Not just us

This Forum is the main messageboard to discuss all things Claret and Blue and beyond
Post Reply
jjclaret
Posts: 261
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:39 pm
Been Liked: 117 times
Has Liked: 441 times

Not just us

Post by jjclaret » Wed Sep 22, 2021 6:35 pm

This user liked this post: Bosscat

ClaretTony
Posts: 67423
Joined: Thu Dec 24, 2015 3:07 pm
Been Liked: 32238 times
Has Liked: 5253 times
Location: Burnley
Contact:

Re: Not just us

Post by ClaretTony » Wed Sep 22, 2021 6:36 pm

Correct decision then if Hackett thinks it was wrong

Ashingtonclaret46
Posts: 3771
Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2016 9:15 am
Been Liked: 1828 times
Has Liked: 2613 times
Location: Ashington, Northumberland

Re: Not just us

Post by Ashingtonclaret46 » Wed Sep 22, 2021 7:01 pm

The problem that we now have with modern football is the fact that, had that been an outfield player doing exactly the same thing in any other part of the pitch except the penalty area, the free kick would have been given, there would have been no VAR involvement and the odds are that the player would also have been cautioned for whatever reason they keep inventing.
Likewise, in any other division of English football, it would have been a penalty because that is what the referee gave.

IanMcL
Posts: 30123
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 5:27 pm
Been Liked: 6340 times
Has Liked: 8651 times

Re: Not just us

Post by IanMcL » Thu Sep 23, 2021 12:13 am

I think that as he touched the ball first, that's ok. He's a keeper. It is inevitable that keepers collide with players, after reaching the ball first. It has been seen the soft way too much and keepers penalised for doing their job.

I also think they should not get free kicks for being touched. Let's get back to a man's game!

ClaretTony
Posts: 67423
Joined: Thu Dec 24, 2015 3:07 pm
Been Liked: 32238 times
Has Liked: 5253 times
Location: Burnley
Contact:

Re: Not just us

Post by ClaretTony » Thu Sep 23, 2021 12:19 am

Ashingtonclaret46 wrote:
Wed Sep 22, 2021 7:01 pm
The problem that we now have with modern football is the fact that, had that been an outfield player doing exactly the same thing in any other part of the pitch except the penalty area, the free kick would have been given, there would have been no VAR involvement and the odds are that the player would also have been cautioned for whatever reason they keep inventing.
Likewise, in any other division of English football, it would have been a penalty because that is what the referee gave.
It would have been a pen without VAR but I do think it was the correct decision in the end because the keeper surely must be allowed to go for the ball.

What I think was wrong was at Leeds last season when Oliver backed the onfield referee.
This user liked this post: Dark Cloud

Roosterbooster
Posts: 2582
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:22 pm
Been Liked: 688 times
Has Liked: 361 times

Re: Not just us

Post by Roosterbooster » Thu Sep 23, 2021 12:29 am

Its never a penalty. He wins the ball - clearly and obviously. Contact doesn't mean its a foul. He wins the ball and Vydra goes down all in one movement. It wasn't dangerous. And it wasn't excessive force.

"There’s this argument in football that if you play the ball it exonerates you from any offence." I agree with Hackett, winning the ball doesn't equate to no foul

"He’s cleared the ball and his momentum has taken the player down. That’s what he’s got to take care of." I'm not sure what else he was supposed to do?? The ball was there to be won. Ramsdale won it and the players came together.

If that's now a foul then we might as well ban challenging for the ball altogether. Every player could jump with a keeper and go down as they collide to win a penalty. I really don't think the current crop of referees are intelligent enough, and certainly haven't played enough football, to be influencing the interpretation of the laws as much as they are.

SydneyClaret
Posts: 155
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 1:19 am
Been Liked: 46 times
Has Liked: 5 times

Re: Not just us

Post by SydneyClaret » Thu Sep 23, 2021 7:11 am

I don’t say much but I’m gonna stick my neck out here. Yes Ramsdale got to the ball but, he didn’t belt it out of play. Had he not then tripped Vydra, Vydra would have had an opportunity to keep the ball in play, whilst Ramsdale was still on the ground. So for me, it’s still a penalty. I’d be aggrieved if I’d not been given it.
These 4 users liked this post: Woodleyclaret Bosscat Stalbansclaret The Hung Juror

bfcjg
Posts: 13153
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 8:17 pm
Been Liked: 5002 times
Has Liked: 6716 times

Re: Not just us

Post by bfcjg » Thu Sep 23, 2021 8:25 am

If it was he other way round at the Emirates the penalty decision would have stood

Hipper
Posts: 5681
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 1:33 pm
Been Liked: 1175 times
Has Liked: 918 times

Re: Not just us

Post by Hipper » Thu Sep 23, 2021 9:14 am

I like the idea that the referee can go to the monitor and make his own mind up. In this way he can recognise a mistake he and his team have made. This is surely what we want from VAR.

To me the most important thing is that the match referee retains control. He can be guided by the VAR team but should not be bound by it. Rules like the 'clear and obvious error' one are too restrictive.

claptrappers_union
Posts: 5756
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2016 10:40 pm
Been Liked: 1746 times
Has Liked: 344 times
Location: The Banana Stand

Re: Not just us

Post by claptrappers_union » Thu Sep 23, 2021 9:16 am

He says VAR shouldn’t have intervened, but that VAR’s job!

They check all the goals, penalties and red cards and then advice the referee to look at the monitor - which they do almost all the time now

claretburns
Posts: 4878
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2016 9:27 pm
Been Liked: 848 times
Has Liked: 334 times
Location: Halifax

Re: Not just us

Post by claretburns » Thu Sep 23, 2021 10:30 am

If it was Pope doing the same challenge on Aubamayeng and the penalty was given, this board would have gone into meltdown. With decisions like this, it is always best to think of it the other way round and Burnley being penalised and think if you would agree with that.

Vintage Claret
Posts: 2201
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2016 3:03 pm
Been Liked: 932 times
Has Liked: 607 times

Re: Not just us

Post by Vintage Claret » Thu Sep 23, 2021 11:08 am

One could argue all day about whether it was a pen or not but that would suggest it wasn't a 'clear and obvious' mistake by the referee in the first place.

I've watched the replay a few times and I'm still not 100% certain either way.

PaintYorkClaretnBlue
Posts: 1796
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 3:42 pm
Been Liked: 660 times
Has Liked: 1219 times

Re: Not just us

Post by PaintYorkClaretnBlue » Thu Sep 23, 2021 11:13 am

It wasn’t a penalty, ramsdale went for the ball and touched it, his momentum took him into Vyds.

If that is a foul so is every sliding tackle all over the pitch where a player takes the ball then the opponent goes over him.

ClaretFelix
Posts: 502
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:02 pm
Been Liked: 146 times
Has Liked: 123 times

Re: Not just us

Post by ClaretFelix » Thu Sep 23, 2021 11:16 am

It's 100% not a penalty. In essence, Ramsdale has made a save/tackle. He's got the ball first, changed the direction of the ball and if we're being picky, Vydra actually collided with him, not the other way round.
He's not used excessive force or endangered the player, so there's no argument to be had. VAR correctly intervened as it had been a clear and obvious error by the referee to give it in the first place.

Ashingtonclaret46
Posts: 3771
Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2016 9:15 am
Been Liked: 1828 times
Has Liked: 2613 times
Location: Ashington, Northumberland

Re: Not just us

Post by Ashingtonclaret46 » Thu Sep 23, 2021 1:08 pm

ClaretTony wrote:
Thu Sep 23, 2021 12:19 am
It would have been a pen without VAR but I do think it was the correct decision in the end because the keeper surely must be allowed to go for the ball.

What I think was wrong was at Leeds last season when Oliver backed the onfield referee.
He backed the onfield official because it was not as clear and obvious error, therefore, no need for VAR intervention ---just as there was no need for intervention on Saturday. As I said, anywhere else on the pitch and it would have been a foul. I don't like it any more than you do, however, David Elleray and co seem intent on ruining what used to be a smashing game and who am I to argue with them?

Stayingup
Posts: 5551
Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2016 8:02 pm
Been Liked: 914 times
Has Liked: 2726 times

Re: Not just us

Post by Stayingup » Thu Sep 23, 2021 1:21 pm

Ramsdale when he comes to collect a high ball sticks his leg out. Or he did on Saturday. A referee could construe that as foul play.

Devils_Advocate
Posts: 12345
Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2016 2:43 pm
Been Liked: 5202 times
Has Liked: 920 times

Re: Not just us

Post by Devils_Advocate » Thu Sep 23, 2021 1:22 pm

SydneyClaret wrote:
Thu Sep 23, 2021 7:11 am
I don’t say much but I’m gonna stick my neck out here. Yes Ramsdale got to the ball but, he didn’t belt it out of play. Had he not then tripped Vydra, Vydra would have had an opportunity to keep the ball in play, whilst Ramsdale was still on the ground. So for me, it’s still a penalty. I’d be aggrieved if I’d not been given it.
I totally agree with you logic on this but disagree with your conclusion that Vydra could have gone on and got the ball. Vydra's momentum was taking him forwards off the pitch and the ball went sideways completely away from him.

It is by your logic thought, why I think the Pope/Bamford one was different because even though Pope played the ball Bamford was still going towards the ball and Pope hadn't got a solid enough touch to divert it out of Bamfords reach and therefore Pope illegally prevented Bamford from getting the ball and thus a penalty.

Ashingtonclaret46
Posts: 3771
Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2016 9:15 am
Been Liked: 1828 times
Has Liked: 2613 times
Location: Ashington, Northumberland

Re: Not just us

Post by Ashingtonclaret46 » Thu Sep 23, 2021 1:55 pm

Devils_Advocate wrote:
Thu Sep 23, 2021 1:22 pm
I totally agree with you logic on this but disagree with your conclusion that Vydra could have gone on and got the ball. Vydra's momentum was taking him forwards off the pitch and the ball went sideways completely away from him.

It is by your logic thought, why I think the Pope/Bamford one was different because even though Pope played the ball Bamford was still going towards the ball and Pope hadn't got a solid enough touch to divert it out of Bamfords reach and therefore Pope illegally prevented Bamford from getting the ball and thus a penalty.
Are you sure? https://www.skysports.com/watch/video/s ... ng-burnley

Devils_Advocate
Posts: 12345
Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2016 2:43 pm
Been Liked: 5202 times
Has Liked: 920 times

Re: Not just us

Post by Devils_Advocate » Thu Sep 23, 2021 2:24 pm

Its not clear cut and Lowton's position makes it very debateable but the ball was spinning back towards Bamford and he had a chance of getting it.

I think it could have gone either way and had the ref not given the pen then I wouldnt expect VAR to overrule him. As the ref gave it again I also see why VAR didnt overrule so I think we were unlucky but I dont think it was a bad decision.

Vydra's on the other hand was nowhere near a penalty any day of the week

beddie
Posts: 5134
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:10 pm
Been Liked: 1383 times
Has Liked: 511 times

Re: Not just us

Post by beddie » Thu Sep 23, 2021 2:46 pm

Okay periodically we’ve benefitted from a few var decisions but I’m still convinced it’s taking some of the excitement out of the game, also waiting for decisions is a ball ache. Let’s get back to how we were, these days match officials are supposedly much fitter than they used to be, okay they’ll get some decisions wrong but I’d rather go with them than this trial by tv. They’re allowing a few more juicy tackles so let’s go one further and scrap that bloody interference they call var. incidentally Rob Jones decision against Mee away at Leeds last year said it all for me about var.

Ashingtonclaret46
Posts: 3771
Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2016 9:15 am
Been Liked: 1828 times
Has Liked: 2613 times
Location: Ashington, Northumberland

Re: Not just us

Post by Ashingtonclaret46 » Thu Sep 23, 2021 4:10 pm

beddie wrote:
Thu Sep 23, 2021 2:46 pm
Okay periodically we’ve benefitted from a few var decisions but I’m still convinced it’s taking some of the excitement out of the game, also waiting for decisions is a ball ache. Let’s get back to how we were, these days match officials are supposedly much fitter than they used to be, okay they’ll get some decisions wrong but I’d rather go with them than this trial by tv. They’re allowing a few more juicy tackles so let’s go one further and scrap that bloody interference they call var. incidentally Rob Jones decision against Mee away at Leeds last year said it all for me about var.
His decision against Mee last year coud not be reviewed by VAR because he blew for the 'foul' before Ashley Barnes put the ball in the net. That was simply referee error and nothing at all to do with VAR. Definitely not a foul on the keeper, in fact, it was a foul by the keeper as far as I am concerned and should have resulted in a penalty to us.
Whichever way you look at it, as far as I am concerned, VAR does nothing to enhance the enjoyment of the game and has resulted in my watching local non-league football rather than complete my 70th season of coming to the Turf.
In addition to this and with the Covid affecting things, there is now a drastic shortage of officials in the lower levels of football and this could well lead to problems at other levels in years to come. What then? Use technology for everything including getting rid of onfield officials?

Bordeauxclaret
Posts: 10272
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 10:36 pm
Been Liked: 3327 times
Has Liked: 1942 times

Re: Not just us

Post by Bordeauxclaret » Thu Sep 23, 2021 4:17 pm

The decision at Leeds could have been reviewed by VAR as it was a clear foul on Mee and should have been a penalty.
Chuckle Brother One on the pitch missed it, more unbelievably Chuckle Brother Two had chance to look at it again and still missed it.

Rileybobs
Posts: 16684
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:37 pm
Been Liked: 6893 times
Has Liked: 1471 times
Location: Leeds

Re: Not just us

Post by Rileybobs » Thu Sep 23, 2021 4:37 pm

bfcjg wrote:
Thu Sep 23, 2021 8:25 am
If it was he other way round at the Emirates the penalty decision would have stood
It’s nice to feel hard done to and to think the decision wouldn’t have gone against a big team. But don’t forget we had a penalty and a red card overruled by the VAR in the same fixture last season.

It wasn’t a penalty IMO, I didn’t think it was in real time sitting almost in line with the incident. Whether the VAR should have intervened or not is a different matter - but the correct decision was reached.

beddie
Posts: 5134
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:10 pm
Been Liked: 1383 times
Has Liked: 511 times

Re: Not just us

Post by beddie » Thu Sep 23, 2021 5:02 pm

Ashingtonclaret46 wrote:
Thu Sep 23, 2021 4:10 pm
His decision against Mee last year coud not be reviewed by VAR because he blew for the 'foul' before Ashley Barnes put the ball in the net. That was simply referee error and nothing at all to do with VAR. Definitely not a foul on the keeper, in fact, it was a foul by the keeper as far as I am concerned and should have resulted in a penalty to us.
Whichever way you look at it, as far as I am concerned, VAR does nothing to enhance the enjoyment of the game and has resulted in my watching local non-league football rather than complete my 70th season of coming to the Turf.
In addition to this and with the Covid affecting things, there is now a drastic shortage of officials in the lower levels of football and this could well lead to problems at other levels in years to come. What then? Use technology for everything including getting rid of onfield officials?
Yes I get why it couldn’t be reviewed Ashington but that’s what I’m saying is wrong by var not being allowed to over rule him regardless of the whistle having been blown. That’s why I’d rather go back to the old rules. We thought we’d give it this season before making a decision about future seasons. To be honest I can’t say I’ve enjoyed it so far, not being the results but more the match day experience and importantly losing our brilliant seats. Could be Harrogate Town for us next. :)

Ashingtonclaret46
Posts: 3771
Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2016 9:15 am
Been Liked: 1828 times
Has Liked: 2613 times
Location: Ashington, Northumberland

Re: Not just us

Post by Ashingtonclaret46 » Thu Sep 23, 2021 5:18 pm

beddie wrote:
Thu Sep 23, 2021 5:02 pm
Yes I get why it couldn’t be reviewed Ashington but that’s what I’m saying is wrong by var not being allowed to over rule him regardless of the whistle having been blown. That’s why I’d rather go back to the old rules. We thought we’d give it this season before making a decision about future seasons. To be honest I can’t say I’ve enjoyed it so far, not being the results but more the match day experience and importantly losing our brilliant seats. Could be Harrogate Town for us next. :)
It's all very sad though, beddie, because I have always enjoyed the game as a player, official, fan, administrator or whatever else I have done but when you get to the stage that onfield officials are being deemed as unable to do their job and it takes the enjoyment away then I had to take the decision to call it a day. I hope that you are able to retain your desire to go to the Turf, however, Harrogate sounds OK!

superdimitri
Posts: 4936
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 6:04 pm
Been Liked: 1005 times
Has Liked: 725 times

Re: Not just us

Post by superdimitri » Fri Sep 24, 2021 8:44 am

There's too many stupid rules surrounding the interaction of VAR and refs but I personally don't get those that seem to be put off by VAR. Of course I respect everyone's opinion but for me it's increased my enjoyment in the game rather than reduced it.

It's still early days, so here's hoping they can iron out some of the mistakes. First step in my opinion is to get independent VAR refs in instead of those in the old boys club.

Post Reply