Fulham v Burnley

[ladbroke8745]

Eventful (for VAR) in the last few minutes.
Personally think there was enough for the ref to have a look at the penalty appeal following the challenge from behind, but I also think he should have been told to view the handball by the Fulham keeper who was about 15 yards outside his area with his arms spread. Vydra heads it past him and is denied a clear goal scoring chance.

 

[WalterPinkman]

Definitely should have been told to at least view the monitor for the handball

 

[ladbroke8745]

Commentators just said Stockley Park gave the reason the keepers handball wasn't checked was because they felt the defender was able to cover.

I disagree.

For starters, the keeper clattered into the defender taking him out of the game too.

And the defender, even if he was able to get past the keeper, has a lot harder job to keep the ball out with no keeper there to back him up.
If that was a defender taking him out, he'd be sent off if the striker only had the keeper to beat, who can use his hands, so what is the difference with just a defender who can't use his whole body to block a shot?

 

[RustyRef]

I'm OK with the no penalty appeal, Taylor managed to get round the side and got the ball before he made any contact with the attacker.

The VAR reaction to Ariola's handling is just bizarre. He knew exactly what he was doing there, his arm moved towards the ball and there is no doubt it was intentional handling. Without that Vydra was clean through on goal, and even with a covering defender that is DOGSO. The fact the only covering defender is sat on his rear end having collided with the keeper makes it even more of a DOGSO. There's absolutely no blame on David Coote here as the replay proved he couldn't possibly have seen the handling, Peter Bankes as VAR has to take the blame. I also don't understand why Coote wasn't asked to look at the screen to let him decide on DOGSO, this was an opinion rather than factual decision and therefore should have been subject to a referral.

 

[one]

this was an opinion rather than factual decision and therefore should have been subject to a referral.

The prerequisite for that is a clear and obvious error which I think where Bankes failed.

The irony in VAR being used to brings consistency into the game when VAR itself is inconsistent.

 

[ladbroke8745]

Saddest thing is, I reckon if you count up the "mistakes" made by officials in the VAR chair, Bankes I think sits very close to, if not at, the top the list.
Seems to me he is always mentioned when VAR has gone wrong or something should have been sent down and wasn't, or an incorrect decision was sent down etc.

Just the name that sticks out.

He is a good ref on the pitch, but I feel some refs are fantastic on the field but as a watcher on TV, because that is what it technically is, they can be awful at it.

 

[RustyRef]

The prerequisite for that is a clear and obvious error which I think where Bankes failed.

The irony in VAR being used to brings consistency into the game when VAR itself is inconsistent.

It was a clear and obvious error, an unfortunate one because Coote's view was completely blocked off and there was no way he could see the handling.

 

[socal lurker]

Personally think there was enough for the ref to have a look at the penalty appeal following the challenge from behind,

Definitely should have been told to at least view the monitor for the handball

I find perplexing these comments, especially on a referee page. These sound like re-refereeing. But the VAR's mandate isn't to send things down to the R to have a second look on close plays. The VAR's mandate is to call the R to an OFR when the decision on the field is a C&O error

 

[RustyRef]

I find perplexing these comments, especially on a referee page. These sound like re-refereeing. But the VAR's mandate isn't to send things down to the R to have a second look on close plays. The VAR's mandate is to call the R to an OFR when the decision on the field is a C&O error

Don't know if you have seen it, but the handball was absolutely a clear and obvious error. Not Coote's fault as he was blocked off, but the keeper very clearly handled the ball way outside his area. I would agree on the potential penalty incident, definitely not a clear and obvious erro and possibly not even an error at al.

 

[WalterPinkman]

I find perplexing these comments, especially on a referee page. These sound like re-refereeing. But the VAR's mandate isn't to send things down to the R to have a second look on close plays. The VAR's mandate is to call the R to an OFR when the decision on the field is a C&O error

It is a clear and obvious error. A huge one. One of the most obvious DOGSO you will see.

 

[socal lurker]

It is a clear and obvious error. A huge one. One of the most obvious DOGSO you will see.

Where I took issue is when you say "at least view the monitor"-- that sounds like you are saying something different, as it sounds like you'd be OK if he went to the monitor and didn't call it. This is a pet peeve because there is so much fan noise about "should have at least looked" when they don't like a close call.

 

[WalterPinkman]

Where I took issue is when you say "at least view the monitor"-- that sounds like you are saying something different, as it sounds like you'd be OK if he went to the monitor and didn't call it. This is a pet peeve because there is so much fan noise about "should have at least looked" when they don't like a close call.

No. I get why he didn’t see it due to his positioning. He then should have been referred to the monitor and ultimately should have seen it was a DOGSO and a red card.

 

[bester]

Definite handball but the collision with the attacker was a coming together and unavoidable. I don't think it can be DOGSO unless you somehow delete the goalkeeper from the play at the point he handballs it.

2021-05-10 23-47-34

Watch "2021-05-10 23-47-34" on Streamable.

streamable.com

 

[Big Cat]

It's not the howler VAR was intended for IMO. But then those are really quite rare and the cost of VAR needs to be justified
I'm a bit surprised Referees (herein) are not banging on about likelihood of control, direction of travel and all that jazz
Don't get me wrong, I'd have sent the keeper packing if I'd seen the HB but I thought VAR and Refs would want to wriggle out of a dismissal

 

[one]

Why wasn't the assistant in his ear about the handball? Surly he would have seen it.