Ref Watch

[M12Blue]

They all claimed little if any contact was made....which is comical given the post match pictures that the player put up.

Was it a red? probably,but i can see why there was doubt too.

I can accept it not being a red, no intent just mistimed but no consistency and we know red if a blue did it. I think was it grealish that was cobbled was more deserving of a red

 

[Blue Til Death]

As far as I can remember VAR was brought in to stop the horrible game changing decisions that were being made by the on field ref.

What's changed? Besides all the tech and new jobs for the boys what has changed?

It’s made the enjoyment of the game worse and more easily corruptible mate, that’s the only change I’m seeing

 

[I'm Blue]

Unfortunately no. He was some way off the ball.

No idea why I thought that, just watched it again.
thought he clipped it first.
Both reds anyway.

 

[FantasyIreland]

No doubt for me. Straight red. And here's why. Think back to Aston Villa away last season....John Stones had a very, very similar tackle on Jacob Ramsey I think. Sent off for a high boot which was dangerous ....and rightly so in my opinion.

For Dermot Gallagher to now claim in Laporte's case that little contact was made or it was a glancing blow and was therefore only worthy of a yellow card is comical really. Tackles like that injure players. All we are asking for is consistency when incidents like this occur and the Stones incident last season set the precedent.

I thought the Stones challenge was reckless,and at a higher speed,but also not a red.It was manipulated via slow motion which made it look worse.

Officials,if not bent,must surely exist in their own little world.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

Ederson’s foul on Fraser @ Newcastle was a pen IMO. We got away with one there. He won the ball in the Odergaard incident, great if a little risky tackle.

Yes, if either were given there wouldn't have been much valid complaint, I don't think.
Ederson was moving forward when he collided with Fraser.
The Odergaard one was so close to simultaneous that it was definitely not a clear and obvious error.

 

[Len Rum]

Why was it a foul by the goalkeeper on Jota? You haven't even considered that it could have been a foul by Jota on the goalkeeper, and you have even said in your argument that Jota moved into the 'keeper.

Goalkeepers always have a lower center of gravity when challenging, because they are positioning themselves to be bigger, wider, and consequently lower to the ground. Any collision is likely to result in the attacker falling. Add some theatrics to the equation, such as the throwing of hands into the air, and the penalty question arises.

It was the same with Ederson v Odegard recently. Odegard stood on Ederson then went down, but there was still outcry for the penalty, at the time and ever since.

Goalkeepers do not have any special dispensation against fouling opponents.
The question for me in this incident is to what extent Jota 'bought' the foul.
I think he made a significant move towards the keeper and I personally wouldn't have given the pen but I can understand somebody else having a different opinion.
Also in these situations I think refs are less likely to give a pen if the player does not have control of the ball or if the direction of movement of the ball is away from the goal particularly if it's going out of play.

 

[Cassandra]

Ederson’s foul on Fraser @ Newcastle was a pen IMO. We got away with one there. He won the ball in the Odergaard incident, great if a little risky tackle.

The Ederson "foul" on Fraser is a complex one.
Basically the referee has three options:
A) It is a simple coming together;
B) It is a foul by Ederson;
C) It is a foul by Fraser.
If Cancello hadn't been involved then it would have been relatively easy to decide whichever of Ederson or Fraser was at fault - whoever played the ball first and before contacting the opponent would have "won" the challenge provided there was no malicious or reckless "afters". When Cancello took the ball away both Ederson and Fraser were committed to playing the ball and had little opportunity to alter course. Neither in my view made a deliberate attempt to cause the collision once the ball had gone, though you could argue that Fraser was better placed to take avoiding action, and in fairness he did avoid standing on Ederson. If you are going to choose options B) or C) then you have to be pretty certain who would have got to the ball first ..........

 

[MillionMilesAway]

The Ederson "foul" on Fraser is a complex one.
Basically the referee has three options:
A) It is a simple coming together;
B) It is a foul by Ederson;
C) It is a foul by Fraser.
If Cancello hadn't been involved then it would have been relatively easy to decide whichever of Ederson or Fraser was at fault - whoever played the ball first and before contacting the opponent would have "won" the challenge provided there was no malicious or reckless "afters". When Cancello took the ball away both Ederson and Fraser were committed to playing the ball and had little opportunity to alter course. Neither in my view made a deliberate attempt to cause the collision once the ball had gone, though you could argue that Fraser was better placed to take avoiding action, and in fairness he did avoid standing on Ederson. If you are going to choose options B) or C) then you have to be pretty certain who would have got to the ball first ..........

I think that argument doesn't hold up. Getting to the ball is irrelevant.

The part of law that I think would apply is "A direct free kick is awarded if a player commits any of the following offences:..
• impedes an opponent with contact."

I thought Ederson arrived late and collided with Fraser after Fraser had turned to follow Cancelo. I think that it would be a fair interpretation that Ederson impeded Fraser by doing so, prevented him having a chance to get to the ball, and that it was a foul.
Presumably, the ref decided that either it was a 50/50 collision, or that they were too far from the ball for there to be any meaningful impeding (I think it fair to assume that the chance of interfering is considered).

 

[Colin Bells Boots]

Goalkeepers do not have any special dispensation against fouling opponents.
The question for me in this incident is to what extent Jota 'bought' the foul.
I think he made a significant move towards the keeper and personally wouldn't have given the pen but I can understand somebody else having a different opinion.
Also in these situations I think refs are less likely to give a pen if the player does not have control of the ball or if the direction of movement of the ball is away from the goal particularly if it's going out of play.

Not didn't have control of the ball and moved deliberately towards the keeper in an attempt to get the penalty imo.

The ref was right initially and the imbecile or dipper on VAR got it totally wrong.

Between them they seriously fucked up, but the dippers got an unfair advantage .

 

[Gray]

The ref was wrong, Fraser never initiated contact. Ederson did. And nowhere in the laws does it state it cant be a foul as Fraser wasnt in control of the ball. Many fouls are given without control of the ball. Got very lucky there, nevermind a 50/50 going our way.

Wolves Pen shouldnt have been a pen, hitting his armpit. And without VAR we would likely have been beaten by Southampton, with a pen awarded to them and Walker a Red card initially before VAR intervened.

So thats 3 major decisions gone for us. No doubt we've had some bad ones but its not all one way

I take issue with you on the Wolves game, we had a clear cut penalty ignored in the first half. For me the contentious penalty made up for the officials balls-up in the first half, perhaps that was praying on his mind?