Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Ken Hairy

Kevin Friend

Recommended Posts

I must admit I didn't see any contact with the ball, so assumed it would get given as a pen by VAR. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, By Hook or Ian crook said:

Did you go to the game or watch it online? I had it on stream and the replay was shown 3-4 times and none of them looked like he got the ball on my stream

Online, 100% clearly got the ball. This isn't even a debate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ken Hairy said:

He clearly got the ball FFS 🙄

I haven't seen it but it doesn't matter if he got the ball. If getting the ball carries on to dangerously kicking/punching/etc a player then that is now deemed a foul. It can lead to absurd decisions, when players have to go for the ball, and do so genuinely, but end up also getting the player with the follow-through. On the pink un minute by minute Freezer said they all expected a red card when it went to VAR, for this reason - there was an 'Oh no' or such like interim comment - and were surprised and relived when it wasn't given.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ken Hairy said:

We're all (myself included) quick to slag off refs, but I thought he was outstanding today, didn't buy any of that nonsense from Burnley anytime they got near our box or be influenced by their moronic support shouting handball for everything. 

👍

I thought he did well too but krul punching vydja in the face looked a pen to me

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was a fifty fifty - Krul entitled to go for the ball - and he got contact with it as the Burnley player came in - it was brave goal kjeeping and both players could have got injured. How bad the Burnley player got hit is neither here nor there - it was no penalty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, glory.win or die. said:

I thought he did well too but krul punching vydja in the face looked a pen to me

Got the ball, never a pen 👍

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

I haven't seen it but it doesn't matter if he got the ball. If getting the ball carries on to dangerously kicking/punching/etc a player then that is now deemed a foul. It can lead to absurd decisions, when players have to go for the ball, and do so genuinely, but end up also getting the player with the follow-through. On the pink un minute by minute Freezer said they all expected a red card when it went to VAR, for this reason - there was an 'Oh no' or such like interim comment - and were surprised and relived when it wasn't given.

That's not correct, he punched the ball and did go through to Vydra, but it's never a penalty. Both commentators (although one was Greeno) said the correct decision was made, and they're right. Watch it and I'll be amazed if you don't agree, it's not a chance dangerous play. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Nope, that was legit. Looked very close from one angle that he may have hit Vydra first, which would have been a penalty. It was close, but he did hit the ball first. 

Same principle applies in tackles. Get the ball first, catch the opponent afterwards, you're generally fine unless you've made a completely separate movement. That was never the case there, it was clearly an unintended side-effect going through, and the key point is he played the ball first.

Correct VAR decision again. But it was a close one that went our way this time.

Edited by TheGunnShow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ken Hairy said:

That's not correct, he punched the ball and did go through to Vydra, but it's never a penalty. Both commentators (although one was Greeno) said the correct decision was made, and they're right. Watch it and I'll be amazed if you don't agree, it's not a chance dangerous play. 

If he got the ball and then connected with an opposition player, which is how you have described it, then that is potentially dangerous play and a red card. This is why players who slide in and get the ball but then get the man as well are being sent off.

It is true this is not being applied by all referees in all games to the same standard (in the summer Euros there were two almost identical situations in which one player got a red card and the other, whose offence was actually far more dangerous, didn’t even get a talking to) but the mantra that ‘they got the ball’ no longer applies.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Helsinki canary said:

Very good ref today, not a single VAR check and he didn’t take any BS from the burnley mob, crowd were on his back the whole game but he stood firm

Being at the ground I understood there were a number of VAR checks, but maybe I was mistaken, the Krul incident was definitely looked at.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, lake district canary said:

It was a fifty fifty - Krul entitled to go for the ball - and he got contact with it as the Burnley player came in - it was brave goal kjeeping and both players could have got injured. How bad the Burnley player got hit is neither here nor there - it was no penalty.

I am as biased as they come, hence why I thought Wood on Kabak and the one where Pukki was hauled back were red cards, however I can assure you the Tim Krul incident in real time looked a penalty and when I have just seen it on MOTD the player headed the ball and Krul clattered him. I suppose it’s swings and roundabouts last weeks I was gob smacked when VAR overruled, this week I was gob smacked VAR didn’t overrule.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been lucky enough to meet Kevin on a couple of occasions, he's a brilliant individual and a very good referee. He's reffed a number of our games in the past few seasons, always think he's one of the better ones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Also to add I think we were very fortunate not to concede the penalty. On first viewing I thought he'd missed the ball and the replays didn't change my thoughts. Thankfully VAR must have seen something I didn't!

Edited by AJ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I genuinely can't believe so many can't see Krul get the ball, there's one angle where it's as clear as day, well was on the stream I watched as Greeeno and the main commentator said. Maybe MOTD didn't show that angle? I didn't watch so don't know.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An excellent over refereeing performance. We were pretty close to giving away a penalty on several occasions but none were clear cut. I'd probably be a little annoyed if I was a Burnley fan though. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A friend in need is a friend indeed! Great performance from my favourite ref. He's a decent fella, unlike some of them.

In his earlier refereeing days it wasn't unheard of for him to be out in town after a game, looking for a pub that was showing rugby (He's a big Leicester Tigers fan). Too high profile for that now.

Worth noting that he was involved in the middle or on the line for our three pr-season friendlies the season before last (Atalanta etc). It's nice that we have good rapport with him and I am sure he respects the club. 

I wonder if it helps that he attended Taverham High School?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now catching up with MOTD, they do show the angle, the 2nd replay the showed, clear as anything Krul gets the ball first and they then collide into each other. Definitely no penalty 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Ken Hairy said:

Now catching up with MOTD, they do show the angle, the 2nd replay the showed, clear as anything Krul gets the ball first and they then collide into each other. Definitely no penalty 

I was watching the live stream on tv and could see already on the first replay that he punches the ball before the head. What else could Krul do ? Stand back and wave his hands in the air? The Burnley player went in where it hurts, thats his choice,  and it was nothing more than a 50:50 legitimate keeper v striker clash. Nothing to debate no penalty 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Too add, my only complaint was the ref didn’t book any Burnley players for blatant dives in the box. On VAR checks, seems there might if been a few but he was firm in his decisions and didn’t waste any time or make any extra drama by double checking on monitors 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No surprise to see Wright and Murphy both think its a penalty 😂. Murphy and Lineker both complimentary about our "tenacious" defending after conceding so many in previous games, as they said it's a start. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Helsinki canary said:

Too add, my only complaint was the ref didn’t book any Burnley players for blatant dives in the box. On VAR checks, seems there might if been a few but he was firm in his decisions and didn’t waste any time or make any extra drama by double checking on monitors 

Burnleys diving and general whining wound me up considering how vocal Dyche is against this. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Had the opinion before the replay that it was a penalty, based on Krul was walking to the ref and the saw the ref pointing to a corner suddenly turns round a runs back to goal looks a bit sheepish. I would say if it was Pope on Pukki we would all be saying it was a blatant penalty.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Baracouda said:

Had the opinion before the replay that it was a penalty, based on Krul was walking to the ref and the saw the ref pointing to a corner suddenly turns round a runs back to goal looks a bit sheepish. I would say if it was Pope on Pukki we would all be saying it was a blatant penalty.

 

We probably would, wouldn't make us right though, which we wouldn't be. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, PurpleCanary said:

If he got the ball and then connected with an opposition player, which is how you have described it, then that is potentially dangerous play and a red card. This is why players who slide in and get the ball but then get the man as well are being sent off.

It is true this is not being applied by all referees in all games to the same standard (in the summer Euros there were two almost identical situations in which one player got a red card and the other, whose offence was actually far more dangerous, didn’t even get a talking to) but the mantra that ‘they got the ball’ no longer applies.
 

LDC: It was a fifty fifty - Krul entitled to go for the ball - and he got contact with it as the Burnley player came in - it was brave goal keeping and both players could have got injured. How bad the Burnley player got hit is neither here nor there - it was no penalty.

There is still this misconception about this which is being repeated today. That (as LDC says there) if you get the ball if doesn't matter what happens after. This is from the pink un minute by minute from a fan and then Freezer, who had said at halftime he expected a red card when it went to VAR:

Good battle, City standing up to the challenge and striking a decent balance, but Krul lucky to survive the penalty call for clattering Vydra.

PerthYellow: Have to disagree with you there Mr Freezer, Krul had every right to go for the challenge with Vydra

He does and did get a good chunk of the ball but also did clatter Vydra. Surprised VAR didn't punish.

Edited by PurpleCanary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, PurpleCanary said:

He does and did get a good chunk of the ball but also did clatter Vydra. Surprised VAR didn't punish.

They clattered each other which is why VAR didn't intervene, so Lakey is, right on this one. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thought the must obvious penalty (considering VAR) they didn't even appeal for.  When Rodriquez air shot and the ball bouncing around, one of our players trying to kick the ball boots him straight in the back of the knee no where near the ball, if he had dived, its a decision VAR would have given. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought the ref had a very good game to be honest but one thing I did notice was how quickly he gave out yellow cards and the cynic in me did wonder whether that was a deliberate tactic to try and stop VAR intervening (ie ref saw it and deemed it a yellow so it’s not a clear and obvious error) as I do think that had he not given yellows for a couple of those Burnley fouls VAR might have intervened a a red card could have been part of the discussion. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
24 minutes ago, Baracouda said:

Thought the must obvious penalty (considering VAR) they didn't even appeal for.  When Rodriquez air shot and the ball bouncing around, one of our players trying to kick the ball boots him straight in the back of the knee no where near the ball, if he had dived, its a decision VAR would have given. 

The only one I was nervous about was a handball, can't remember who it was but he turned his back with his arm out, couldn't tell if it hit or not though. 

Edited by Ken Hairy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...