| Let’s talk about the penalty incident from Saturday… 10:45 - Oct 21 with 5214 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 11:30 - Oct 21 with 1110 views | soupytwist |
| Let’s talk about the penalty incident from Saturday… on 11:20 - Oct 21 by LittleBoyBlue1 |
It does happen that on field refs stick to their decision.
Albeit very occasionally |
I've seen refs go to the monitor and stick with their decision, as you say it's rare but it does happen.
I don't think I've ever seen a ref be 'recommended' they go to the monitor and say "No thanks I don't need to see it again". Maybe we don't get to know about those instances because we don't hear the conversations between on-field ref and VAR. |  | | |
| Let’s talk about the penalty incident from Saturday… on 11:30 - Oct 21 with 1110 views | LittleBoyBlue1 |
| Let’s talk about the penalty incident from Saturday… on 11:26 - Oct 21 by Suffolktractor |
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. |
None of what you said is supported by the laws and I can see you've got a decision you won't change so I won't even tell you to read the laws of the game.
Though I will gently suggest it |  | | |
| Let’s talk about the penalty incident from Saturday… on 11:30 - Oct 21 with 1108 views | Basuco |
From the referee's decision giving Everton a freekick rather than Town a penalty, this follows that players do not need to tackle a player, just put body, leg or foot between an opposition player and the ball to prevent him kicking it and get a free kick.
I bet this interpretation will not apply when it is Town defending, hopefully I am wrong. |  | | |
| Let’s talk about the penalty incident from Saturday… on 11:31 - Oct 21 with 1094 views | homer_123 |
| Let’s talk about the penalty incident from Saturday… on 11:24 - Oct 21 by LittleBoyBlue1 |
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. |
Not quite true.....
Obstruction......
Law 12: Impeding the progress of an opponent means moving into the opponent's path to obstruct, block, slow down or force a change of direction when the ball is not within playing distance of either player. |  |
| |
| Let’s talk about the penalty incident from Saturday… on 11:31 - Oct 21 with 1090 views | LittleBoyBlue1 |
| Let’s talk about the penalty incident from Saturday… on 11:30 - Oct 21 by soupytwist |
I've seen refs go to the monitor and stick with their decision, as you say it's rare but it does happen.
I don't think I've ever seen a ref be 'recommended' they go to the monitor and say "No thanks I don't need to see it again". Maybe we don't get to know about those instances because we don't hear the conversations between on-field ref and VAR. |
That's fair but surely every rational referee would take the opportunity to see every decision again.
I don't think they'd reject the chance of a review. The odd bit is , as you say, how infrequently they then stick to their guns | | | |
| Let’s talk about the penalty incident from Saturday… on 11:35 - Oct 21 with 1057 views | itfcjoe |
| Let’s talk about the penalty incident from Saturday… on 11:02 - Oct 21 by LittleBoyBlue1 |
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. |
MOTD was complete rubbish on it though, they totally ignored what McKenna's complaint was (Bar wasn't high enough to intervene for clear and obvious) and just discussed whether it was or wasn't a penalty (i.e. re-referee the game).
When the biggest broadcast does this it doesn't help educate people as to what the new directives are - had they discussed whether the intervention was correct then fair enough.
And it's not the same as the Burn/Calvert-Lewin one - because that wasn't given as a penalty on the field - we are talking about what is required for intervention |  |
| |
| Let’s talk about the penalty incident from Saturday… on 11:35 - Oct 21 with 1056 views | LittleBoyBlue1 |
| Let’s talk about the penalty incident from Saturday… on 11:31 - Oct 21 by homer_123 |
Not quite true.....
Obstruction......
Law 12: Impeding the progress of an opponent means moving into the opponent's path to obstruct, block, slow down or force a change of direction when the ball is not within playing distance of either player. |
Did you read the whole section?
"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." this was all true of the incident.
Playing distance is defined as "Distance to the ball which allows a player to touch the ball by extending the foot/leg or jumping or, for goalkeepers, jumping with arms extended. Distance depends on the physical size of the player"
it's not a penalty in law. It's hard to take in the emotion of the game. But it's not a penalty. | | | |
| Let’s talk about the penalty incident from Saturday… on 11:36 - Oct 21 with 1041 views | LittleBoyBlue1 |
| Let’s talk about the penalty incident from Saturday… on 11:35 - Oct 21 by itfcjoe |
MOTD was complete rubbish on it though, they totally ignored what McKenna's complaint was (Bar wasn't high enough to intervene for clear and obvious) and just discussed whether it was or wasn't a penalty (i.e. re-referee the game).
When the biggest broadcast does this it doesn't help educate people as to what the new directives are - had they discussed whether the intervention was correct then fair enough.
And it's not the same as the Burn/Calvert-Lewin one - because that wasn't given as a penalty on the field - we are talking about what is required for intervention |
oh okay, I'm more interested in the correct decision being reached to be fair, which I think it was. So we may have misunderstood one another. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Let’s talk about the penalty incident from Saturday… on 11:41 - Oct 21 with 1013 views | itfcjoe |
| Let’s talk about the penalty incident from Saturday… on 11:36 - Oct 21 by LittleBoyBlue1 |
oh okay, I'm more interested in the correct decision being reached to be fair, which I think it was. So we may have misunderstood one another. |
Yep - I can see that the penalty is debateable, some will give it, some won't. Some will say McNeil is shielding the ball, some will say he's tried to cut it out but missed it.
I think it's just the very definition of a "Referee's call", and we have tried to move away from VAR being there to re-referee decisions - as per the Euro's and other continental leagues. It's supposed to eb there to eliminate the howlers, giving a penalty on Saturday wasn't a howler, not giving one wouldn't have been either
But you can't totally clarify decisions in football, as still subjective | |
| |
| Let’s talk about the penalty incident from Saturday… on 11:47 - Oct 21 with 977 views | ElephantintheRoom |
I think you mean non penalty incident. | |
| |
| Let’s talk about the penalty incident from Saturday… on 11:51 - Oct 21 with 974 views | Mullet |
In real time it was clear as day. When they started slowing it down and looki no st angles, you started to get doubts because you’re no longer seeing things at the right speed etc.
For me, there was no reason to overturn it based on the decision being given and the replay not showing clearly the decision was wrong.
It actually felt like the referee had to overturn it because he was called to the monitor. Feels like VAR is used more and more to get the right decision for narrative,not the correct one. |  |
| |
| Let’s talk about the penalty incident from Saturday… on 11:52 - Oct 21 with 968 views | Vegtablue |
Fully agree with KM's assessment and it wouldn't surprise me if McNeil's leg bumps into Clarke's during the backswing phase of the shot. Key aspect is it being the opposite of clear and obvious - if another ref in real time saw it as more of a 'racing incident' then fair enough, but let's see where our free shot on the edge of the box ends up now you aren't stopping play midway through the attack. | | | |
| Let’s talk about the penalty incident from Saturday… on 11:56 - Oct 21 with 956 views | itfcsuth |
Once the referee had given it it should not have been overruled - there was no clear and obvious error made there.
That's just the way it goes now, the guy at games is just a whistle blower - any major decisions in games are now determined from a room in Stockley Park.
I also must say the officiating is horrendous for this level, the game is so so soft in the Premier League it is frightening. |  | | |
| Let’s talk about the penalty incident from Saturday… on 12:07 - Oct 21 with 926 views | DJR |
Was there another angle of the incident, because the only one I've seen is from a camera presumably around the half-way line in the West Stand?
My view was diagonally opposite that, sitting as I do in upper SBR near to the East Stand, and it looked a stonewall penalty from that angle. |  | | |
| Let’s talk about the penalty incident from Saturday… on 12:14 - Oct 21 with 909 views | textbackup |
A bigger talking point, and would have possibly changed the game massively…. Clarke’s inability to find the net with that early chance. |  |
| |
| Let’s talk about the penalty incident from Saturday… on 12:32 - Oct 21 with 848 views | DJR |
| Let’s talk about the penalty incident from Saturday… on 12:14 - Oct 21 by textbackup |
A bigger talking point, and would have possibly changed the game massively…. Clarke’s inability to find the net with that early chance. |
Yes, the first goal in that game struck me a crucial. | | | |
| Let’s talk about the penalty incident from Saturday… on 12:35 - Oct 21 with 827 views | Radlett_blue |
| Let’s talk about the penalty incident from Saturday… on 12:14 - Oct 21 by textbackup |
A bigger talking point, and would have possibly changed the game massively…. Clarke’s inability to find the net with that early chance. |
Exactly this. We aren't going to get as many goalscoring opportunities at this level, so we have to do better with the ones we get. Not hitting the target & working the keeper from there was wasteful & obviously an early goal would have given Town huge momentum & rattled Everton. |  |
| |
| Let’s talk about the penalty incident from Saturday… on 12:39 - Oct 21 with 815 views | textbackup |
| Let’s talk about the penalty incident from Saturday… on 12:35 - Oct 21 by Radlett_blue |
Exactly this. We aren't going to get as many goalscoring opportunities at this level, so we have to do better with the ones we get. Not hitting the target & working the keeper from there was wasteful & obviously an early goal would have given Town huge momentum & rattled Everton. |
Focusing on the things we can affect and improve on is key.
Refs, VAR, they are sht. We know that. Being better at what matters (hitting the target from 10/12 yards for example) is hopefully where KMs focus is this morning | |
| |
| Let’s talk about the penalty incident from Saturday… on 12:42 - Oct 21 with 807 views | Illinoisblue |
| Let’s talk about the penalty incident from Saturday… on 12:14 - Oct 21 by textbackup |
A bigger talking point, and would have possibly changed the game massively…. Clarke’s inability to find the net with that early chance. |
Seen chappers score so many from that sort of range after that kind of move the last couple years. Still not sure on J Clarke. Good trickery and footwork to almost win a penalty but drifts out of the game for long periods. Looks so slight, too. |  |
| |
| Let’s talk about the penalty incident from Saturday… on 12:42 - Oct 21 with 805 views | davblue |
| Let’s talk about the penalty incident from Saturday… on 12:39 - Oct 21 by textbackup |
Focusing on the things we can affect and improve on is key.
Refs, VAR, they are sht. We know that. Being better at what matters (hitting the target from 10/12 yards for example) is hopefully where KMs focus is this morning |
That was a dreadful miss. Wasn’t sure if it bobbled or not and replays haven’t sown anything conclusive.
Not sold on Clarke yet. |  | | |
| Let’s talk about the penalty incident from Saturday… on 12:44 - Oct 21 with 798 views | textbackup |
| Let’s talk about the penalty incident from Saturday… on 12:42 - Oct 21 by davblue |
That was a dreadful miss. Wasn’t sure if it bobbled or not and replays haven’t sown anything conclusive.
Not sold on Clarke yet. |
That chance was the sort you’d see Jackson balloon in L1 or the Championship.
Followed by me saying ‘if we get in the PL he won’t be here as you need someone finishing those as you might only get a couple of chances in a game’
Fast forward £15m later… 😂 | |
| |
| Let’s talk about the penalty incident from Saturday… on 12:46 - Oct 21 with 790 views | Ftnfwest |
it was no different to putting your foot/leg across someone and tripping them |  | | |
| Let’s talk about the penalty incident from Saturday… (n/t) on 12:49 - Oct 21 with 784 views | leftback |
| | | |
| Let’s talk about the penalty incident from Saturday… on 12:50 - Oct 21 with 786 views | SitfcB |
| Let’s talk about the penalty incident from Saturday… on 12:14 - Oct 21 by textbackup |
A bigger talking point, and would have possibly changed the game massively…. Clarke’s inability to find the net with that early chance. |
Oh totally agree and said the same.
Should’ve at least been hitting the target there.
Someone did point out that had he scored it would’ve probably been ruled out though due to Delaps position in front of Pickford. | |
| |
| Let’s talk about the penalty incident from Saturday… on 12:50 - Oct 21 with 785 views | ReusersTown |
| Let’s talk about the penalty incident from Saturday… on 11:30 - Oct 21 by Basuco |
From the referee's decision giving Everton a freekick rather than Town a penalty, this follows that players do not need to tackle a player, just put body, leg or foot between an opposition player and the ball to prevent him kicking it and get a free kick.
I bet this interpretation will not apply when it is Town defending, hopefully I am wrong. |
Exactly, it's an absolute nonsense. Not sure why people are hiding behind the narrative that O'Neil was shielding the ball (other than the clear budgie) he clearly was not in possession and made no action to shield. If that ruling is the precedent just stick whatever body part you want between the strikers leg and ball. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
