To be fair they’re completely different. If Bruno ran half the pitch and decided to fall then they would be similar.
VAR and Refs | General Discussion | May 15: Premier League clubs to vote on proposal to scrap VAR from next season
- Thread starter Samid
- Start date
Here’s why your opinion is wrong and why mine is correct because the entire world agrees with me..trust me. They do
Edit nice contributions to this thread. You’re an idiot
https://www.redcafe.net/search/458336/
Why are people bringing up the Jota one like it’s in any way comparable? Bruno got clipped and went straight down from the contact, whereas Jota got clipped stayed on his feet and took another couple of steps before launching himself to the floor like he’d been shot.
I dont think they're all that different. Both won fouls because of minimal contact. Bruno can argue the contact was enough to make him go down, Jota can argue it was enough to make him lose balance and eventually go down.
In neither case was the contact enough to send either of them to the ground. But since when has that been important anyway?
Both are given again and again, week in week out.
So Bruno made it look better?
We 100 percent know it wasn’t enough to send Jota to the floor, he choose to throw himself down.
That’s the difference. You see pens like Bruno’s every week in every other game. It’s not even some fleeting contact, he gets him right on the top of the foot.
It’s not even in the same universe
Edit if Jota when down right away then I agree it’s a pen. But he didn’t and nothing I can do changes that.
Last edited:
And you are defending Fernandes? Said at the time, both Liverpool pens against Newcastle had contact on the attacker, go down easy, but contact, that is diving according to a lot of United fans until it is Fernandes and then contact means fair penalty.
The obvious difference is Bruno didn’t take a step after contact, before deciding to hit the deck. They both could have been dives but only Jota left absolutely no doubt.
so they were both dives, both could of stayed up, just difference in how they dived. I just think views should be consistent. I think all 3 were penalties, very soft, but contact made to the players foot and if they don't go down, they don't get the pen.
I said they both could have been dives. We don’t know if Bruno dived. We do know he was kicked on his foot and immediately went down. So he gets the benefit of the doubt, which we can’t give to Jota who clearly chose to fling himself to the ground after the initial contact.
Ok, we all know Fernandes could have easily stayed up, he's better at executing the dive, but as I said, entitled to go to ground when clipped, not getting pen otherwise.
Whats been astonishing is that pretty much every Liverpool fan I have spoken to hasn't entertained the idea that Jotas was a dive. Lots of United fans have accepted that Brunos was.
He definitely could have stayed up. Where he gets the benefit of the doubt from me is that being kicked on the foot can hurt like hell and it could have been that which caused him to hit the deck. Obviously none of us know whether the impact was painful or not. But we can’t rule that out. Which is another way the incident last night differed from Jota.
Pretty much it. Although some of the people in here saying it was a pen, probably also thought Diaz pen was soft or he dived last week, same for Jota.
When you here the words clever, waited, knew what he was doing etc.. pretty much means he bought it. Whatever way you want to look at it, it's cheating, plain and simple.
Here’s where it falls down for me, that’s a pen for Bruno in today’s game. It just is. Posters in this thread are pretending otherwise for some strange reason or trying to reset the clock to 1994 to argue otherwise. He was hit on top of the foot by a trailing leg, it’s a pen. Bruno just ensures it is.
Where Jota differs is that he stayed on his feet. If he went down it’s a pen since you can’t prove he wasn’t impeded..but he stayed on his feet. There’s extra steps to evaluate and it wasn’t a pen since it then becomes a clear dive.
This thread reads as if it’s a neutral forum with fans trying to argue just to argue. These same posters will be on here again arguing a once in 1000 every game instance that are constantly given against us is justified because it technically goes against the rules and all they’re asking for is consistency
Edit just a reminder
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Last edited:
Clear bias wil say its anything other than a penalty
Exactly, it wasnt a dive as he didny throw himsrlf to the floor like Jota did he was kicked in the foot and went down instictively.
Looking at that footage, Bruno is clearly clipped. I wouldn't call this a definite stonewaller but I'd 100% be upset if that wasn't given for Chelsea.
No, Bruno was clipped causing him to go down i.e a foul. Jota was touched and stayed on his feet, carries on for a couple extra steps before launching himself to the ground with no one near him, i.e a dive.
I thought it was soft but even the Wigan manager admitted it was a penalty.
"At the time, I wasn't so sure, but I've no complaints.
I have since seen a slow motion replay, and what I will say is when you attempt a tackle like that - and there is contact - then it's going to be a penalty."
"At the time, I wasn't so sure, but I've no complaints.
I have since seen a slow motion replay, and what I will say is when you attempt a tackle like that - and there is contact - then it's going to be a penalty."
That's such a farce. So the process appears to have been: ref on the pitch didn't give it, VAR with the benefit of replays told the ref to give it, then the PGMOL review panel with the benefit of replays admit they got it wrong the first time.
Clear. As. Mud.
Clear. As. Mud.
Both dives but Jota one is a lot worse.
I say all dives, contact was minimal.
Was there any actual apology to Everton?
Mad
In the current era the Bruno penalty has to be given. Doesn't make it right though. Much like the Jota and Diaz ones last week, contact was minimal player throws themselves to the floor, penalty awarded.
VAR was a perfect opportunity to clamp down on simulation but instead it has encouraged it. Players know if there is any contact and the ref gives it, it won't get overturned.
VAR was a perfect opportunity to clamp down on simulation but instead it has encouraged it. Players know if there is any contact and the ref gives it, it won't get overturned.
Thats the manager saying that he didn't think there was any contact at the time but when he saw it later he realised there was contact and any contact like that in the box is given as a penalty when the player goes down. I doubt he agreed with it even on second viewing.
re. Calvert Lewin, looking forward to players sliding in with straight legs and studs up and not getting reds now....
So an apology will follow and the ref will get dropped for this weekend?
And Howard Webb will carry on… and do his useless chats with Michael Owen or some PR crap like that.
Instead of sorting VAR and the awful levels of officiating
Highlight re: Everton would be if they had Dermot Gallagher speaking on the decision last week - because he will have supported it, then watching him also support the overturn of the ban.
Disgrace really.
He can’t win!
If you kick someone on the ankle in the box its normally a penalty, bizarre people think players shouldn't go down.
Luton's controversial equaliser, looks like a foul on the keeper to me
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Not to me. The forward is not obliged to get out of the keeper’s way so that he can get to the ball. I think the goalkeeper just misjudged it. He’d done really well coming out until that point.
That said, goalkeepers being a protected species, I fully expected VAR to disallow it.
Luton player is backing into the keeper with his arse not just standing is ground, I fully expected that to be given as a foul tbh
Just another decision that shows how pointless VAR is as no one knows who will agree on the outcomes anyway
Just another decision that shows how pointless VAR is as no one knows who will agree on the outcomes anyway
Its one of those where you can guarentee that if the on-field decision had have been no goal VAR wouldnt have overturned it.
It's a pretty obvious foul in my book, he's not standing his ground, he's actively backing into the keeper, it's a foul.