LEE v BUR penalty not given

[CaptainsPlease]

As I said, the current VAR set up in England would be going nowhere near this.

Can I take it you are a Leeds fan, given that no one else is taking anywhere near as much umbrage about this decision? It is certainly a debatable decision, I'd support both penalty and no penalty, yet you are 100% and even referred to it as a blunder.

We'll have to see what a VAR team does if and when it happens.
Like others in this thread I can understand there being a refereeing mistake in this case. However 'no foul' is not a justifiable decision for this kind of challenge. I think just about everyone who has said 'no penalty' has mistakenly thought the ball was reached first.
Since you've now chosen to make it personal, I'm going to just leave it there.

 

[DJIC]

RefWatch’s Dermot Gallagher praises the referee for a great non-penalty spot, backed up by Sue Smith, they both believe the defender played the ball.

 

[RustyRef]

We'll have to see what a VAR team does if and when it happens.
Like others in this thread I can understand there being a refereeing mistake in this case. However 'no foul' is not a justifiable decision for this kind of challenge. I think just about everyone who has said 'no penalty' has mistakenly thought the ball was reached first.
Since you've now chosen to make it personal, I'm going to just leave it there.

Asking a question isn't making it personal, but I take by the answer you are a Leeds fan?

 

[CaptainsPlease]

RefWatch’s Dermot Gallagher praises the referee for a great non-penalty spot, backed up by Sue Smith, they both believe the defender played the ball.

Unfortunately I can't find any clip of this, but going from reports all Gallagher had to offer in justification was that the defender 'gets the ball' which we all know is a weak argument on its own.

 

[ladbroke8745]

Asking a question isn't making it personal, but I take by the answer you are a Leeds fan?

Will confess, I thought this too but never had the balls to ask as to me it's clear.
But questioned being ignored.

 

[CaptainsPlease]

Will confess, I thought this too but never had the balls to ask as to me it's clear.
But questioned being ignored.

Being ignored due to not being bothered to engage with ad hominems.
This has been helpful to see how some refs might assess tackles from behind differently from myself, but the arguments for it not having been awarded have been:

• Difficult to judge in real time (understandable, but doesn't make it not a foul)
• Ball reached first (objectively not true from the video)
• Ball reached at all (weak justification when considering a tackle from behind)
• Contact was slight (certainly enough to bring down the attacker, and also weak justification when considering a tackle from behind)

So we have an incorrect KMI decision, when the safer decision on tackles from behind that bring down the attacker would tend to be awarding a foul, which is why I called it a 'blunder'.

 

[ladbroke8745]

Being ignored due to not being bothered to engage with ad hominems.
This has been helpful to see how some refs might assess tackles from behind differently from myself, but the arguments for it not having been awarded have been:

• Difficult to judge in real time (understandable, but doesn't make it not a foul)
• Ball reached first (objectively not true from the video)
• Ball reached at all (weak justification when considering a tackle from behind)
• Contact was slight (certainly enough to bring down the attacker, and also weak justification when considering a tackle from behind)

So we have an incorrect KMI decision, when the safer decision on tackles from behind that bring down the attacker would tend to be awarding a foul, which is why I called it a 'blunder'.

It's being ignored because it's fact.
It's a simple question.
Everyone in the thread has given their opinion on the matter but you are arguing against it all.
As we all know, foul challenges are very much open to opinions, where people share their views and can see it from other people's perspective.
You, on the other hand, are making it out that you personally are hard done by. You are not accepting that, actually, the on field referee has made a decision with just 1 single look and came to the same conclusion that several on this forum have come to with multiple looks and angles.
It's not to say he was right, but plenty have given arguments for and against a penalty which, if I'm not mistaken, would make it a subjective call and one you'd probably see given in another game and have the same response like you have got in here - can see arguments for both given and not given.

But you're not accepting that as a response.

I actually think he did get to the ball first before the player. It's not a case of factual here as the angles and the quality of video (when zoomed in) are not that great. It is, for everyone, an opinion. Just like the onfield referee had.
In my opinion, the Leeds player moves his right leg over beyond the playing of the ball to initiate contact too. If he didn't, the defender would have almost definitely have made contact with the player first before the ball and that may have swayed more for a penalty.
Remember any contact in the area, whether we like it or not, will have a higher threshold than outside the area. It's as simple as that. Yes you might see it given on the half way line, but the subjective opinion of giving it on the half way (meaning, you could potentially be right or wrong) doesn't "almost" guarantee a goal by giving a penalty. By getting it "wrong" on the half way you're not effectively giving a goal (most penalties are scored), but getting it wrong in the area (if given) is much more costly (hence a higher threshold).

Question (and be completely honest here), would you be so hyped up on this if the incident happened at the other end of the pitch or would you be saying "good tackle"?

 

[RefereeX]

Being ignored due to not being bothered to engage with ad hominems.
This has been helpful to see how some refs might assess tackles from behind differently from myself, but the arguments for it not having been awarded have been:

• Difficult to judge in real time (understandable, but doesn't make it not a foul)
• Ball reached first (objectively not true from the video)
• Ball reached at all (weak justification when considering a tackle from behind)
• Contact was slight (certainly enough to bring down the attacker, and also weak justification when considering a tackle from behind)

So we have an incorrect KMI decision, when the safer decision on tackles from behind that bring down the attacker would tend to be awarding a foul, which is why I called it a 'blunder'.

I disagree that we can adjudge that the ball was objectively not reached first.
I think the issue surrounding 'are you a Leeds fan' comes less from the disagreement regarding the decision and more from the stating your opinion as fact.
No issue at all if you think it's a penalty, and presumably a DOGSO yellow? But to say everyone else is definitely wrong in their opinion will get peoples back up.

 

[CaptainsPlease]

It's being ignored because it's fact.
It's a simple question.
Everyone in the thread has given their opinion on the matter but you are arguing against it all.
As we all know, foul challenges are very much open to opinions, where people share their views and can see it from other people's perspective.
You, on the other hand, are making it out that you personally are hard done by. You are not accepting that, actually, the on field referee has made a decision with just 1 single look and came to the same conclusion that several on this forum have come to with multiple looks and angles.
It's not to say he was right, but plenty have given arguments for and against a penalty which, if I'm not mistaken, would make it a subjective call and one you'd probably see given in another game and have the same response like you have got in here - can see arguments for both given and not given.

But you're not accepting that as a response.

I actually think he did get to the ball first before the player. It's not a case of factual here as the angles and the quality of video (when zoomed in) are not that great. It is, for everyone, an opinion. Just like the onfield referee had.
In my opinion, the Leeds player moves his right leg over beyond the playing of the ball to initiate contact too. If he didn't, the defender would have almost definitely have made contact with the player first before the ball and that may have swayed more for a penalty.
Remember any contact in the area, whether we like it or not, will have a higher threshold than outside the area. It's as simple as that. Yes you might see it given on the half way line, but the subjective opinion of giving it on the half way (meaning, you could potentially be right or wrong) doesn't "almost" guarantee a goal by giving a penalty. By getting it "wrong" on the half way you're not effectively giving a goal (most penalties are scored), but getting it wrong in the area (if given) is much more costly (hence a higher threshold).

Question (and be completely honest here), would you be so hyped up on this if the incident happened at the other end of the pitch or would you be saying "good tackle"?

You'll probably find I have been similarly resolute in other threads - see Bournemouth v Newcastle recently, England v Switzerland in the Euros and the Doku - Mac Allister incident before that. The only particular difference I can see here is that I started this thread. I have also started threads criticising a decision that was in Leeds's favour (vs Leicester - Feb 2024) and praising a decision that went against Leeds (vs Preston - Dec 2023). Therefore you can take it that I would have been very likely to post this incident and criticised the decision if it had happened at the other end. Going for 'fan' is an ad hominem that just cheapens the whole debate and suggests that refs shouldn't bother posting about incidents involving the same team multiple times, else expect their opinions to be attacked just for potentially being a fan. In hindsight what I should have done was explain why I thought it was a blunder in the original post rather than assuming it would be obvious to everyone, which I clearly misjudged on this occasion.

I'm 100% satisfied having stepped through it frame by frame that any potential ball contact could not have preceded the player contact. I have shown the frame where player contact starts and there is no ball contact then, so I don't see where disagreement comes from.
I find it unlikely that the attacker initiated contact when he had an opportunity to shoot from close range or try to beat the other defender coming in.
The DOGSO-yellow law change has encouraged more risk taking by defenders in the penalty area and we should be wary of that. The defender knows that their best outcome is no foul and worst outcome is penalty + caution.

 

[DavidObs]

Being ignored due to not being bothered to engage with ad hominems.
This has been helpful to see how some refs might assess tackles from behind differently from myself, but the arguments for it not having been awarded have been:

• Difficult to judge in real time (understandable, but doesn't make it not a foul)
• Ball reached first (objectively not true from the video)
• Ball reached at all (weak justification when considering a tackle from behind)
• Contact was slight (certainly enough to bring down the attacker, and also weak justification when considering a tackle from behind)

So we have an incorrect KMI decision, when the safer decision on tackles from behind that bring down the attacker would tend to be awarding a foul, which is why I called it a 'blunder'.

It’s not an incorrect KMI because it’s a subjective decision. However, I agree with your last post (thread number 29).

 

[benmc]

It seems to me to be one of those wonderful "grey" decisions in football. No penalty is not wrong, and nor would the award of a penalty. These sort of decisions are exactly why I love the game.

VAR and the frame by frame analysis is not for me - it seems to be an attempt to make every decision binary.

 

[Brian Hamilton]

I'm glad this thread is still open.

I am a Leeds fan and I sit 10 rows from the front of one of the stands but close to the halfway line. I must also declare that I know the referee well and he is a good personal friend, even giving me a glowing reference that got me on to my teaching course 5 years ago. He refereed Leeds vs Valencia in our last pre-season game and gave a good account of himself.

When this incident occurred I didn't think it was a penalty as I clearly saw the ball change direction. I also thought the Leeds player emphasised his fall to the ground when he felt contact on the back of his legs. I discussed this with a friend who sits in front of me and he is also a former referee. He thought it wasn't a penalty based on player reaction more than anything else. The Leeds players saw the defender play the ball between Solomon's legs. As we both admitted to those who sit around us (they always ask our opinion), we are 70 yards further away than the referee and he had a better angle.

So, in summary, not a blunder, but certainly a decision that can be discussed civilly and alternate viewpoints made.

 

[RustyRef]

Being ignored due to not being bothered to engage with ad hominems.
This has been helpful to see how some refs might assess tackles from behind differently from myself, but the arguments for it not having been awarded have been:

• Difficult to judge in real time (understandable, but doesn't make it not a foul)
• Ball reached first (objectively not true from the video)
• Ball reached at all (weak justification when considering a tackle from behind)
• Contact was slight (certainly enough to bring down the attacker, and also weak justification when considering a tackle from behind)

So we have an incorrect KMI decision, when the safer decision on tackles from behind that bring down the attacker would tend to be awarding a foul, which is why I called it a 'blunder'.

You make interesting points, the difficulty is that you are ignoring the views of anyone else and no matter what is said you continue to refer to it as a blunder, and now an incorrect KMI decision. It is debatable, I've watched it repeatedly and I still think there is enough doubt to say no penalty is supportable.

What it absolutely isn't is a blunder or clear and obviously incorrect.

 

[Big Cat]

You'll probably find I have been similarly resolute in other threads - see Bournemouth v Newcastle recently, England v Switzerland in the Euros and the Doku - Mac Allister incident before that. The only particular difference I can see here is that I started this thread. I have also started threads criticising a decision that was in Leeds's favour (vs Leicester - Feb 2024) and praising a decision that went against Leeds (vs Preston - Dec 2023). Therefore you can take it that I would have been very likely to post this incident and criticised the decision if it had happened at the other end. Going for 'fan' is an ad hominem that just cheapens the whole debate and suggests that refs shouldn't bother posting about incidents involving the same team multiple times, else expect their opinions to be attacked just for potentially being a fan. In hindsight what I should have done was explain why I thought it was a blunder in the original post rather than assuming it would be obvious to everyone, which I clearly misjudged on this occasion.

I'm 100% satisfied having stepped through it frame by frame that any potential ball contact could not have preceded the player contact. I have shown the frame where player contact starts and there is no ball contact then, so I don't see where disagreement comes f
I find it unlikely that the attacker initiated contact when he had an opportunity to shoot from close range or try to beat the other defender coming in.
The DOGSO-yellow law change has encouraged more risk taking by defenders in the penalty area and we should be wary of that. The defender knows that their best outcome is no foul and worst outcome is penalty + caution.

I think you were wrong to have such blinkered view of this incident. But you shouldn't be conveniently fobbed off as 'a fan' because that claim is occasionally misused without just cause. Also, when your opinion is rubbished, it makes it difficult to see the alternative point of view. That said, it's not beyond the realms of possibility that I might very occasionally be forthright when dismissing opinions other than mine as complete and utter garbage!

 

[RefIADad]

My take after watching a few times and seeing the stills-in real time, I’d see myself giving a foul/penalty as I generally am strict on tackles from behind. In other words, unless I’m 100% sure ball was played and the attacker fell over the leg that plays the ball, I’m giving the foul.

However, in this case, I can easily see why a referee well-sighted and in good proximity would see this as no foul.

 

[RustyRef]

You make interesting points, the difficulty is that you are ignoring the views of anyone else and no matter what is said you continue to refer to it as a blunder, and now an incorrect KMI decision. It is debatable, I've watched it repeatedly and I still think there is enough doubt to say no penalty is supportable.

What it absolutely isn't is a blunder or clear and obviously incorrect.

I would say challenged rather than fobbed off. I'd like to think I am very subjective and honest even when a decision has gone against my own team, but still I don't trust myself to post until 24 - 48 hours after the game because I probably won't be subjective. It is just natural human behaviour, and is the reason we aren't allowed to officiate teams we support.

The challenge I raised here wasn't related to an opinion about it being a penalty as I respect that opinion, rather I don't believe it was a blunder or a terrible decision. That is how supporters refer to decisions and not looking at it as a referee has to look at it.