How on earth?

[lake district canary 4,823]

......is that a penalty? (Liverpool). 

Unbelievable.

 

[canarydan23 4,758]

9 hours ago, lake district canary said:

......is that a penalty? (Liverpool). 

Unbelievable.

 

And yet entirely believable in the context of football today.

More disappointing than the decision is that some "fans" will actually defend it.

[Hucks6 186]

Big clubs always get the rub of the green

[lake district canary 4,823]

It wasn't even unclear - the defender moved towards the goalkeeper to make it look like a foul. On the replay it was obvious. What the ref was seeing, I really don't know.

[canarydan23 4,758]

49 minutes ago, lake district canary said:

It wasn't even unclear - the defender moved towards the goalkeeper to make it look like a foul. On the replay it was obvious. What the ref was seeing, I really don't know.

Not just the ref Lakey. A muppet in an office has looked at that on TV and decided the on-field referee should take a look at it. The on-field referee, the consistently woeful Kevin Friend, then took a look and decided it was a penalty.

There is no way on God's green earth that two individuals can look at that objectively and think it was a penalty. Absolutely no way. It doesn't matter how grossly incompetent people are (and these people have proved to be close to Tory Government Minister levels of competence), you cannot look at that with neutral eyes and call a penalty.

Yet two people did exactly that.

[Ken Hairy 4,272]

Don't worry Gunny will be along shortly to tell us how it's a stonewall penalty 👍😏😉

[lake district canary 4,823]

30 minutes ago, canarydan23 said:

Not just the ref Lakey. A muppet in an office has looked at that on TV and decided the on-field referee should take a look at it. The on-field referee, the consistently woeful Kevin Friend, then took a look and decided it was a penalty.

There is no way on God's green earth that two individuals can look at that objectively and think it was a penalty. Absolutely no way. It doesn't matter how grossly incompetent people are (and these people have proved to be close to Tory Government Minister levels of competence), you cannot look at that with neutral eyes and call a penalty.

Yet two people did exactly that.

It beggars belief. I can only presume that in trying to make a quick decision, between them they just f*cked up. It just goes to prove that all having a var official does is add another level of incompetence to a situation. 

[canarydan23 4,758]

1 minute ago, lake district canary said:

It beggars belief. I can only presume that in trying to make a quick decision, between them they just f*cked up. It just goes to prove that all having a var official does is add another level of incompetence to a situation. 

They're marking their own homework. VAR was needed because of the incompetence of referees. Letting those incompetent referees have it was never going to work. I'm no builder; whether you give me a rudimentary set of tools and materials or furnish me with the finest, most technologically advanced tools going, I'm not going to build you a safe and sturdy house.

[East Rider 589]

Not a penalty in a million years.

In fact rather than enforcing it being a possible penalty in slow motion reply (which often happens), the slow replays show the attacker missed the ball due to it's speed and then headed for the keeper. Enforcing the belief it was not a pen

The blame lies at the door of the VAR official. He would have had time and lack of pressure to make the right decision. He failed.

Why he failed is a mystery indeed. Lucky Liverpool

Edited January 24, 2022 by East Rider

[rondy 7]

X

Edited April 7 by rondy

[TheGunnShow 7,376]

I can see why Friend would just want a second look as there was fairly substantial contact in the grand scheme of things. Yes, Guaita was careless, the fact he was trying to pull out is an irrelevance, and yes, there was very clear contact. But the contact was initiated by Jota running towards Guaita as he tried to pull out, not due to being impeded by Guaita in trying to pull out.

That not inconsiderable change in direction from Jota to essentially run into Guaita though is what has me a bit bemused re. their thought processes. I would have understood this perfectly if the referee had given the penalty to start with, then used VAR to overrule it, not the other way around.

This, IMO, is a classic example of two things:

1. Frame-by-frame refereeing providing a different picture to a holistic view of a phase of play. If you look at the initial contact where Guaita is nowhere near the ball and makes contact with Jota, it looks stick-on. Look at the whole thing, where Jota changes direction considerably.... it looks totally different.

2. A case where the letter of the law and the spirit of the law yield two entirely different outcomes.

[Google Bot 3,927]

39 minutes ago, East Rider said:

In fact rather than enforcing it being a possible penalty in slow motion reply (which often happens), the slow replays show the attacker missed the ball due to it's speed and then headed for the keeper. Enforcing the belief it was not a pen

The truth of the matter is that Jota planned to lift the ball over the keeper and then run straight into him to get a Pen,  i.e. looking at exploiting the rules rather than a genuine attempt on goal.

Trouble is, He was too focused on his next move to run into the keeper that he mis-kicked the ball and therefore lost control. 

Now, what's interesting is that if he did get a touch and lifted the ball over the keeper it's a stonewall pen - because the game is all about getting first touch and then diving - it's routinely rewarded so players exploit it. 

But fact that he's failed to exploit the rules and still been rewarded the pen is just incredibly dumb.  They should've awarded a foul on the keeper in my eyes to set an example - what if Jota's lead arm knocked his teeth out?  He's the one who's intending to collide, Keeper is pulling out 

Could it not be construed as being dangerous play if part of your plan is to run directly into a players head with your arm protecting you to seek an advantage?

Edited January 24, 2022 by Google Bot

[Thirsty Lizard 3,215]

This decision is equally as bad as the one where they awarded Man Utd a penalty against us in 2018/19 when James barged into Godfrey in the box and went down waving his arms around. VAR was still relatively new then so although that decision was appalling it was a little more understandable. To get a decision like yesterday's so wrong almost beggars belief. 

[keelansgrandad 6,680]

Thing is Lakey, haven't we been saying things like that since any of us first went to a game? VAR has done nothing to change that. All it has done is pished off supporters. Supporters who are becoming the least important part of football.

Only goal line technology has been a success.

[Google Bot 3,927]

I knew VAR was a pile of ****e the minute this happened vs Spurs in that first season.

Show that to anyone pre VAR and it would never be deemed that Pukki in any way has got an advantage or being offside.  Just punishing a great run.  Then they routinely reward cheaters, it winds me up, really it does.  Best not to think about it really.

[lake district canary 4,823]

1 minute ago, Google Bot said:

I knew VAR was a pile of ****e the minute this happened vs Spurs in that first season.

Show that to anyone pre VAR and it would never be deemed that Pukki in any way has got an advantage or being offside.  Just punishing a great run.  Then they routinely reward cheaters, it winds me up, really it does.  Best not to think about it really.

Yes. A travesty that still gets to me too. From that picture alone, you can see the defender is ahead of Pukki....but like you say, best not to think about it!

[Worthy Nigelton 1,299]

Never a pen. No way are we getting that decision ever.