FUL vs WHU

[one]

Surprised this hasn't been brought up.

Two almost identical incident, opposite outcomes. One even got VAR involved. I'll use the same description for both as they are very similar.

44th min and 49th min. Fulham player swinging the foot to shoot. West Ham player places their foot in the path of the swing. Fulham player kicks West ham player's foot. 44th minute, ref awards a FK to Fulham just outside of PA. 49th minute, ref awards Fulham pen, VAR recommends review and ref gives West Ham a FK.

IMO the 49th min foul was far more of the Fulham FK (pen) than a West Ham FK or even than the 44th min Fulham FK, yet the VAR tough it was an obvious error.

 

[bloovee]

Surprised this hasn't been brought up.

Two almost identical incident, opposite outcomes. One even got VAR involved. I'll use the same description for both as they are very similar.

44th min and 49th min. Fulham player swinging the foot to shoot. West Ham player places their foot in the path of the swing. Fulham player kicks West ham player's foot. 44th minute, ref awards a FK to Fulham just outside of PA. 49th minute, ref awards Fulham pen, VAR recommends review and ref gives West Ham a FK.

IMO the 49th min foul was far more of the Fulham FK (pen) than a West Ham FK or even than the 44th min Fulham FK, yet the VAR tough it was an obvious error.

Without having watched it more than once, I concur.

 

[cdsman]

I was also wondering exactly the same. My Fulham supporting mate always likes to ask me refereeing questions - but I genuinely don't know what I would give in either of these examples.
Does the West Ham player have a right to put his foot there? Don't see why not.
Did the Fulham player kick the West Ham player? Yes - I think so, in both incidents.
Does that make it a FK to West Ham? I think so, but I'm not sure that 'feels' right (but I don't know why)...

Look forward to responses from more senior (than me) members.

 

[Big Cat]

I subjected myself to RefWatch this morning as I had a spare hour and happened to be in front of the TV
Dermot Gallagher is dreadful. One minute he's talking about shirt sleeves with regards to HB (That's not the Law and we wonder why pundits get it wrong all the time), the next he's saying to Boothroyd, 'that's why I'm a referee and you're not'. Irony was that Boothroyd was right and this arrogate and dismissive attitude by a referee towards a non-referee is something I hear all the time and regularly see the same thing on the forum

As for the action this week, what a 'dog's dinner' VAR has made of the game. There was around eight incidents all of which were infinitely more controversial by the presence of VAR and the endless debate of whether VAR should or should not have intervened

I think the worst incident of the week, was the Team of Officials ignoring the most blatant act of clapping dissent by my player, Joelinton
Yet another clampdown that has petered out
As for the pledge to clampdown on grappling/holding in the PA, I don't think that one ever got started and we've let it reach 'farce'

We really are collectively very weak and always get chastised as a result (At the Pro level.... rightly in my opinion)
However, I feel a bit for the SG1 refs. They're scared of the game and a coached to be this way and are pulled in all directions. Naturally, not everyone likes him, but Taylor is the only Ref who regularly shows some bravery

 

[cdsman]

I think the worst incident of the week, was the Team of Officials ignoring the most blatant act of clapping dissent by my player, Joelinton
Yet another clampdown that has petered out

Watching the match on TV - it certainly looked like Joelinton was sarcastically applauding the ref - however, 'could' he have been clapping towards the Man United player (Cunha?), as he was moaning at him for making too much of the small tug that won the foul and got him cautioned in the first place? There was no wide angle shown on TV which would have helped to see who he was clapping...

 

[Big Cat]

Watching the match on TV - it certainly looked like Joelinton was sarcastically applauding the ref - however, 'could' he have been clapping towards the Man United player (Cunha?), as he was moaning at him for making too much of the small tug that won the foul and got him cautioned in the first place? There was no wide angle shown on TV which would have helped to see who he was clapping...

No, the Newcastle players dragged him away aggressively and told him to stop it. Perhaps the Officials used your theory to hide, although it was the AR's who chose to ignore the incident. Fair play to Bankes for sending Ramsey off. There was minor contact, but fair play

I like Joelinton as a Newcastle player, fiercely competitive, but he's also 'dissent on legs'

 

[cdsman]

No, the Newcastle players dragged him away aggressively and told him to stop it
I like him as a Newcastle player, fiercely competitive, but he's also 'dissent on legs'

Fair enough... maybe ref took pity as he'd already sent off one Newcastle player?

I know we're going off topic, but I also thought the sending off (2nd yellow) was harsh.. Yes, he did go down with minimal / no contact, but he really didn't appeal for a penalty. I think he'd have got away with it, if he'd wagged his finger and said 'no penalty' to show that he wasn't looking to win one.

For transparency, I'm a Man United supporter (from Surrey obviously!).

 

[Big Cat]

Fair enough... maybe ref took pity as he'd already sent off one Newcastle player?

I know we're going off topic, but I also thought the sending off (2nd yellow) was harsh.. Yes, he did go down with minimal / no contact, but he really didn't appeal for a penalty. I think he'd have got away with it, if he'd wagged his finger and said 'no penalty' to show that he wasn't looking to win one.

For transparency, I'm a Man United supporter (from Surrey obviously!).

I would've been far far happier to see Joelinton get binned than Ramsay. I agree, the Ramsay one was less clear, but it was still Simulation
The Joelinton thing happened first BTW

Back to FUL v WH
Yes, clearly no consistency between the two decisions. Had Gallagher completely contradicting himself and generally talking sh1te

 

[TheCuriousOne]

I think the worst incident of the week, was the Team of Officials ignoring the most blatant act of clapping dissent by my player, Joelinton
Yet another clampdown that has petered out

Enzo Fernandez actually got one yesterday for clapping, although he might not have done it sarcastically, because Chelsea got a foul in their favour, but it was a dumb thing to do. It was also the second time he did it in the game (both times with fouls in Chelsea's favour).

Could also depend on the ref, because at the end of the game Bruno clearly shouted "**** off" multiple times, and nothing happened.

 

[socal lurker]

I subjected myself to RefWatch this morning as I had a spare hour and happened to be in front of the TV
Dermot Gallagher is dreadful. One minute he's talking about shirt sleeves with regards to HB (That's not the Law and we wonder why pundits get it wrong all the time),

Perhaps because that was what the original diagram in the magic book looked like?

 

[The Gump]

Surprised this hasn't been brought up.

Two almost identical incident, opposite outcomes. One even got VAR involved. I'll use the same description for both as they are very similar.

44th min and 49th min. Fulham player swinging the foot to shoot. West Ham player places their foot in the path of the swing. Fulham player kicks West ham player's foot. 44th minute, ref awards a FK to Fulham just outside of PA. 49th minute, ref awards Fulham pen, VAR recommends review and ref gives West Ham a FK.

IMO the 49th min foul was far more of the Fulham FK (pen) than a West Ham FK or even than the 44th min Fulham FK, yet the VAR tough it was an obvious error.

Full disclosure - WHU fan so was desperate for us to win. Re the overturned penalty, I genuinely thought it was a correct VAR intervention - Castellanos is entitled to put his foot there so it wasn't a penalty, though equally it didn't feel like a free kick either. Might it have "felt" better if they'd simply have said "No penalty, drop ball restart"? As for the 44th minute, VAR can't review it can they, as it's only a FK decision, so whether the first or second one was more or less obvious is irrelevant to the decision to recommend a review?

Unsurprisingly, I still hate VAR. I accept it's here to stay, and have given up on it even NOT being controversial, but the game created the problem (players, managers, fans and pundits being entirely unable to accept mistakes) so has to live with it, even if they'll all continued to complain despite being the cause of why it was introduced in the first place.

 

[RustyRef]

Full disclosure - WHU fan so was desperate for us to win. Re the overturned penalty, I genuinely thought it was a correct VAR intervention - Castellanos is entitled to put his foot there so it wasn't a penalty, though equally it didn't feel like a free kick either. Might it have "felt" better if they'd simply have said "No penalty, drop ball restart"? As for the 44th minute, VAR can't review it can they, as it's only a FK decision, so whether the first or second one was more or less obvious is irrelevant to the decision to recommend a review?

Unsurprisingly, I still hate VAR. I accept it's here to stay, and have given up on it even NOT being controversial, but the game created the problem (players, managers, fans and pundits being entirely unable to accept mistakes) so has to live with it, even if they'll all continued to complain despite being the cause of why it was introduced in the first place.

That was my thought, one was outside the area so VAR cannot get involved, one was inside so they can. The protocol doesn't let them use earlier decisions in the game as a baseline (perhaps it should) they can only decide was that decision inside the penalty area a clear and obvious error.

And completely agree on VAR, participants just could accept mistakes and demanded technology, now they have it they don't want it. But as soon as it was scrapped and a decision went against them they'd be back on at the referees and saying they needed help.

 

[bloovee]

That was my thought, one was outside the area so VAR cannot get involved, one was inside so they can. The protocol doesn't let them use earlier decisions in the game as a baseline (perhaps it should) they can only decide was that decision inside the penalty area a clear and obvious error.

And completely agree on VAR, participants just could accept mistakes and demanded technology, now they have it they don't want it. But as soon as it was scrapped and a decision went against them they'd be back on at the referees and saying they needed help.

What people wanted was not what they got. The "clear and obvious error" criterion is a mistake (or an error). It means mistakes are not corrected. It means very similar incidents have very dissimilar outcomes (even within the same match - or between what a referee gives one week and what he doesn't call C&O when on VAR the next week).

Obviously we don't want referees called to look again at every decision but the C&O bar is set too high (at "clear and bloody obvious"). Set it not at "Is it possible that no referee could possibly have given that?" but "If you saw it again, might you give something different?" And that would avoid the feeling of inevitability of an OFR, and the forced "that was brave" comments when a referee does stick to a decision.

 

[RustyRef]

What people wanted was not what they got. The "clear and obvious error" criterion is a mistake (or an error). It means mistakes are not corrected. It means very similar incidents have very dissimilar outcomes (even within the same match - or between what a referee gives one week and what he doesn't call C&O when on VAR the next week).

Obviously we don't want referees called to look again at every decision but the C&O bar is set too high (at "clear and bloody obvious"). Set it not at "Is it possible that no referee could possibly have given that?" but "If you saw it again, might you give something different?" And that would avoid the feeling of inevitability of an OFR, and the forced "that was brave" comments when a referee does stick to a decision.

They also didn't want 3pm kick offs going on until 6pm, and that is what would happen if C&O wasn't a criteria. As I've said many times, and I used this as a reason why VAR wouldn't work, almost every decision in football is subjective. The only real black and white decisions, ball over goal line and offsides, are already very successfully covered by technology, and even then people don't like the toenail offsides. Every other decision is subjective, granted with different levels of subjectivity, and is why VAR was never going to work in football like people thought it would.

 

[Big Cat]

I once bought something from the shop on a whim because I thought I might want it. Didn't think it through. It was an impulse buy
Luckily I took it back and got a refund. Won't buy that again.... WISDOM
With VAR, don't think they have a returns policy. The Owners wouldn't allow that
Given the number of KMD's the Refs can't get right now, we're totally buggered either way. Ask Chris K, he's got more KMDs wrong in the last two weeks than the average NLS Ref would all season But then, I guess we're not subjected to the same pressures and relentless guidance from our Bosses as he/they is/are

 

[DavidObs]

I subjected myself to RefWatch this morning as I had a spare hour and happened to be in front of the TV
Dermot Gallagher is dreadful. One minute he's talking about shirt sleeves with regards to HB (That's not the Law and we wonder why pundits get it wrong all the time), the next he's saying to Boothroyd, 'that's why I'm a referee and you're not'. Irony was that Boothroyd was right and this arrogate and dismissive attitude by a referee towards a non-referee is something I hear all the time and regularly see the same thing on the forum

As for the action this week, what a 'dog's dinner' VAR has made of the game. There was around eight incidents all of which were infinitely more controversial by the presence of VAR and the endless debate of whether VAR should or should not have intervened

I think the worst incident of the week, was the Team of Officials ignoring the most blatant act of clapping dissent by my player, Joelinton
Yet another clampdown that has petered out
As for the pledge to clampdown on grappling/holding in the PA, I don't think that one ever got started and we've let it reach 'farce'

We really are collectively very weak and always get chastised as a result (At the Pro level.... rightly in my opinion)
However, I feel a bit for the SG1 refs. They're scared of the game and a coached to be this way and are pulled in all directions. Naturally, not everyone likes him, but Taylor is the only Ref who regularly shows some bravery

Not Oliver ?

 

[one]

Castellanos is entitled to put his foot there so it wasn't a penalty

Would you say the same if the Fulham player was running with the ball (instead of in the process of shooting it)? We would call that a clear trip.

 

[RichardRef]

Surprised this hasn't been brought up.

Two almost identical incident, opposite outcomes. One even got VAR involved. I'll use the same description for both as they are very similar.

44th min and 49th min. Fulham player swinging the foot to shoot. West Ham player places their foot in the path of the swing. Fulham player kicks West ham player's foot. 44th minute, ref awards a FK to Fulham just outside of PA. 49th minute, ref awards Fulham pen, VAR recommends review and ref gives West Ham a FK.

IMO the 49th min foul was far more of the Fulham FK (pen) than a West Ham FK or even than the 44th min Fulham FK, yet the VAR tough it was an obvious error.

I think the accepted norm in situations like this should be once a player has drawn their leg back to have a shot the space between foot and ball is theirs. Any defensive action that doesn’t play the ball directly but is carried out to stop the shot being played (stepping in front of the shooting foot) should be deemed a foul. Footballers would accept this if consistently applied imo.

 

[DavidObs]

I think the accepted norm in situations like this should be once a player has drawn their leg back to have a shot the space between foot and ball is theirs. Any defensive action that doesn’t play the ball directly but is carried out to stop the shot being played (stepping in front of the shooting foot) should be deemed a foul. Footballers would accept this if consistently applied imo.

Though I would say v difficult to be consistent with that kind of scenario. My feeling is that in many cases it should just be treated as a coming together/normal football contact.

 

[betterlatethannever]

I think the accepted norm in situations like this should be once a player has drawn their leg back to have a shot the space between foot and ball is theirs. Any defensive action that doesn’t play the ball directly but is carried out to stop the shot being played (stepping in front of the shooting foot) should be deemed a foul. Footballers would accept this if consistently applied imo.

This is the conclusion I sort of came to too, but only for the 49th minute offence - the 44th minute one I think is a foul on the defender as he is a lot closer to the ball and about to poke it away, the 49th minute one the defender just puts his leg in the way to purposely trip the attacker not close enough to the ball.
Almost impossible to see that on first glance though so for those of us who officiate without VAR and have one look - good luck!!