VAR and Refs | General Discussion | Forest go into meltdown

mu4c_20le

Full Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2013
Messages
43,899
I mean the fact it’s in super slow mo surely indicates in real time it may/may not be fishing for contact. Regardless though what on earth is AWB doing diving in and giving him the chance? Stupid defending.
Like the Dalot one and probably Antony as well, they were soft but also individual mistakes so they dont protest. It'd be more fair if we also got some calls but not getting the two against Chelsea is still annoying.
 

Malone_Post

Full Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2022
Messages
880
It’s one of the most obvious penalties you’ll ever see. Even AWB didn’t argue it in the slightest. Neither did anyone else.

Anyone claiming corruption or VAR being against us is just making themselves look silly. And a bit desperate.
 

SER19

Full Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2008
Messages
12,713
The key thing this week is that AT BEST, people could say they are 3 soft penalties. The fact that all 3 got given is incredible. I truly don't think all 3 get given against any other team in the league, and that's where the issue is for me

I think of some of the ones not given for us this season (and last) and it seems statistically so unlikely that 3/3 get given inside 4 days
 

fallengt

Full Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
5,602
Clear pen against United.
Not so much if Arsenal/Liv/City commit it. Refs have no ball to call these kind of soft pens in title race.
 

KjaAnd

Full Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2012
Messages
921
Location
Betwixt and between
Stupid tackle by AWB but clear dive from Elliott. He has played the ball in one direction and clearly sticks his foot out in another direction in the hope he will get a penalty. Unfortunately, our players don't put the ref under any pressure to reconsider his decision. The same thing happened against Chealse twice. Why should VAR intervene if even our players seem to accept the decision?
 

acnumber9

Full Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2006
Messages
22,292
That’s a penalty. Left foot takes the ball away from AWB’s lunge. Right foot clips AWB twice. First on the foot, then on the upper leg. How is that not a penalty?
Watch his right foot. He engineers the contact himself. He drags his foot along the ground expecting to get caught, when he doesn’t he puts it between Wan Bissaka’s legs. To do that he moves in the opposite direction of the ball. It’s only a foul if running into your opponent is enough for it to be a foul.
 

Pogue Mahone

The caf's Camus.
Joined
Feb 22, 2006
Messages
134,027
Location
"like a man in silk pyjamas shooting pigeons
Watch his right foot. He engineers the contact himself. He drags his foot along the ground expecting to get caught, when he doesn’t he puts it between Wan Bissaka’s legs. To do that he moves in the opposite direction of the ball. It’s only a foul if running into your opponent is enough for it to be a foul.
Running into your opponent is a foul if the opponent happens to be sliding across the ground in front of you, trying - and failing - to win the ball.
 

Lexicon Red Devil

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Nov 15, 2023
Messages
85
That’s a penalty. Left foot takes the ball away from AWB’s lunge. Right foot clips AWB twice. First on the foot, then on the upper leg. How is that not a penalty?
It clearly doesn't clip him twice. He moves into the tackle rather than the ball, which he was never getting to after that heavy touch. The fact that his right foot clips AWB rather than the other way round tells you everything you need to know. Clear dive.
 

Pogue Mahone

The caf's Camus.
Joined
Feb 22, 2006
Messages
134,027
Location
"like a man in silk pyjamas shooting pigeons
It clearly doesn't clip him twice. He moves into the tackle rather than the ball, which he was never getting to after that heavy touch. The fact that his right foot clips AWB rather than the other way round tells you everything you need to know. Clear dive.
I have no idea why some of you are so hung up on the idea that Harvey Elliot’s foot moves into AWB? That is literally what happens when you trip over something. If that something is a defender sprawling on the ground in front of you then it’s a penalty.

I do get the argument that he was looking for that contact but I think that’s reading too much into very slowed down footage. It’s normal for your back foot to drag like that, if you’re reaching with your other foot like he was. In real time it was an absolutely nailed on penalty. Hence nobody, including AWB, tried to argue otherwise.
 
Joined
Oct 30, 2016
Messages
5,734
I have no idea why some of you are so hung up on the idea that Harvey Elliot’s foot moves into AWB? That is literally what happens when you trip over something. If that something is a defender sprawling on the ground in front of you then it’s a penalty.

I do get the argument that he was looking for that contact but I think that’s reading too much into very slowed down footage. In real time it was an absolutely nailed on penalty. Hence nobody, including AWB, tried to argue otherwise.
Exactly. He was looking for contact, misaligned his right foot from a natural ball carrying path to hit AWB. Clear dive. Clever dive. The Arjen Robben special.
 

acnumber9

Full Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2006
Messages
22,292
I have no idea why some of you are so hung up on the idea that Harvey Elliot’s foot moves into AWB? That is literally what happens when you trip over something. If that something is a defender sprawling on the ground in front of you then it’s a penalty.

I do get the argument that he was looking for that contact but I think that’s reading too much into very slowed down footage. In real time it was an absolutely nailed on penalty. Hence nobody, including AWB, tried to argue otherwise.
But the slowed down footage makes it abundantly clear Elliot places his foot between Wan Bissaka’s leg after initially dragging his right foot along the ground in preparation to fall over. His movement is ridiculously unnatural and there’s no reason to do what he did than try to fall over a tackle. That isn’t a foul.
 

acnumber9

Full Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2006
Messages
22,292
Wan Bissaka actually does well to pull his right foot away when he realises he’s not getting the ball.
 

Pogue Mahone

The caf's Camus.
Joined
Feb 22, 2006
Messages
134,027
Location
"like a man in silk pyjamas shooting pigeons
But the slowed down footage makes it abundantly clear Elliot places his foot between Wan Bissaka’s leg after initially dragging his right foot along the ground in preparation to fall over. His movement is ridiculously unnatural and there’s no reason to do what he did than try to fall over a tackle. That isn’t a foul.
As I said it my edit, the way he dragged his right foot is a normal response to the way he reaches with his left to nick the ball away from AWB. In extreme slo mo it looks suspicious but extreme slo mo is a shitty way to judge these things. Hence VAR is a load of wank.
 
Joined
Oct 30, 2016
Messages
5,734
The ball was kicked away to his left.

If he wanted to get the ball after his heavy touch, the right foot wouldn’t be anywhere near AWB.

He realised that the ball was gone and realigned his foot progression to hit AWB. It’s so clear. Huge dive. He won it well. Fair fecks. I’d be impressed if Garna did the same.
 

acnumber9

Full Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2006
Messages
22,292
As I said it my edit, the way he dragged his right foot is a normal response to the way he reaches with his left to nick the ball away from AWB. In extreme slo mo it looks suspicious but extreme slo mo is a shitty way to judge these things. Hence VAR is a load of wank.
No it’s not. You don’t drag your foot along the ground unless you’re looking to fall over. He expects Wan Bissaka’s leg to come across his right leg and wants to make sure he catches him. The natural thing to do is to move in the direction the ball is going. He does the opposite.
 

gormless

Full Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2008
Messages
8,544
Location
comfortable and settled in my rut
Been a topic of conversation for me and a few friends as Tony Harrington is the cousin of one of them.

Seems to me that he applied the rules. Apparently he's sat down with Howard Webb last night and they're happy that the rules were applied correctly.

Maybe I'm getting it wrong here, but the player was deliberately stood, directly in front of the keeper, obviously to obstruct his view, and (as I understand it) is offside once the ball is touched by his team mate.

On Match of the Day the pundits (three strikers, by the way) say the keeper should have moved. By that analogy, can you stand 4 players directly in front of the keeper at a corner and then just have someone attack the corner and head it in? How can you not be interfering with play from that position?

I take the point that on the face of it, the keeper looks like he can move but the rule doesn't say that you're not offside if the keeper can move to see it. Maybe the rule needs changing.

On a general point, O'Neil said nothing post match about the soft goal West Ham had chalked off.
I have also been told this by a relative of Tony Harrington :lol:
 

90 + 5min

Full Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2019
Messages
5,273

Clear dive. But VAR does nothing. It's just pointless at this stage.
I thought that penalty was certain. But looking at that replay it doesn’t look like it was. Just another day when it comes to us. I don’t know how many points we have lost like this. 15-20?
 

iammemphis

iwillnotaskforanamechangeagain
Joined
Sep 6, 2014
Messages
6,011
Location
Hertfordshire
I thought that penalty was certain. But looking at that replay it doesn’t look like it was. Just another day when it comes to us. I don’t know how many points we have lost like this. 15-20?
Well his trailing foot runs into him and he buys the foul, Stupid of Bissaka to go to ground there.
 

Andycoleno9

matchday malcontent
Joined
Mar 4, 2017
Messages
29,010
Location
Croatia
Our manager says "clear penalty". Refs must love him. If it is 50:50 no problem giving it against us.
 

Pogue Mahone

The caf's Camus.
Joined
Feb 22, 2006
Messages
134,027
Location
"like a man in silk pyjamas shooting pigeons
No it’s not. You don’t drag your foot along the ground unless you’re looking to fall over. He expects Wan Bissaka’s leg to come across his right leg and wants to make sure he catches him. The natural thing to do is to move in the direction the ball is going. He does the opposite.
Yes you do. Sometimes. Dragging your back foot is a natural response when you’re lunging to reach a ball, full stretch. It’s the reason sliding tackles are called sliding tackles.
 

acnumber9

Full Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2006
Messages
22,292
Yes you do. Sometimes. Dragging your back foot is a natural response when you’re lunging to reach a ball, full stretch. It’s the reason sliding tackles are called sliding tackles.
Your definition of lunging is wild. Why does he move his right foot in the opposite direction the ball is going?
 

Pogue Mahone

The caf's Camus.
Joined
Feb 22, 2006
Messages
134,027
Location
"like a man in silk pyjamas shooting pigeons
Your definition of lunging is wild. Why does he move his right foot in the opposite direction the ball is going?
Re lunging. Watch the replay. He has to really stretch with his left to get the ball before AWB. That’s a lunge.

The reason his right foot doesn’t follow the ball would be on account of his right foot being jammed between AWB’s legs before he gets a chance to move it anywhere. Hence the penalty.
 

C'est Moi Cantona

Full Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2014
Messages
8,796
What I don't understand is if there was even an element of doubt for either Dalot or AWB penelties then why did both look as guilty as hell and not protest at all?

This could have been the difference with the Dalot one as the VAR guy clearly wasn't sure.
 

Pogue Mahone

The caf's Camus.
Joined
Feb 22, 2006
Messages
134,027
Location
"like a man in silk pyjamas shooting pigeons
What I don't understand is if there was even an element of doubt for either Dalot or AWB penelties then why did both look as guilty as hell and not protest at all?

This could have been the difference with the Dalot one as the VAR guy clearly wasn't sure.
Same with the Atony one, which also looked soft. To me the players are usually the best judge of what’s happened, so I think all three pens were probably legit. Super slo mo replays can be deceptive for anything other than really basic stuff, like whether or not a ball was deflected.
 

acnumber9

Full Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2006
Messages
22,292
Re lunging. Watch the replay. He has to really stretch with his left to get the ball before AWB. That’s a lunge.

The reason his right foot doesn’t follow the ball would be on account of his right foot being jammed between AWB’s legs before he gets a chance to move it anywhere. Hence the penalty.
Because he plants his foot there deliberately. There is nothing natural about what he’s done there.
 

C'est Moi Cantona

Full Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2014
Messages
8,796
Same with the Atony one, which also looked soft. To me the players are usually the best judge of what’s happened, so I think all three pens were probably legit. Super slo mo replays can be deceptive for anything other than really basic stuff, like whether or not a ball was deflected.
I'm just not sure about the Dalot one, and the fact VAR looked for so long makes me think they weren't either.
 

Jeppers7

Pogfamily Mafia
Joined
Feb 25, 2014
Messages
7,435
Running into your opponent is a foul if the opponent happens to be sliding across the ground in front of you, trying - and failing - to win the ball.
I’ve not looked at your posts in AWB threads but judging by your post history I’d be amazed if you’re a fan.