[Albion] The two pens

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Having now had the chance to watch them back after getting home I'm more convinced than ever that, between them, the onfield officials HAVE to see both pens on the pitch - both as clear as day. Abysmal decisions even if I thought he had a generally good game.

Yes the have to. HAVE to.
But they don't.
Which is one of the reasons we have VAR.

 

[Jovis]

On the subject of pens and VAR I thought that the one not given against Pervis was lucky for us.

One of those ‘foul anywhere else on the pitch’ ones I think.

 

[GT49er]

One of those ‘foul anywhere else on the pitch’ ones I think.

Not arguing with that!

 

[P.C. Beard]

Did I imagine it or are the post-VAR explanations flashed up on the big screens getting longer? They seemed really quite wordy yesterday

They're generated by AI

 

[Bold Seagull]

Precisely.

VAR was needed because the on-field ref didn't see the pens.
The VAR rubric over a pen is not the same as offside.
It doesn't declare offside/onside.
It asks the ref to take a look if the VAR ref sees the on-field ref has made a mistake.

Everything worked as it should yesterday, albeit I feel the on-field ref wasted time because he knew he was going to have to change his decision.

For the handball, none of the players even went behind the ref to the monitor, they all got drinks and gels as they all knew it was a pen.

Even for the second it was only Dunk and a Leicester player and they seemed to be chatting amicably about it. Said it all about the 2 decisions.

 

[ROSM]

For the handball, none of the players even went behind the ref to the monitor, they all got drinks and gels as they all knew it was a pen.

Even for the second it was only Dunk and a Leicester player and they seemed to be chatting amicably about it. Said it all about the 2 decisions.

Did anybody notice that the elevated var screen wasn't working yesterday so we had the same as everyone 1st game of the season ( a screen on a box). Hence why ref stood so far away when viewing the 1st one

 

[Bob!]

several minutes of play after first penalty not awarded before var kicked in. If Leicester or us had scored, would the goals have stood ??

Yes.
But only if VAR intervention didn't change the decision

 

[METALMICKY]

Honestly, I didn’t think either were that clear.

The first one, his arm does move towards the ball so I do think it’s probably about right, but I didn’t think that in real time and nor did anyone around me from WSU. But his arm was relatively close to his side from the replay we saw in the stadium… probably a 70/30 in favour of it being a pen.

As for the second, I thought it was incredibly soft. I thought MOR had a decent game, but why he felt the need to take a touch rather than shooting first time is beyond me. His touch wasn’t good enough, and he was going down before the contact really happened following his poor touch. As I say, I thought it was soft.

From the replay first one is absolutely nailed on penalty and can only assume ref did not have a clear view. Certainly not obvious from WSU. No idea why ref took so long at the screen.

Second one initially looked really soft with him making the most of it due to the poor touch. However, VAR did it's job in spotting the prolonged tug on his shirt. Sky highlights showed a perfect freeze frame where he's holding him as he goes down. If he'd let go of the shirt a fraction earlier I do think the VAR would have concluded that our man made too much of a meal of it.

 

[brighton_tom]

Both nailed on for me. First one is a very clear handball. Second one i've heard people say he went to ground softly, but you dont need to go to ground at all in order for a foul to be committed. The Leicester defender has a handful of O'Riley's shirt for a prolonged time, not just in a small moment, and does not let go. He pulls O'Riley off balance, with the intention of stopping him getting to the ball, while not making an attempt for the ball himself. Clear foul. Anywhere else on the pitch nobody would be making the argument that its not a foul.

 

[trueblue]

Agree, penalty for me.

But Pervis pointed at the ball. That excuses everything! The fact he didn't even remotely attempt to play it doesn't matter

 

[Blatter]

If you look at the FA Rules, then I can't see why Coady wasn't sent off for his deliberate handball that stopped an obvious goalscoring opportunity?

Which bit of this rule didn't the ref or the VAR team understand?...............

 

[Bozza]

Both nailed on for me. First one is a very clear handball. Second one i've heard people say he went to ground softly, but you dont need to go to ground at all in order for a foul to be committed.

You shouldn't need to go to ground in order for a foul to be given (slightly different nuance to what you say above). but in many cases if a player stays on his feet, they don't get the foul/penalty, even if they have clearly been disrupted.

O'Riley had that himself just a few minutes earlier.

Would he have scored if he wasn't pulled back? We'll never know. But he was pulled back and didn't score. Penalty for me.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

If you look at the FA Rules, then I can't see why Coady wasn't sent off for his deliberate handball that stopped an obvious goalscoring opportunity?

Which bit of this rule didn't the ref or the VAR team understand?...............

The only possible explanation for NOT awarding a red, is if they felt that the defender closer to the goal (behind Coady) was going to block the shot.

 

[Curious Orange]

If you look at the FA Rules, then I can't see why Coady wasn't sent off for his deliberate handball that stopped an obvious goalscoring opportunity?

Which bit of this rule didn't the ref or the VAR team understand?...............

I was somewhat triggered by that first penalty with Coady only getting a yellow. Junior Orange's team mate (so kids football) did handle the ball (one of those dumb instinctive reactions kids make without thinking) but the shot was weak, not on target, and there were defenders behind him, definitely a penalty, but why was it a red given those rules?

 

[METALMICKY]

The only possible explanation for NOT awarding a red, is if they felt that the defender closer to the goal (behind Coady) was going to block the shot.

Ref Watch on Sky just confirmed this

 

[dsr-burnley]

If you look at the FA Rules, then I can't see why Coady wasn't sent off for his deliberate handball that stopped an obvious goalscoring opportunity?

Which bit of this rule didn't the ref or the VAR team understand?...............

It's nothing to do with not understanding the rules. The reason he wasn't sent off is because the referee decided that the handball offence was not a deliberate attempt to play the ball with his hand, it was an attempt to block the ball legally.

If you're making a genuine attempt to legally block the ball and you accidentally block it with your arm, it's still a penalty but not a red card offence. As indeed the rule you quoted tells us. The ref may have got it wrong - that depends on whether Coady actually did set out to block it with his hand - but if he was wrong, it's nothing to do with not knowing the rule.

 

[METALMICKY]

It's nothing to do with not understanding the rules. The reason he wasn't sent off is because the referee decided that the handball offence was not a deliberate attempt to play the ball with his hand, it was an attempt to block the ball legally.

If you're making a genuine attempt to legally block the ball and you accidentally block it with your arm, it's still a penalty but not a red card offence. As indeed the rule you quoted tells us. The ref may have got it wrong - that depends on whether Coady actually did set out to block it with his hand - but if he was wrong, it's nothing to do with not knowing the rule.

No. Intention is irrelevant. Ref Watch on Sky just confirmed that the bloke on the line is what saved him from a red.

 

[Happy Exile]

It's nothing to do with not understanding the rules. The reason he wasn't sent off is because the referee decided that the handball offence was not a deliberate attempt to play the ball with his hand, it was an attempt to block the ball legally.

If you're making a genuine attempt to legally block the ball and you accidentally block it with your arm, it's still a penalty but not a red card offence. As indeed the rule you quoted tells us. The ref may have got it wrong - that depends on whether Coady actually did set out to block it with his hand - but if he was wrong, it's nothing to do with not knowing the rule.

VAR says he did set out to block it with his hand.

 

[Curious Orange]

It's nothing to do with not understanding the rules. The reason he wasn't sent off is because the referee decided that the handball offence was not a deliberate attempt to play the ball with his hand, it was an attempt to block the ball legally.

If you're making a genuine attempt to legally block the ball and you accidentally block it with your arm, it's still a penalty but not a red card offence. As indeed the rule you quoted tells us. The ref may have got it wrong - that depends on whether Coady actually did set out to block it with his hand - but if he was wrong, it's nothing to do with not knowing the rule.

That is not what the referee decided at all, see my post with the VAR decision posted in the ground at the time:

[Albion] - The two pens

Both looked nailed on in real time at the ground. I was really surprised when the first VAR check took so long to call and for the ref to stop the game. I imagine a fair chunk of that time was deeming if it was a red or whether the covering defender would have cleared it.

www.northstandchat.com

 

[dsr-burnley]

That is not what the referee decided at all, see my post with the VAR decision posted in the ground at the time:

[Albion] - The two pens

Both looked nailed on in real time at the ground. I was really surprised when the first VAR check took so long to call and for the ref to stop the game. I imagine a fair chunk of that time was deeming if it was a red or whether the covering defender would have cleared it.

www.northstandchat.com

Perhaps the referee agreed with VAR that it was a penalty but he felt it was a non-deliberate handball? The ref may have felt that he was actually leaning his body towards the ball in hopes of trying to block it with his body and didn't get far enough over. VAR (from that explanation) seems to have decided that he actually wanted to block it with his arm, but VAR doesn't hold the cards.

Has the ref and VAR conversation been reported for this one? Would be interesting.