Ref Watch
- Thread starter Chi-town blues
- Start date
It does make you wonder what some people watch. Its as clear a foul as you will ever see.
Just like the Rashford incident, the Ederson pen at Arsenal and now this Partey one. Decisions you will never see anywhere else in the league!!
How is Partey’s 6 studs impacting Kev’s ankle first debatable? Its clearly shown below.
Its clearly an awful call by both the ref and the var!
Attachments
JRockBlues
Well-Known Member
Surely to shield the ball you must be in control of it first? Partey is attempting to do this from the side and cutting across Kev's natural forward motion. Has to be a pen!
Saddleworth2
Well-Known Member
That’s not what the photo shows though. At that angle Parteys foot might be a foot away. See the screenshot I posted for more accurate picture of the situation.
Plain Speaking
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Dec 2010
- Messages
- 5,208
I believe the screenshot you chose and your description are potentially misleading. The photo is taken from behind and shows Partey's boot moving. From looking at all the angles multiple times as freeze frames, I believe Partey doesn't actually 'plant any studs into Kev’s ankle ' but he plants his foot in the space between Kev’s feet and his studs are in the ground as the photo attached.
Partey seems to be trying to shield the ball and is kicked by Kevin, I can understand both sides, either: a legitimate attempt to shield the ball, or an unfair interference by Partey and therefore a penalty.
The incident is very quick and a very close call and could have gone either way. it demonstrates what a difficult job VAR can have, when it's being discussed days later! It's important to respect other posters this is not necessarily a black or white call and it depends on your interpretation.
zandvoort blue
Well-Known Member
Well - let`s see what Dermot says - I`m going no Pen, great decision
Just watching it now. The bald twat just said Oliver showed amazing composure by correctly not giving the pen and set the tone for the rest of the game
Sibierskii
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 2 Sep 2020
- Messages
- 2,568
Good old Dermot. Correct decision and 'what a referee'.
INDEEDY DEEDY
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 30 Aug 2017
- Messages
- 145
I think the basic problem with Oliver is that he lacks the balls to make big decisions. I remember the 2016 League Cup Final v Dippers when he denied us a blatant penalty for a foul on Sterling. On Weds he chose to not give us a stonewall penalty and he chose not to show an obvious second yellow to Partey, fact. The implication is that by not wanting to make the correct decision, he is in fact, not doing his job correctly. In my opinion he lacks honesty, which is another way of saying he is corrupt - there I said it : ).
I think it's mad that our refs are interpreting shielding a ball as only about being within playing distance of the ball. That is lunacy.
Imagine this interpretation leading to all kinds of new desparate lunges from defenders, jumping into or in front of attackers under the banner of "shielding", just because they may or may not be deemed within playing distance of the ball!
Shielding of course is a bona fide way of protecting the ball but please don't try and tell us what partey did can ever be construed as shielding.
It was a desperate lunge into kevs space to prevent him pulling the trigger on a shot.
Clear penalty
Imagine this interpretation leading to all kinds of new desparate lunges from defenders, jumping into or in front of attackers under the banner of "shielding", just because they may or may not be deemed within playing distance of the ball!
Shielding of course is a bona fide way of protecting the ball but please don't try and tell us what partey did can ever be construed as shielding.
It was a desperate lunge into kevs space to prevent him pulling the trigger on a shot.
Clear penalty
Behind is the best angle. And the one the referee had live. The picture i shared was the initial contact. The picture you show, still confirms its a foul by Partey.
You are 100% wrong in your assumption as initial contact was by Partey as is clearly shown in both pics
Once initial contact is made in my pic, things dont stand still as both players are moving at pace. Hence the second pic his boot is in contact with kev’s boot and the floor
You cant shield a ball by making contact with another player. Read the law
We’ve had players sent off for much less
Otherwise spot on!!
Last edited:
Its little wonder the games in the mess it is when you hear the thought process which Dermot and other refs have.
There will be another identical incident, a pen will be given obviously and Dermot will be trotted out and say correct decision. They are a laughing stock!!
bluesince76
Well-Known Member
I can see both sides of the argument of the Partey challenge on Kev, and the debate suggests it can't be a clear and obvious error, so perhaps not one for VAR.
It does show why the discussion between the referee and VAR needs to be available to broadcasters though, as if we could hear Oliver say I think Partey gets his leg between Kev and the ball and then Kev kicks him, you'd expect VAR to agree and not therefore send him to have a look. As it is, we've no idea what's being discussed, even the players can't get the VAR reasoning, which at a minimum leaves it open to abuse and corruption. Although they're probably concerned you'd have heard Oliver shouting "C'mon Arsenal"
It does show why the discussion between the referee and VAR needs to be available to broadcasters though, as if we could hear Oliver say I think Partey gets his leg between Kev and the ball and then Kev kicks him, you'd expect VAR to agree and not therefore send him to have a look. As it is, we've no idea what's being discussed, even the players can't get the VAR reasoning, which at a minimum leaves it open to abuse and corruption. Although they're probably concerned you'd have heard Oliver shouting "C'mon Arsenal"
SebastianBlue
President, International Julian Alvarez Fan Club
- Joined
- 25 Jul 2009
- Messages
- 57,736
And of course, Sky completely ignores the Partey challenge on Kev in in Ref Watch, choosing only to discuss the “Dias kick out”, just to say it wasn’t violent conduct.
Over the last 5 PL seasons (including this one) we've been awarded 41 penalties and conceded 23.
So we get given 1.8 penalties for every 1 against.
During the same period we've scored 461 goals and conceded 145. A ratio of 3.2 : 1
How is it possible for a side to be so dominant in terms of goals but nowhere near that when it comes to penalties? Over a 5 year time period, this HAS to be bias.
It's actually worse when you consider that the goals conceded total includes goals from all those penalties against us which by this argument shouldn't have been awarded.
To put it another way: if we were awarded penalties at the same ratio as our goalscoring, we'd get around 15 every season. Just in the PL.
So we get given 1.8 penalties for every 1 against.
During the same period we've scored 461 goals and conceded 145. A ratio of 3.2 : 1
How is it possible for a side to be so dominant in terms of goals but nowhere near that when it comes to penalties? Over a 5 year time period, this HAS to be bias.
It's actually worse when you consider that the goals conceded total includes goals from all those penalties against us which by this argument shouldn't have been awarded.
To put it another way: if we were awarded penalties at the same ratio as our goalscoring, we'd get around 15 every season. Just in the PL.
I assume they did not show the laughable non 2nd yellow either for the Rugby tackle
SebastianBlue
President, International Julian Alvarez Fan Club
- Joined
- 25 Jul 2009
- Messages
- 57,736
They did not.