| Let’s talk about the penalty incident from Saturday… 10:45 - Oct 21 with 5212 views | SitfcB |
Just wanted to get some other views/opinions of it?
I after watching the replays and MOTD yesterday I have to agree with what McKenna said (below) yes JC kicked DMcN’s leg but he only kicked it because he came in and blocked him off, it wasn’t one of those ‘coming together’ kicks nor do I think it’s the exact replica of the Burn/DCL one from a few weeks back.
But forgetting all that, it wasn’t a clear and obvious error and the refs call should’ve been used.
“My view of it was exactly as I saw it at the time and I find it inexplicable how it can be overruled, it’s inexplicable how you could debate the penalty,” McKenna said when asked how he saw the incident.
“At the time, it looked like a penalty, it felt like a penalty. Of course, I’m seeing that through an Ipswich lens, but Jack dribbles a couple of players into the box, he’s about to shoot, there’s every chance it’s a goal, and Dwight McNeil lunges across the line of the ball right when he’s on his back-swing.
“Of course, you can say then that Jack’s foot is what strikes Dwight McNeil, but Dwight McNeil lunges across the line of the ball in the penalty area, which I don’t think you can do as a defender. He hasn’t touched the ball, he probably hasn’t even made an attempt to play the ball, he’s stopped Jack taking his shot.
“I think it’s a penalty, I understand how it’s one you could possibly debate but what I can’t understand is how all the directives we’ve had and everything that I’ve experienced so far are that unless it’s a clear an obvious error, then it won’t be reviewed, the referee’s decision on field will stand for a good reason because the referee has the best view and the referee can also feel the action at full speed.
“I think it’s a really poor decision for that to be identified as a clear and obvious error. I spoke to Michael downstairs on it, we had a respectful conversation”
To be honest, he saw it as I saw it, it’s a debatable action. We both agreed that Dwight O’Neil stepped across the line of the ball as Jack Clarke’s about to shoot and he agreed that I’ll think it’s a penalty and [Everton manager] Sean [Dyche] probably won’t think it’s a penalty, but it’s at least a debatable decision, so it doesn’t fall in the category of a clear and obvious [error and] so I don’t understand why it’s been [overruled].
“I think it’s disappointing and I think everyone who knows me knows I very rarely speak about referees, I don’t want to spend much of the season talking about VAR. It’s one thing I am conscious of at the club because I don’t do it, it can’t stand against the club, as against other clubs and other teams who do speak about it a lot.
“That’s the only thing I’m conscious of at the moment but I think we had a really poor one go against us today.”
McKenna agreed that referees should have the strength to stand by their decisions: “That would be my perspective. I spoke to Michael about it downstairs and his reflection was that it’s very difficult when you’re hearing in your ear, ‘OK, this is what we’re seeing, Jack Clarke has struck the back of Dwight [McNeil’s leg]’, he said when that’s being fed into your ear, it’s very difficult to go against that, but he still agreed it was a debatable decision.
“So in that instance, for me, again it’s not something I’ve too much interest in talking about apart from protecting the club, but I think it’s one where he shouldn’t be putting that decision by the VAR.
“I think he felt the right decision in the game from a good position at full speed and there’s nothing that I’ve seen, and I’ve watched a lot of replays and a lot of angles, that you could tell me that it’s clear that it was the wrong decision.”
|  |
| |  |
| Let’s talk about the penalty incident from Saturday… on 10:50 - Oct 21 with 3435 views | itfcjoe |
McKenna is, as usual, correct.
This is the wording from the PL website:
For subjective penalty decisions, such as for a foul or for a handball, the referee will confirm their decision to the VAR and what they have seen - "Referee's Call".
The VAR will look to identify through evidence readily available if there was a “clear and obvious error”.
If the evidence readily available to the VAR from the broadcast footage shows that the referee's on-field call is a clearly and obviously wrong, the VAR can recommend the on-field referee goes to the pitchside monitor to review.
https://www.premierleague.com/news/1300076
I can see that the penalty was debateable, that some will come down on one side and some the other - but I can't believe anyone would say it is a 'clear and obvious error' in it's own right.
I've been called a biased clown in the comments of last nights Blue Monday from some moron who doesn't understand the rules as I went pretty big on this...! |  |
| |
| Let’s talk about the penalty incident from Saturday… on 10:52 - Oct 21 with 3404 views | bluejacko |
Clarke was fouled just before that,he was kicked but he carried on instead off going down! |  | | |
| Let’s talk about the penalty incident from Saturday… on 10:52 - Oct 21 with 3398 views | FrimleyBlue |
I don't get why it wasn't given
Yes Clarke was going down. But he would have hit the ball with his right foot anyway if the Everton defender didn't put his leg in the way. That leg didn't touch the ball. So imo he stopped clarke having a shot and should therefore be a pen. |  |
| |
| Let’s talk about the penalty incident from Saturday… on 10:52 - Oct 21 with 3389 views | LittleBoyBlue1 |
For me it was identical to the DCL Burn one and it's nice to see consistency of refereeing even though it hurt us.
What I think we do need to do is stop using language like "overruled" or "overturned".
VAR _reccomended_ a second look and Oliver changed his mind. He wasn't overruled or told to do anything. It was Oliver's decision to give the penalty and then Oliver's alone to withdraw it. There's no overturning by VAR except in the case of offsides [Post edited 21 Oct 2024 10:53]
| | | |
| Let’s talk about the penalty incident from Saturday… on 10:55 - Oct 21 with 3339 views | LittleBoyBlue1 |
| Let’s talk about the penalty incident from Saturday… on 10:52 - Oct 21 by FrimleyBlue |
I don't get why it wasn't given
Yes Clarke was going down. But he would have hit the ball with his right foot anyway if the Everton defender didn't put his leg in the way. That leg didn't touch the ball. So imo he stopped clarke having a shot and should therefore be a pen. |
You can't go around kicking legs just because the leg you're kicking is touching a ball.
A kick is a foul, always has been. | | | |
| Let’s talk about the penalty incident from Saturday… on 10:55 - Oct 21 with 3343 views | itfcjoe |
| Let’s talk about the penalty incident from Saturday… on 10:52 - Oct 21 by LittleBoyBlue1 |
For me it was identical to the DCL Burn one and it's nice to see consistency of refereeing even though it hurt us.
What I think we do need to do is stop using language like "overruled" or "overturned".
VAR _reccomended_ a second look and Oliver changed his mind. He wasn't overruled or told to do anything. It was Oliver's decision to give the penalty and then Oliver's alone to withdraw it. There's no overturning by VAR except in the case of offsides [Post edited 21 Oct 2024 10:53]
|
VAR should only recommend it is looked at again if it is 'clearly and obviously wrong', which I don't think it was.
Even when ref goes to look at it, it takes 10-15 replays, back and forth, with someone in his ear etc so it's not like he doesn't have pressure to change his mind | |
| |
| Let’s talk about the penalty incident from Saturday… on 10:56 - Oct 21 with 3317 views | SitfcB |
| Let’s talk about the penalty incident from Saturday… on 10:52 - Oct 21 by LittleBoyBlue1 |
For me it was identical to the DCL Burn one and it's nice to see consistency of refereeing even though it hurt us.
What I think we do need to do is stop using language like "overruled" or "overturned".
VAR _reccomended_ a second look and Oliver changed his mind. He wasn't overruled or told to do anything. It was Oliver's decision to give the penalty and then Oliver's alone to withdraw it. There's no overturning by VAR except in the case of offsides [Post edited 21 Oct 2024 10:53]
|
Oliver effectively said it’s hard to stay with your decision when they’re in your ear saying this and that but he should’ve stood his ground and applied the rules. | |
| |
| Let’s talk about the penalty incident from Saturday… on 10:58 - Oct 21 with 3288 views | LittleBoyBlue1 |
| Let’s talk about the penalty incident from Saturday… on 10:56 - Oct 21 by SitfcB |
Oliver effectively said it’s hard to stay with your decision when they’re in your ear saying this and that but he should’ve stood his ground and applied the rules. |
Yes we can have a conversation about Oliver's strength of conviction but ultimately it wasn't overruled, he changed his mind when presented with the evidence | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Let’s talk about the penalty incident from Saturday… on 10:58 - Oct 21 with 3284 views | Marshalls_Mullet |
I think DM had 'control' of the ball, he appeared to have intercepted it / laid it off.
JC had taken too long and kicked his leg.
So I don't think it was a pen, but also it wasn't a clear and obvious error.
However, I don't let myself get too stressed about these things. |  |
| |
| Let’s talk about the penalty incident from Saturday… on 11:00 - Oct 21 with 3234 views | SitfcB |
| Let’s talk about the penalty incident from Saturday… on 10:50 - Oct 21 by itfcjoe |
McKenna is, as usual, correct.
This is the wording from the PL website:
For subjective penalty decisions, such as for a foul or for a handball, the referee will confirm their decision to the VAR and what they have seen - "Referee's Call".
The VAR will look to identify through evidence readily available if there was a “clear and obvious error”.
If the evidence readily available to the VAR from the broadcast footage shows that the referee's on-field call is a clearly and obviously wrong, the VAR can recommend the on-field referee goes to the pitchside monitor to review.
https://www.premierleague.com/news/1300076
I can see that the penalty was debateable, that some will come down on one side and some the other - but I can't believe anyone would say it is a 'clear and obvious error' in it's own right.
I've been called a biased clown in the comments of last nights Blue Monday from some moron who doesn't understand the rules as I went pretty big on this...! |
Exactly that, Howard Webb always says VAR isn’t there to re-referee games yet this is an example of it being used for that.
Bet you’ve been called worse!  He would feel silly if he actually researches the ‘rules’. | |
| |
| Let’s talk about the penalty incident from Saturday… on 11:01 - Oct 21 with 3193 views | GlasgowBlue |
| Let’s talk about the penalty incident from Saturday… on 10:50 - Oct 21 by itfcjoe |
McKenna is, as usual, correct.
This is the wording from the PL website:
For subjective penalty decisions, such as for a foul or for a handball, the referee will confirm their decision to the VAR and what they have seen - "Referee's Call".
The VAR will look to identify through evidence readily available if there was a “clear and obvious error”.
If the evidence readily available to the VAR from the broadcast footage shows that the referee's on-field call is a clearly and obviously wrong, the VAR can recommend the on-field referee goes to the pitchside monitor to review.
https://www.premierleague.com/news/1300076
I can see that the penalty was debateable, that some will come down on one side and some the other - but I can't believe anyone would say it is a 'clear and obvious error' in it's own right.
I've been called a biased clown in the comments of last nights Blue Monday from some moron who doesn't understand the rules as I went pretty big on this...! |
Try telling that to Ben Bloom 😀😛 |  |
| |
| Let’s talk about the penalty incident from Saturday… on 11:02 - Oct 21 with 3189 views | andytown |
| Let’s talk about the penalty incident from Saturday… on 10:55 - Oct 21 by LittleBoyBlue1 |
You can't go around kicking legs just because the leg you're kicking is touching a ball.
A kick is a foul, always has been. |
But O Neil’s leg wasn’t touching the ball as far as I can see. | | | |
| Let’s talk about the penalty incident from Saturday… on 11:02 - Oct 21 with 3166 views | LittleBoyBlue1 |
| Let’s talk about the penalty incident from Saturday… on 10:55 - Oct 21 by itfcjoe |
VAR should only recommend it is looked at again if it is 'clearly and obviously wrong', which I don't think it was.
Even when ref goes to look at it, it takes 10-15 replays, back and forth, with someone in his ear etc so it's not like he doesn't have pressure to change his mind |
I personally think it was clearly wrong given the precedent set in the Newcastle game.
If the same event gets given in different directions then we've a big problem when it comes to refereeing consistency.
If you think the Everton Newcastle one was wrong too then that's fine. They're both wrong. But by not recommending a review of Clarke's event it's an admission of error (rightly or wrongly) for the Everton Newcastle one, which they clearly don't think they got wrong at the time.
MOTD said as much so this is starting to look a bit like Ipswich fans think they should've had a penalty, nobody else in the footballing world does.
I know we're struggling but let's not lose our heads. | | | |
| Let’s talk about the penalty incident from Saturday… on 11:04 - Oct 21 with 3137 views | LittleBoyBlue1 |
| Let’s talk about the penalty incident from Saturday… on 11:02 - Oct 21 by andytown |
But O Neil’s leg wasn’t touching the ball as far as I can see. |
Which still wouldn't make kicking someone okay | | | |
| Let’s talk about the penalty incident from Saturday… on 11:05 - Oct 21 with 3128 views | andytown |
| Let’s talk about the penalty incident from Saturday… on 11:04 - Oct 21 by LittleBoyBlue1 |
Which still wouldn't make kicking someone okay |
Sorry, I wasn’t clear. O Neil put his leg in the way without getting anywhere near the ball, so what is Clarke supposed to do? | | | |
| Let’s talk about the penalty incident from Saturday… on 11:08 - Oct 21 with 3091 views | LittleBoyBlue1 |
| Let’s talk about the penalty incident from Saturday… on 11:05 - Oct 21 by andytown |
Sorry, I wasn’t clear. O Neil put his leg in the way without getting anywhere near the ball, so what is Clarke supposed to do? |
Not kick a player shielding the ball? | | | |
| Let’s talk about the penalty incident from Saturday… on 11:14 - Oct 21 with 3046 views | soupytwist |
| Let’s talk about the penalty incident from Saturday… on 10:50 - Oct 21 by itfcjoe |
McKenna is, as usual, correct.
This is the wording from the PL website:
For subjective penalty decisions, such as for a foul or for a handball, the referee will confirm their decision to the VAR and what they have seen - "Referee's Call".
The VAR will look to identify through evidence readily available if there was a “clear and obvious error”.
If the evidence readily available to the VAR from the broadcast footage shows that the referee's on-field call is a clearly and obviously wrong, the VAR can recommend the on-field referee goes to the pitchside monitor to review.
https://www.premierleague.com/news/1300076
I can see that the penalty was debateable, that some will come down on one side and some the other - but I can't believe anyone would say it is a 'clear and obvious error' in it's own right.
I've been called a biased clown in the comments of last nights Blue Monday from some moron who doesn't understand the rules as I went pretty big on this...! |
So the VAR 'recommends" that the on-field ref goers to the screen to watch it again. Presumably the on-field ref can say "No thanks, I'm happy with my decision".
Of course, no on-field ref ever does that so the wording should be changed to make clear that the on-field ref doesn't have a choice about following the "recommendation".
Presumably in this case the “clear and obvious error” is the fact that Jack Clarke kicked the Everton player, which as we've had pointed out to us on this thread is not allowed. But there's no consideration of the context in that McNeil placed his leg where it would inevitably be kicked with no chance of getting the ball. |  | | |
| Let’s talk about the penalty incident from Saturday… on 11:20 - Oct 21 with 2960 views | LittleBoyBlue1 |
| Let’s talk about the penalty incident from Saturday… on 11:14 - Oct 21 by soupytwist |
So the VAR 'recommends" that the on-field ref goers to the screen to watch it again. Presumably the on-field ref can say "No thanks, I'm happy with my decision".
Of course, no on-field ref ever does that so the wording should be changed to make clear that the on-field ref doesn't have a choice about following the "recommendation".
Presumably in this case the “clear and obvious error” is the fact that Jack Clarke kicked the Everton player, which as we've had pointed out to us on this thread is not allowed. But there's no consideration of the context in that McNeil placed his leg where it would inevitably be kicked with no chance of getting the ball. |
It does happen that on field refs stick to their decision.
Albeit very occasionally | | | |
| Let’s talk about the penalty incident from Saturday… on 11:20 - Oct 21 with 2963 views | rickw |
As far as I can see McNeil didn't get the ball and stopped Clarke getting the ball, so penalty.
If it can be proved McNeil got the ball then it should be no penalty.
Saying Clarke kicked McNeil is daft to me, surely by that logic you can say for every trip the tripped player kicked the player sticking his leg out! |  |
| |
| Let’s talk about the penalty incident from Saturday… on 11:22 - Oct 21 with 2945 views | HighgateBlue |
| Let’s talk about the penalty incident from Saturday… on 10:52 - Oct 21 by FrimleyBlue |
I don't get why it wasn't given
Yes Clarke was going down. But he would have hit the ball with his right foot anyway if the Everton defender didn't put his leg in the way. That leg didn't touch the ball. So imo he stopped clarke having a shot and should therefore be a pen. |
Personally I don't think the defender "impedes an opponent with contact", which seems to me to be the closest part of the law to the situation (although those who argue that it was a penalty seldom seem to make their point by reference to the actual law).
I think Clarke kicks him. Not Clarke's fault, clearly, but I think he kicks him. I don't think the defender impedes him with contact, I think he stops his progress simply by being somewhere that Clarke would rather he wasn't.
I'm surprised nobody has argued that it's an indirect freekick. The distinction between an indirect free kick and a penalty in "impeding" situations turns on whether the offence is committed with contact. For my money, Clarke is the one who causes the contact, and therefore no penalty for me. But if the defender has already impeded him, one could argue indirect freekick. This would depend on whether the ball is within playing distance or not. See law 12 in all its glory. For my money, no pen, and no free kick to Town.
I think this portion of the law is relevant:
"A player may shield the ball by taking a position between an opponent and the ball if the ball is within playing distance and the opponent is not held off with the arms or body. If the ball is within playing distance, the player may be fairly charged by an opponent."
I think the ball is in playing distance for both players when the defender's foot goes down. I think he takes a position between Clarke and the ball. I don't think he commits any offence.
Obviously I wish we'd got a penalty, scored, and won, but that's not the question. |  | | |
| Let’s talk about the penalty incident from Saturday… on 11:22 - Oct 21 with 2941 views | tractorboy1978 |
| Let’s talk about the penalty incident from Saturday… on 11:14 - Oct 21 by soupytwist |
So the VAR 'recommends" that the on-field ref goers to the screen to watch it again. Presumably the on-field ref can say "No thanks, I'm happy with my decision".
Of course, no on-field ref ever does that so the wording should be changed to make clear that the on-field ref doesn't have a choice about following the "recommendation".
Presumably in this case the “clear and obvious error” is the fact that Jack Clarke kicked the Everton player, which as we've had pointed out to us on this thread is not allowed. But there's no consideration of the context in that McNeil placed his leg where it would inevitably be kicked with no chance of getting the ball. |
"Clear and obvious" is a bit of a nonsense really as a lot of incidents in football are subjective. Two refs may have a completely different opinion. VAR may think it is a clear and obvious error. I suspect Oliver has tried to placate McKenna a bit, if he had watched it back and still thought it was a penalty, he would have given it. | | | |
| Let’s talk about the penalty incident from Saturday… on 11:24 - Oct 21 with 2913 views | LittleBoyBlue1 |
| Let’s talk about the penalty incident from Saturday… on 11:20 - Oct 21 by rickw |
As far as I can see McNeil didn't get the ball and stopped Clarke getting the ball, so penalty.
If it can be proved McNeil got the ball then it should be no penalty.
Saying Clarke kicked McNeil is daft to me, surely by that logic you can say for every trip the tripped player kicked the player sticking his leg out! |
Nothing in the laws about getting the ball, a myth as old as the game itself
It clearly wasn't a trip though was it, the action shows a wind up of the leg and a firing it into McNeil's. A trip is a disturbance of a normal running or walking motion, which this was not. Trips are quite different because the person tripped isn't aiming to kick anything, just walk or run. | | | |
| Let’s talk about the penalty incident from Saturday… on 11:25 - Oct 21 with 2894 views | billlm |
Looks like his left foot is starting to slip away as he connects with the defenders foot, his trickery deserved a penalty was it one, il lean probably not the defender didn't look to touch him to much,
Then you have to really take into context who we are Itfc,
If it's the top 8 it's a penalty all day long,
This isn't bitterness just how I see the premiership plays out 99% of the time, |  | | |
| Let’s talk about the penalty incident from Saturday… on 11:26 - Oct 21 with 2879 views | LittleBoyBlue1 |
| Let’s talk about the penalty incident from Saturday… on 11:22 - Oct 21 by HighgateBlue |
Personally I don't think the defender "impedes an opponent with contact", which seems to me to be the closest part of the law to the situation (although those who argue that it was a penalty seldom seem to make their point by reference to the actual law).
I think Clarke kicks him. Not Clarke's fault, clearly, but I think he kicks him. I don't think the defender impedes him with contact, I think he stops his progress simply by being somewhere that Clarke would rather he wasn't.
I'm surprised nobody has argued that it's an indirect freekick. The distinction between an indirect free kick and a penalty in "impeding" situations turns on whether the offence is committed with contact. For my money, Clarke is the one who causes the contact, and therefore no penalty for me. But if the defender has already impeded him, one could argue indirect freekick. This would depend on whether the ball is within playing distance or not. See law 12 in all its glory. For my money, no pen, and no free kick to Town.
I think this portion of the law is relevant:
"A player may shield the ball by taking a position between an opponent and the ball if the ball is within playing distance and the opponent is not held off with the arms or body. If the ball is within playing distance, the player may be fairly charged by an opponent."
I think the ball is in playing distance for both players when the defender's foot goes down. I think he takes a position between Clarke and the ball. I don't think he commits any offence.
Obviously I wish we'd got a penalty, scored, and won, but that's not the question. |
Spot on and that's the exact part of law that's relevant | | | |
| Let’s talk about the penalty incident from Saturday… on 11:26 - Oct 21 with 2879 views | Suffolktractor |
| Let’s talk about the penalty incident from Saturday… on 11:08 - Oct 21 by LittleBoyBlue1 |
Not kick a player shielding the ball? |
No way was O’Neill shielding the ball. He hadn’t touched the ball. He put his leg between Clarke’s legs in an attempt to nudge the ball away and failed to do so. It is a foul all day long. He impeded Clarke who was in possession as he was about to shoot. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
