Brighton v Bournemouth Penalty

[DJIC]

Is this clear & obvious for VAR intervention? Contact on the thigh.

Surprised me, BBC poll, 84% voted not a penalty.

✂️ Penalty?

30 seconds · Clipped by David C · Original video "Kostoulas scores jaw-dropping bicycle kick! 🤯 | Brighton 1-1 Bournemouth | Premier League Highlights" by S...

youtube.com

 

[RustyRef]

It certainly wasn't simulation and I would say whether it was a penalty or not is very subjective. The keeper's leg came up high for no obvious reason and definitely caught him, but don't think that was necessarily enough to take him over. I suspect VAR got themselves into a pickle because of the simulation caution, had he just not given a penalty I can't help thinking they would have stayed out of it.

 

[DavidObs]

It certainly wasn't simulation and I would say whether it was a penalty or not is very subjective. The keeper's leg came up high for no obvious reason and definitely caught him, but don't think that was necessarily enough to take him over. I suspect VAR got themselves into a pickle because of the simulation caution, had he just not given a penalty I can't help thinking they would have stayed out of it.

Referees get in the neck whatever they do - he gave a brave caution (often criticised for not making their own mind up), but then as you say VAR probably had to intervene. However, could the Referee not just have said not sufficient/minimal contact & therefore no penalty!

 

[Big Cat]

He guessed. We all do. That guess was impossible to be anything other than a guess
It's a penalty and/or simulation. There's no right answer. There often isn't

 

[Paul_10]

It certainly wasn't simulation and I would say whether it was a penalty or not is very subjective. The keeper's leg came up high for no obvious reason and definitely caught him, but don't think that was necessarily enough to take him over. I suspect VAR got themselves into a pickle because of the simulation caution, had he just not given a penalty I can't help thinking they would have stayed out of it.

However VAR supposedly can't overrule on yellow cards so the VAR can only judge whether they think the ref made a clear and obvious error in not awarding a penalty.

For me, I'm happy with an intervention on this, even if it's not fully in protocol because the ref has made a clear and obvious error and there is contact. Let the ref judge whether that contact is sufficient, I mean you could have a situation where it's not simulation but it's not a pen but that would be very hard to sell to fans I bet if he cancels the yellow card but don't award a penalty.

There was the Brentford Newcastle game where ironically Tierney was on VAR I think and the on field ref give a Brentford a yellow for simulation despite their being contact, not alot of contact but still some and I just think a review should be recommended if the pictures shows otherwise.

 

[Pembroke]

The keeper's leg came up high for no obvious reason

It is normal mechanics for a low dive.

 

[socal lurker]

However VAR supposedly can't overrule on yellow cards so the VAR can only judge whether they think the ref made a clear and obvious error in not awarding a penalty.

For me, I'm happy with an intervention on this, even if it's not fully in protocol because the ref has made a clear and obvious error and there is contact. Let the ref judge whether that contact is sufficient, I mean you could have a situation where it's not simulation but it's not a pen but that would be very hard to sell to fans I bet if he cancels the yellow card but don't award a penalty.

There was the Brentford Newcastle game where ironically Tierney was on VAR I think and the on field ref give a Brentford a yellow for simulation despite their being contact, not alot of contact but still some and I just think a review should be recommended if the pictures shows otherwise.

What you suggest isn "not fully in protocol," but completely outside of protocol. You're advocating for a pretty radical change to VAR standards that would result in many more VAR reviews. This is the kind of slippery slope many of us feared with the introduction of VAR.

 

[Paul_10]

What you suggest isn "not fully in protocol," but completely outside of protocol. You're advocating for a pretty radical change to VAR standards that would result in many more VAR reviews. This is the kind of slippery slope many of us feared with the introduction of VAR.

My issue is however, say in the scenario a referee issues a second yellow for simulation but there was contact but perhaps not enough for a penalty(given the higher threshold), would you not want the VAR to intervene on that basis?

We will never know if the VAR intervened here because the ref given a yellow for simulation or whether he intervened because he thinks the ref missed a clear penalty offense, you can't help but feel as Rustyref says, there would be no intervention if the ref did not give anything.

 

[socal lurker]

No, I don’t want VARs making things up to review things that aren’t reviewable. There are weak cautions given all the time, but a policy decision has been made that they aren’t reviewable. Having some VARs manufacture reasons to review some of those isn’t going to make things better. If simulation cautions are going to be reviewable, it should be by a law change, not by renegade VARs doing their own thing. (I don’t like the idea of making them reviewable, but an argument can be made for it—but it would need to go both ways so that the failure to give a simulation caution was equally reviewable. That means more VAR delays.)