McAtee - I would genuinely like to hear how anyone thinks this isn't a penalty

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?




Trying to not be biased... (in which case my opinion it should have been 1-0 blades as neither goal should have stood and a penalty given).

Considering the championship is generally considered a more physical league, I thought we looked very light. The challenge on bogle was in my mind a absolute no no in the modern game. "he got the ball" is no longer an ok argument as far as I was led to believe, so how you can chop down someone like that.

The other 2 decisions I think in some part we were just not strong enough.
 
Damage control for under par referees. They bottle big decisions against the bigger teams because they know an army of pundits will scrutinise the decisions against the top teams for weeks. Not a single mention about any of the poor decisions will be evaluated against pesky little united and they know that. Do it against the bigger teams and you'll have every media outlet in the country asking for your head to grab reactions from the fans.

We should get the best refs in the world in the Premier League like we do managers and players.
 
I hate the connotation the word "corruption" has when it's used in Football. It's always been used to imply a financial transaction for a favour. Referees are corrupted by fear when it's big calls against the big teams and it needs stamping out the game ASAP. By consequence, their decision making is influenced by outside factors, if that isn't bias/corruption, I don't know what is. They're scared shitless because they're shit.
 
Hooper and Oliver the Premier League's dream team.

At least it put one thing to bed, Liverpool's insistance that the world is against them, is laughable.

They were given everything, from every 50/50 to being allowed to get away with a dozen foul throws

Incidentally, I was sat 200 yards away at the top of the Westfield and I thought it was a blatent push for the penalty.
 
It was a pen
It was a foul for second goal
And in first half we were lucky not to be a man down after Mcallister incident
 
Whether McAtee goes down too easily is irrelevant. He was clearly pushed. Grealish, Rushford, Salah do this all the time. Defenders shit themselves whenever they run at them in the area.
 
Didn’t think it was a penalty myself. Light contact with two players going for the ball and McAtee went down too easily. It’s still a contact sport.
 
 
Aganarama said:
Hold my beer

View attachment 175828
Click to expand...

That's the traditional way of fixing the game so the big team doesn't lose, for those young ones reading this thread..

The modern way is to scrutinise VAR for 20 minutes at Spurs, in Spurs favour, and when it's the likes of us and Luton, just wave play on and tell them to man up.
 
It would have been slightly soft. One of those where if the ref awards it VAR will agree there was some contact and not overturn it, but when the ref doesn't give it VAR will side with the ref and say not a clear and obvious error.

It was the opposite of the Wolves pen, if the ref hadn't given it VAR wouldn't have so it works both ways, the problem is when Prem refs don't have the bollocks to make big decisions for themselves and rely on VAR to sort it out afterwards.
 
Klaatu Barada Nikto said:
We've had plenty of occasions where shirt pulling has gone unpunished when we're defending corners.
Click to expand...
But do WE get away with more shirt pulling than other clubs?
How many penalties have been awarded for shirt pulling at corners in the entire PL?
 
Rochdaleblade said:
This was the argument Clive Tyldesley used last night ( commentator in justifying decision for big club shocker). Wasn't aware that this was a rule. Presumably if two players are sprinting for a ball it is OK to simply take one of them out. As I understood the rule, a foul in the area is a penalty.
Click to expand...
I personally think like coaches, commentators should have to have a licence to commentate on TV with the bare minimum being a referee/Laws of the game course pass. Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct gives everything you need to know about that. Clive Tyldesley should be held accountable just as much as anyone else in the game. If I was at work and started making up company policies, I know I would be.

For Direct Free kicks (anything in the penalty area naturally it is a penalty) no "additional force needed" to rule out the argument of where it was on the pitch... manner considered by the referee to be careless...
  • impedes an opponent with contact
The above applies, no need to be in control of the ball, the only time in football you have control of the ball is when you touch it or the keeper has it in his hands. Its not like rugby where you are carrying it
 



dc_blade said:
Didn’t think it was a penalty myself. Light contact with two players going for the ball and McAtee went down too easily. It’s still a contact sport.
Click to expand...
I never understand that statement, what is a contact sport, you can tackle the ball. You can't push, trip, grab, hit the opposition. There is more contact in trying to get through the Kop's bogs exit than there is allowed on the pitch
 
dc_blade said:
Didn’t think it was a penalty myself. Light contact with two players going for the ball and McAtee went down too easily. It’s still a contact sport.
Click to expand...
2 players were going for the ball, one had the ball at his feet, the other used his arm with no attempt to take the ball away. Penalty. It doesn't take much to be knocked off the ball when running at speed. It was cleary a push no matter how soft the push appeared to be.

Like most have said already, up the other end and that's awarded.

It probably would have been given if McAtee was running directly towards the net.
 
SUFC Guy said:
2 players were going for the ball, one had the ball at his feet, the other used his arm with no attempt to take the ball away. Penalty. It doesn't take much to be knocked off the ball when running at speed. It was cleary a push no matter how soft the push appeared to be.

Like most have said already, up the other end and that's awarded.

It probably would have been given if McAtee was running directly towards the net.
Click to expand...
He doesn't have the ball at his feet, though--he's lost control of it during the first challenge and it's loose in the area. He and the defender are competing for it, shoulder to shoulder, there's some contact and McAtee goes down too easily. If they'd been challenging for a ball down the channel I don't think we'd be screaming for a foul. I'd be furious if it was given against us.
 
dc_blade said:
He doesn't have the ball at his feet, though--he's lost control of it during the first challenge and it's loose in the area. He and the defender are competing for it, shoulder to shoulder, there's some contact and McAtee goes down too easily. If they'd been challenging for a ball down the channel I don't think we'd be screaming for a foul. I'd be furious if it was given against us.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I have tgo disagree on this one with you after watching it several times. The ball was still there to be won and in front of him - the challenge against JM was a push and a knee into the side of JM's thigh. I still say that at the other end, that's given after a VAR review.

I think that overall, the ref had a very poor game with wrong decisions for both teams. We could have had a red and down to 10 men, but awarded a pen and also their 2nd goal chalked off. There was literally nothing wrong for their first goal.
 
SUFC Guy said:
.

You think that VAR would have awarded Gerrard's dive with a penalty?
Click to expand...
If they follow the Laws of the game then yes, the onfield decision was a penalty - There wasn't anything in it unfortunately to overrule it as a clear and obvious error. If it was flipped and the penalty wasn't given at the time presuming Gerrard missed for example maybe not but still could have been reviewed as a clear and obvious error as likely to have been a stoppage in play unless Paddy pulled off a save and it was launched clear down the other end.
 
LBA_Blade said:
If they follow the Laws of the game then yes, the onfield decision was a penalty - There wasn't anything in it unfortunately to overrule it as a clear and obvious error. If it was flipped and the penalty wasn't given at the time presuming Gerrard missed for example maybe not but still could have been reviewed as a clear and obvious error as likely to have been a stoppage in play unless Paddy pulled off a save and it was launched clear down the other end.
Click to expand...
I'm not so sure mate. That would have been reviewed and they would have dissallowed the penalty because there was zero contact. You often see VAR scrutinising footage to see if there was enough contact for a pen - there was zero contact when Gerrard dived - clear daylight in fact.

Also, since that day, when have you seen any other pen given for intent by a defender? I can't recall one single occsasion? That in itself tells you it was wrong imo
 
SUFC Guy said:
I'm not so sure mate. That would have been reviewed and they would have dissallowed the penalty because there was zero contact. You often see VAR scrutinising footage to see if there was enough contact for a pen - there was zero contact when Gerrard dived - clear daylight in fact.

Also, since that day, when have you seen any other pen given for intent by a defender? I can't recall one single occsasion? That in itself tells you it was wrong imo
Click to expand...
That's the thing the laws of the game were written as such that there didn't need contact

https://downloads.theifab.com/downloads/laws-of-the-game-2006-07?l=en

This is from Laws of the game 2006/07 to quote....
"A direct free kick is awarded to the opposing team if a player commits any of the following six offences in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force:
• kicks or attempts to kick an opponent
• trips or attempts to trip an opponent
• jumps at an opponent
• charges an opponent
• strikes or attempts to strike an opponent
• pushes an opponent "

With the interpretation of the laws from 06/07 at 3:46 in the below video, Morgan slid through to attempt to trip, there wasn't any contact but none needed, the referee decided that was enough to put Gerrard off his movement.


Since then they have adjusted the law to the below
  • trips or attempts to trip
If an offence involves contact it is penalised by a direct free kick or penalty kick

It still makes it grey and vague as ever or possibly even more so but also by putting the phrase "manner considered by the referee" also adds that too as each referee will and can interpret the law differently which is where we lose the consistency.
 
LBA_Blade said:
That's the thing the laws of the game were written as such that there didn't need contact

https://downloads.theifab.com/downloads/laws-of-the-game-2006-07?l=en

This is from Laws of the game 2006/07 to quote....
"A direct free kick is awarded to the opposing team if a player commits any of the following six offences in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force:
• kicks or attempts to kick an opponent
• trips or attempts to trip an opponent
• jumps at an opponent
• charges an opponent
• strikes or attempts to strike an opponent
• pushes an opponent "

With the interpretation of the laws from 06/07 at 3:46 in the below video, Morgan slid through to attempt to trip, there wasn't any contact but none needed, the referee decided that was enough to put Gerrard off his movement.


Since then they have adjusted the law to the below
  • trips or attempts to trip
If an offence involves contact it is penalised by a direct free kick or penalty kick

It still makes it grey and vague as ever or possibly even more so but also by putting the phrase "manner considered by the referee" also adds that too as each referee will and can interpret the law differently which is where we lose the consistency.
Click to expand...

Forgot how good that header was from Hulse!
 
When we played Bournemouth, actually that wasn’t the case, more accurately during the Bournemouth fixture at Bramall Lane, Marcus Tavernier was down injured in our box and had to leave the field of play with their physio. Being the prick that he is, instead of going off the pitch he walked about a metre inside the touch line.
Andy Madley naturally wanted to tell him to get off the pitch to allow the game to restart. I clearly heard Madley shouting ‘Tav, Tav’ the player looked round and walked off the pitch.

This is symptomatic of part of the problem in my opinion, the referees and their assistants think they’re all part and parcel of the Premier League Circus and VAR, the PGMOL, ex refs doing expert analysis on TV etc, has only served to reinforce that delusion. I also believe in an effort to promote such relationships with the big names, some can be guilty of an unconscious bias, in their decision making process.

You cannot maintain an air of impartiality, when your calling players by their first names or nicknames, like your their mate. What Madley should have said in that situation is ‘Oy 16, get off the fucking pitch now’ or something along those lines. 😉
 
LBA_Blade said:
This is from Laws of the game 2006/07 to quote....
"A direct free kick is awarded to the opposing team if a player commits any of the following six offences in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force:
• kicks or attempts to kick an opponent
• trips or attempts to trip an opponent
• jumps at an opponent
• charges an opponent
• strikes or attempts to strike an opponent
• pushes an opponent "
Click to expand...
The point is not whether it was technically a penalty, it's about the inconsitent/otherwise non-existent application of this law.

How many other times in the whole history of football was a penalty ever given for an attempted foul?

"It's in the Laws of the Game" is not even close to a defence of that decision.

It'd be like the ref suddenly and uniquely deciding to apply the universally ignored "keeper holds the ball for six seconds" rule.
 
true99blade said:
Van Dijk literally goes out of his way to illegally impede Anel (trip/barge to the floor with the ball 8 feet in the air). It’s as clear a foul as the scissor on Bogle.
Click to expand...

I don't think he goes out of the way to impede Anel tbh.

He feints to go in one direction before moving back the other way and that's what caused the collision.

If referee gave foul VAR wouldn't overturn.. but also wouldn't overturn the goal being given as we saw.
 



jono_t2000 said:
I don't think he goes out of the way to impede Anel tbh.

He feints to go in one direction before moving back the other way and that's what caused the collision.

If referee gave foul VAR wouldn't overturn.. but also wouldn't overturn the goal being given as we saw.
Click to expand...
And we know they checked the build up to the goal because............
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

N
This formation
Replies
21
Views
1K
Wards
Wards
Roygbiv
Memory Lane Podcast
6 7 8
Replies
214
Views
8K
CrookesBlade
CrookesBlade
Maurice Maurice
That one made me mad.....again!
2
Replies
33
Views
3K
skegblade
S
Netsix_and_chill
Help a young blade
Replies
14
Views
2K
HighfieldBlade
HighfieldBlade
Ball_Sup (Phil)
Ball Sup Blog... SUFC Academy - Analysis Wishlist
Replies
12
Views
747
Ball_Sup (Phil)
Ball_Sup (Phil)

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

Back
Top Bottom