: That Reading penalty
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.
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.
-
- Posts: 23343
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 2:09 pm
- Been Liked: 8058 times
- Has Liked: 4714 times
- Location: Riding the galactic winds in my X-wing
Re: That Reading penalty
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
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
This user liked this post: Silverturf
-
- Posts: 8155
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 4:30 pm
- Been Liked: 3084 times
- Has Liked: 5066 times
- Location: Catterick N.Yorks
Re: That Reading penalty
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.
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.
-
- Posts: 1328
- Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2022 10:15 am
- Been Liked: 152 times
- Has Liked: 198 times
Re: That Reading penalty
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 .
-
- Posts: 753
- Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2022 10:18 pm
- Been Liked: 339 times
- Has Liked: 39 times
Re: That Reading penalty
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
-
- Posts: 309
- Joined: Tue Sep 21, 2021 11:23 am
- Been Liked: 123 times
- Has Liked: 19 times
Re: That Reading penalty
If there’s any contact he’s entitled to go down…… according to the MOTD expertsclaretandy wrote: ↑Sun Oct 30, 2022 10:17 amThis, 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.
Re: That Reading penalty
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.
-
- Posts: 4546
- Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:03 am
- Been Liked: 2603 times
- Has Liked: 763 times
Re: That Reading penalty
Blatant penalty and var would have given it.
-
- Posts: 9337
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 7:48 pm
- Been Liked: 4108 times
- Has Liked: 6591 times
- Location: Burnley
Re: That Reading penalty
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.
Re: That Reading penalty
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..
Last edited by taio on Sun Oct 30, 2022 11:47 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: That Reading penalty
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.
-
- Posts: 2599
- Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:22 pm
- Been Liked: 695 times
- Has Liked: 362 times
Re: That Reading penalty
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...
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...
This user liked this post: dsr
-
- Posts: 5125
- Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 11:50 am
- Been Liked: 1127 times
- Has Liked: 1238 times
Re: That Reading penalty
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
-
- Posts: 7410
- Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2018 2:19 am
- Been Liked: 2319 times
- Has Liked: 2174 times
Re: That Reading penalty
If the ref doesn't give it then it is no penalty, thosecare the rules. As mentioned it wasn't obvious.
-
- Posts: 2499
- Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2022 2:57 pm
- Been Liked: 1031 times
- Has Liked: 280 times
Re: That Reading penalty
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.
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.
Re: That Reading penalty
Looked a stonewaller to me even from the back of the Bob Lord stand.
-
- Posts: 815
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:34 pm
- Been Liked: 404 times
- Has Liked: 182 times
- Location: Rawtenstall
Re: That Reading penalty
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.
-
- Posts: 443
- Joined: Sat Jul 27, 2019 10:09 pm
- Been Liked: 169 times
- Has Liked: 35 times
Re: That Reading penalty
Blatant penalty. Even Phil Bird admitted so.
This user liked this post: Hipper
Re: That Reading penalty
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
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
-
- Posts: 5900
- Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2016 10:40 pm
- Been Liked: 1772 times
- Has Liked: 359 times
- Location: The Banana Stand
Re: That Reading penalty
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
Paul Ince has the right to be miffed
-
- Posts: 9337
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 7:48 pm
- Been Liked: 4108 times
- Has Liked: 6591 times
- Location: Burnley
Re: That Reading penalty
If you need it explaining, you probably wouldn't get it anyway.
-
- Posts: 5727
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:13 am
- Been Liked: 2833 times
- Has Liked: 141 times
Re: That Reading penalty
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.
-
- Posts: 3962
- Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2017 4:00 pm
- Been Liked: 1240 times
- Has Liked: 491 times
Re: That Reading penalty
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.
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.
-
- Posts: 63
- Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2016 3:02 pm
- Been Liked: 43 times
- Has Liked: 58 times
Re: That Reading penalty
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.
-
- Posts: 3604
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:05 am
- Been Liked: 2625 times
- Has Liked: 1 time
Re: That Reading penalty
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.
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.
-
- Posts: 30717
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:00 am
- Been Liked: 11060 times
- Has Liked: 5663 times
- Location: clue is in the title
Re: That Reading penalty
Tom Ince has dived all his career, maybe the refs have just got fed up of his cheating
This user liked this post: Bosscat
-
- Posts: 4288
- Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2016 9:58 pm
- Been Liked: 908 times
- Has Liked: 107 times
- Location: Containment Area for Relocated Yankees, NC
Re: That Reading penalty
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?claretspice wrote: ↑Sun Oct 30, 2022 1:23 pmIt'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.
-
- Posts: 5829
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:38 pm
- Been Liked: 2491 times
- Has Liked: 1477 times
- Location: On the high seas chasing Pirates
Re: That Reading penalty
Phook VAR.Better off without it.
-
- Posts: 5650
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 4:25 pm
- Been Liked: 1217 times
- Has Liked: 7199 times
- Location: Chiang Rai, Thailand.
Re: That Reading penalty
We should have had one, as well. Anyway, who cares? We won.
This user liked this post: Bosscat
-
- Posts: 5727
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:13 am
- Been Liked: 2833 times
- Has Liked: 141 times
Re: That Reading penalty
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.NRC wrote: ↑Sun Oct 30, 2022 2:11 pmIt 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?
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.
-
- Posts: 4288
- Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2016 9:58 pm
- Been Liked: 908 times
- Has Liked: 107 times
- Location: Containment Area for Relocated Yankees, NC
Re: That Reading penalty
In your opinion…..claretspice wrote: ↑Sun Oct 30, 2022 2:18 pmIn 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 my opinion the THB incident is a penalty ten times out of ten with VAR in the PL
-
- Posts: 3962
- Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2017 4:00 pm
- Been Liked: 1240 times
- Has Liked: 491 times
Re: That Reading penalty
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.
-
- Posts: 3962
- Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2017 4:00 pm
- Been Liked: 1240 times
- Has Liked: 491 times
Re: That Reading penalty
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.
This user liked this post: claretspice
-
- Posts: 5727
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:13 am
- Been Liked: 2833 times
- Has Liked: 141 times
Re: That Reading penalty
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.
-
- Posts: 4288
- Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2016 9:58 pm
- Been Liked: 908 times
- Has Liked: 107 times
- Location: Containment Area for Relocated Yankees, NC
Re: That Reading penalty
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