Was that penalty for Wolves the worst refereeing decision of all time?

[IRELANDUNITED]

With the benefit of VAR it seems unforgivable that they would come to the conclusion that it was a penalty.

At what point do we demand that these officials take responsibility for their actions?

 

[KKidAA]

It isn’t even the worst decision that’s gone against us this season. Once the ref gives it, if VAR see any contact at all then they aren’t overturning it.

 

[AltiUn]

No but it was a rubbish decision

 

[Bastian]

I only saw it the once, but I wasn't apoplectic about it then. Seemed about as soft as Bruno's against Wigan (which I thought was a pen, contrary to most I guess).

 

[didz]

10.05

Is the correct answer.

 

[Frosty]

Yellow card only.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

In real time it was a poor but understandable call. The fact that VAR didn’t correct it was certainly one of the most obviously wrong VAR calls I’ve ever seen.

 

[Lentwood]

No, not even close, but only because the bar is so depressingly low

 

[Hound Dog]

If we take VAR into account, that would be the goal Liverpool had disallowed at Spurs this season. That was a farce.

Without VAR.... Plenty to choose from. Hand of God, Henry vs Ireland, Pique vs Chelsea (the ball magically stopped midair without him handling it).

 

[tenpoless]

Casemiro red card was worse.

 

[Panther]

We've seen Bruno get given a penalty after stamping on a player and falling over. This definitely wasn't that bad in comparison.

 

[Dansk]

Nah, it was bad but there's been far, far worse.

 

[kouroux]

"of all time", quit being dramatic It was a terrible decision for sure but there have been a lot worse out there

 

[IRELANDUNITED]

10.05

Is the correct answer.

No VAR then, though.

 

[didz]

No VAR then, though.

Refereeing predates VAR

 

[Stobzilla]

Casemiro red card was worse.

Which one?

 

[IRELANDUNITED]

Which one?

Assume he meant when he cuddled Will Hughes

 

[troylocker]

Both the pen and the non pen was poor decisions. In the end they ended on the correct amount of penalties today.

 

[rimaldo]

If we take VAR into account, that would be the goal Liverpool had disallowed at Spurs this season. That was a farce.

no. that was a communication breakdown. var thought they were giving offside. it wasn’t var failing to apply the rules of the game correctly. how can anyone with a working pair of eyes and a brain look at that today and see it as anything other than a massive dive. i can understand why the ref gave it. the dive was good and in real time, from the live camera angle, i thought it looked a penalty. as soon as you saw a replay though, you could see it was never a penalty. what the feck is var there for if not for exactly this kind of incident?

 

[York]

It was an awful decision. I don’t get it. Should have been a yellow for Neto.

 

[Plant0x84]

Very soft, minimal contact and the wolves player made the most of it, the cheating cnut. Could have just as easily been a red for Cas or a yellow for diving. Think the ref struck a good balance in the end. He didn’t get any help from VAR, that’s for sure!

 

[Oranges038]

Nah, that goal in 66 was.

 

[Tyrion]

10.05

Is the correct answer.

Thats really odd. Was the offside rule interpreted differently back then? He seems to have given offside because a player was offside one touch before the cross. I say seem to because I'm not even sure what he gave it for.

In real time it was a poor but understandable call. The fact that VAR didn’t correct it was certainly one of the most obviously wrong VAR calls I’ve ever seen.

I agree with this. Some VAR officials are so reluctant to overule the referee that if the ref has given a foul, VAR won't overturn it unless there's about 10 inches of clear space between the 2 players at all times.

 

[Baneofthegame]

It’s not a penalty for me, the Onana one should of been given.

 

[RuudTom83]

But it went against United so will be forgotten in an instant.

 

[tenpoless]

Which one?

Assume he meant when he cuddled Will Hughes

That's right.

 

[PSV]

It's technically a penalty (even if by a straw's clutch) so I don't think VAR even have the option of overruling it.

A better question would be whether the ref should let play go and then VAR overrules the other way if needed instead (sorta like offsides are handled).

 

[Frank Grimes]

Boly sending off is clearly worst refereeing decision of the season in my opinion.

 

[Chipper]

Thats really odd. Was the offside rule interpreted differently back then? He seems to have given offside because a player was offside one touch before the cross. I say seem to because I'm not even sure what he gave it for.

That is what he gave it for, and the rule was inerpreted somewhat differently but even for the time that was a shocker.

It used to be much more of a case that if you're in an offside position then you're offside. There was less consideration given to active/inactive, or if a pass was going towards the player who was in an offside position.

Thing is, that wasn't even a pass. The touch was always intended to knock it past the defender to beat his man and was part of a run/dribble. It was a heavier touch to knock it past him than most dribbles but that's still what it was.

If they were going to give it for that then they would have to give it for anyone being in an offside poition when a teammate was running forward with the ball. They didn't do that at the time because that would be silly.

 

[NLunited]

It was impossible to see whether there was contact or not. Therefore the VAR would not overturn the call. The initial call was very harsh.

 

[bosnian_red]

It was impossible to see whether there was contact or not. Therefore the VAR would not overturn the call. The initial call was very harsh.

There were plenty of angles. If you can't determine there was any contact from all those angles, then it definitely wasn't enough contact to be a foul or a pen. The dirt on the end of his stud touching the lint from his shoe lace isn't enough contact to be a pen. It's an insanely bad decision to give with VAR. You don't need forensic analysis to see if a foul was committed

 

[NLunited]

There were plenty of angles. If you can't determine there was any contact from all those angles, then it definitely wasn't enough contact to be a foul or a pen. The dirt on the end of his stud touching the lint from his shoe lace isn't enough contact to be a pen. It's an insanely bad decision to give with VAR. You don't need forensic analysis to see if a foul was committed

They showed the angles and you really could not tell. Therefore they let the devision stand. It is still an outrage though.

 

[NWR]

With the benefit of VAR it seems unforgivable that they would come to the conclusion that it was a penalty.

At what point do we demand that these officials take responsibility for their actions?

I think if the ref waved play on VAR would have said “not enough contact to go down” but as the ref gave it and there was contact then VAR were never going to overturn it.

 

[lysglimt]

Of course not - it was wrong, but I have seen 5 worse decision this season alone.

 

[Pexbo]

I think if the ref waved play on VAR would have said “not enough contact to go down” but as the ref gave it and there was contact then VAR were never going to overturn it.

Which makes VAR entirely pointless.

 

[foolsgold]

Honestly didn't have a huge problem with the call, there was contact and the player made the most of it. Bruno would have gone down in the same circumstances.

 

[siw2007]

Nah. It’s a very soft penalty but as a defending player, if you clip the attacker, no matter how slight, you are running the risk of a penalty being.

 

[Carl]

The "Onana one" was never a pen

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Which makes VAR entirely pointless.

Bingo. This has been apparent for ages.

 

[Ish]

Shit decision but nowhere near the worst of all time. Come on now.