General Premier League Thread 2023-24 Mod Note in op 27/6/23 And 21/05/24

Mr.Crinklewood

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120979032#Comment_120979032

Edit...i should have read a few posts up!

Fitz*

It's a bit late now but the PMGOL have admitted it should have been a penalty.

https://twitter.com/sistoney67/status/1691207405676212224?t=sQ7PirNx3fqv-I3f6TTlBg&s=19

Necro

I still don't understand what O'Neil was booked for. He complained to the fourth official but there didn't seem to be anything over the top about his complaints. Far far worse has been let go on the sidelines previously.

TitianGerm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120979176#Comment_120979176

Did he leave his box? Is that meant to be a card for the manager this season?

ShamoBuc

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120979160#Comment_120979160

Everyone knows it was a penalty.

VAR clearly made a mistake.

Not for the first time.

Not for the last time.

golfball37

It’s funny how the var mistakes are usually in favour of the bigger club

IncognitoMan

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120979405#Comment_120979405

Plenty of times VAR has not helped Utd

I've said it a thousand times. The technology works, the gobshites on the end of it don't.

Stone wall pen tonight by the way - just in case anyone thinks I am defending it

DAngelo Bailey

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120979405#Comment_120979405

They bottled it plain and simple if it was 3-0 at the time or if it was up the other end they'd have given it.

SlickRic

The pen wasn't given because it was the 88th minute or whatever, and it was one of those where it's easier not to make the decision, and just go with the on-field call, rather than change a decision that late where there could be arguments.

It's ludicrous, but I've seen it too often now in the PL.

Time of game makes a difference. They think if they just leave it, it'll be less of a talking point. And it never works out that way. You could see from the way VAR was rolling it back on screen that they were looking for a reason not to get the ref to go to the monitor - I'm pretty sure they decided the Wolves player headed the ball and 'had his chance' before the keeper clotheslined him, and keepers get extra protection for some mad reason, in those circumstances.

theoneeyedman

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120979176#Comment_120979176

yet the referee and the VAR are not punished.

Hilarious

Mitch Connor

With the onana penalty I can only assume its a decision by the PL that keepers are allowed to clash with attackers if the ball is close. The Spurs keeper did pretty much the same thing on Saturday and no penalty was given. and there was no real comment about it. so I assume Onana is only being looked at cause he is the United keeper.

IMO it should be a penalty, but keepers are protected from fouls that any other player wouold be called for - they always have been. Hell, keepers get free kicks given to them when it should be penalties.

Mitch Connor

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120979818#Comment_120979818

The ref didn't give it as a penalty, and his on field call MUST have been that the keeper clattered them, but didn't impact the play and wasn't a penalty. If that was his on field call, then the VAR isn't seeing anything different so it is diffucult for them to interject; as the ref didn't miss the incident - his interpretation is just arguably wrong.

If it had been given, there could have been no complaints really, but it isn't the first and won't be the last time a keeper gets away with taking an attacking player out without getting the ball, and isn't called for it.

SlickRic

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120980058#Comment_120980058

it seems as though English refs are so much more prone to going to the absolute letter of the law when making these on-field decisions than their European counterparts. they don't seem to have a 'feel' for the game and how it flows.

i think you're actually right. i think the ref has simply said Onana's action had no effect on the play because he headed the ball before the clatter. but if you've any feel for the game, you know Onana should really get the ball there, or else anything he does before or after in clattering him has to be a penalty.

sligeach

Michael Salisbury was on VAR last night. The same guy who was stood down for a game last season when he failed to give a penalty to Brighton at Tottenham. And if I remember rightly, Brighton should have had 2 or 3 penalties in that game, he had an absolute mare as did the ref. He shouldn't just be stood down again for a game, he should be stood down permanently. If you can't do the job that you're employed to do and adversely affect results, then you shouldn't be there at all.

ShamoBuc

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120979907#Comment_120979907

They've all been stood down for next weekend. Shocking call in reality.

Mitch Connor

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120980320#Comment_120980320

I don't understand why they have been stood down, but the officials from the Spurs/Brentford game have not - how is the Spurs keeper taking out the brentford guy any different?

Have they been stood down just because it was United that the decision favoured? Is it purely PR?

DAngelo Bailey

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120980446#Comment_120980446

They've been stood down because the PGMOL admitted they got it wrong.

LuckyLloyd

This is a positive step. Takes the heat out of this stuff. Admission of a mistake, refs involved lose a match fee or two as reprimand, accountability increases.

Liam O

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120980153#Comment_120980153

The player Onana collided with didn't head the ball and was actually pushed towards Onana from Dawson.

I think if something like that had been broadcast it would not necessarily have justified the non-award of a penalty but it would give justification to the referee and VAR's interpretation of it and would lead to fewer complaints.

As it is the main issue is that we are in the dark while even the commentators get to hear it in real time and all the chatter. There's no reason for it and destroys the trust between the fan and official.

Responder XY

I get that the Onana incident was a penalty, overwhelming commentary from people who actually know all the rules tells me that - but can anyone explain why?

As far as I can see, three players go for the ball. one of them gets it and the other two collide and fall on the ground. I just don't see at what point the foul was committed. If it is a foul, I don't see what Onana did worse than the wolves player. Neither of them got the ball (or anywhere close to it), so can't really be a lateness thing. If Onana had collided with the player who did get the ball, after the ball had already been headed away I'd get it. But right now I really don't, so would love someone to explain what the rule that was broken actually is.

Mitch Connor

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120980873#Comment_120980873

But why is that decision so wrong (not just subjectively different) but the Spurs/Brentford penalty claim is absolutely fine?

Both cases the keeper goes for the ball, doesn't get it and collides with an oppenent, having no further impact on the play.

But apparently the United call is an absolute outrage and no one is talking about the Spurs one at all.

Infoseeker1975

The level of refereeing in the PL has been dreadful for many years, it should easily be improved with the use of VAR.

The discussion between the referee who is the VAR official and the ref on the pitch should be broadcast like in rugby. If there is doubt as to the decision on the pitch, the ref should be referred to the monitor.

I cannot believe Michael Salisbury does not think it was a penalty this morning, I do not think he is corrupt and that it is a Utd decision, I am a Pool fan.

I think the setup of who is the VAR referee is often the issue; it is usually a junior/less experienced ref & I think they do not have the confidence to override the on field decision, god knows why as in the aftermath they are made to look incompetent which is true in this scenario.

I also would love to see foreign referees in the PL, not sure why there are none.

The apologies from the PMGOL are daft; make the conversation available live & I doubt the mistake is made; the on field ref can ask do I miss anything, was there possible foul play by the keeper - what did Salisbury think happened, it was the 7th min of added time so perhaps he was on a toilet break!!

SlickRic

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120980958#Comment_120980958

he took out a player in the box while not getting the ball. is that not obvious?

the natural extension of an argument that 'he collided with the guy who didn't get the ball' is you can do all the colliding you want on anyone if they're not getting the ball anyway, which is obviously ludicrous. and also, Kalajdzic, who he clattered, was literally right next to Dawson, who headed it, so we can't say he wasn't anywhere close to it.

i'm not even hating. i think Wolves mostly have themselves to blame as they missed one absolute sitter, and were in numerous other times, while Utd were clinical with their main chance. it's how it goes. Wolves should be spending this week annoyed with themselves, and getting better at the one thing they weren't good at last night.

but it's a penalty.

Responder XY

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120981344#Comment_120981344

Honestly, I don't see how you can say he clattered that guy - both of them were moving in the same direction with the same objective. GK jumped higher, but he no more "clattered" the attacker than the other way around. They took each other out and neither got the ball. That's why I can't see it as a penalty - it was a 50/50 incident. So if it's an obvious penalty, then it's for another reason - or there's bandwagon jumping going on.

SlickRic

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120981391#Comment_120981391

I don't know how you see that and could objectively see it that way. you don't know how i see what I see.

So we'll leave it there.

doc_17

So Arsenal sign Raya for about £30m and Chelsea sign Sanchez for £25m but word is that they still are in the market for a first choice keeper. Why didn’t Chelsea just get Raya? Unless Raya has been told he’ll be first choice at Arsenal?

Responder XY

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120981425#Comment_120981425

I've just watched it again. I still don't see what you think you see. Two players moving towards the ball bump into each other. Do you dispute that?

do you think that the wolves player wasn't competing for that ball? (and if you do happen to think that - is he not then guilty of obstruction in that he is impeding the GK from getting to the ball?)

If you accept that he is competing for the ball, how then is it anything other than a 50/50? why does the attacking player get some type of additional protection in this scenario? Is it something got to do with the relative distance that they came from? height jumped? that a different wolves player got the ball (does his team mate get protection as a result?)

Also, which part of this is then clear and obvious enough to overturn the onfield decision?

I'm genuinely interested - I don't understand the consensus that it was a penalty here so I want to break it down movement by movement to understand it.

I'm not disputing that consensus - clearly if the ref and VAR are being stood down, they were wrong. I just want to understand why properly.

NIMAN

It just shows how difficult a job a ref has in football .

Half the replies here are "definitely a pen", the other half are "not a pen for me".

So even with slo mo, and 10 different camera angles, and 24hrs to review it, we still have different opinions.

So even with VAR, it still can come down to a matter of opinion.

Liam O

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120981587#Comment_120981587

When I first seen it I thought it was a nailed on penalty. When I seen that the Wolves player who was hit wasn't the one that headed the ball I started to have doubts and can see why it wasn't given.

If I was an impartial judge of it (which I'm not and doubt many here are) I'd probably give the penalty but without an explanation we have nothing to go on for what the ref's perspective was. There is a case to be made that it's not but it was a bit wild from Onana. Given the team who profited from it you are going to have a group looking for ways to defend and a group saying it's a joke. Never grey, always black and white. It could have been a penalty and nobody could complain really.

SlickRic

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120981548#Comment_120981548

in my opinion, Onana is clearly the aggressor in what you describe as the '50/50'.

the incident, for me, akin to a pass from a player into the middle of the pitch, two Wolves players are waiting for the pass, moving onto the ball slow-ish. then Casemiro comes in much faster and more aggressively, misses the ball, runs into the first player (who didn't touch the ball, and the Wolves player wasn't necessarily going to get it), but the second Wolves player does get a touch on the ball, but nothing comes of it, and there is no advantage. that's a foul.

i promise you, i don't care enough about this to argue too vehemently. that's just how I see it. i say again, Wolves shouldn't have needed the penalty, and not getting something from the game is primarily their fault.

and I agree with NIMAN, it probably does show how difficult it is for referees. but it shows how difficult it is to discuss decisions around, in particular, Utd and Liverpool. anyone who says it's a penalty is automatically labeled a bandwagoner or bitter (I know you didn't call me that yourself), and anyone who says it's 100% not a penalty, 'they're just United fans - of course they'd say that'. the same thing happened with the Jackson handball shout in Chelsea/Liverpool.

there comes a point where you just leave people to how they see it.

cj maxx

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120978997#Comment_120978997

It’s like when Shumacher ? the German goalkeeper took the French player out in WC’82 . He got away with it too

Fitz*

To be fair to the ref, there was an earlier penalty decision he had to make in the one where Rashford (I think?) headed the ball towards goal and the defender blocked it with his hand. The defender was deemed too close to the attacker to move out of the way in time, while having his hands tucked in neatly. Whether this is a rule change, or an increase in consistency etc, whatever, the referee made the same decision as a similar incident on Sunday and said no penalty. Consistency there.

Late on in the game, Dawson went down very easily in the Man Utd penalty box. He wanted a penalty. I won't say he dived, as there was some contact, but there was not enough contact to warrant a foul. I think the referee was right here in both not awarding a penalty, and not giving a yellow card as it was not a blatant dive IMO. A coming together. So again, credit where it is due.

I think he got the last one wrong though, and naturally that is where all the attention will go. Especially given that it had the most chance of affecting a game result given the timing of it. If the referees came out and gave their reasoning behind the decisions, it would be more understanding but they don't. They can't use the 'I didn't see it' line now as that puts the pressure on VAR who are now hiding behind the 'using the on field referee's decision' line in a constant cycle. PMGOL obviously thing he was completely wrong as they have stood down the referee & VAR team.

Mitch Connor

Onana collides with a wolves player after the ball is gone - outrage a penalty wasn't given, refs stood down specifically because of it.

Jose Sa collides with Antony after Antony gets to the ball first, no comment at all.

Spurs keeper (sorry) collides with brentford player (sorry) after the ball is gone, no outrage, refs still in the mix for the next match day.

martyos121

De Bruyne ruled out for three or four months, just to give other teams a sliver of a chance.

nullzero

United can look forward to every marginal penalty call being given against them for the rest of the season now.

Doesn't warrant getting stood down for. We'll see how often it happens this season

~Rebel~

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120981844#Comment_120981844

The Vicario and Onana incidents are fairly different aesthetically - the Vicario one is more like the other infuriating thing that always happens when a defender comes in late on a player who's shooting, making contact after the attacker gets the shot away. Simply getting a shot away before the foul seems to negate the foul, which makes no sense to me at all - since coming in late after they've played the ball is what makes it a foul!

How someone coming in late after a shot is treated differently to someone coming in late after a pass is just bizarre. IMO, those should all be pens - for me, common sense would say the Vicario one should be a pen, and the Onana one should be a pen.

golfball37

Can you stop equating the Spurs incident.

The Brentford player got his shot away and collided with an on rushing keeper as is natural. The utd keeper ran ten yards and left one on a player

AdamD

They are two different incidents, both that should be penalties and both that football has a major blindspot for. Goalkeepers are currently the most dangerous players on the pitch due to the leeway they've been given.

Jinglejangle69

I think they showed a replay on MNF and commented that Onana took his eye off the ball mid air and was looking at the wolves player when he took him out, so that’s why they think it should have been a penalty.

If he only had his eye on the ball the whole time you could argue it was accidental.

DM_7

Re Onana, if the ref gave a penalty I would not have complained as a United fan and I don't think VAR would overturn it. I can also see why the ref did not think it was a penalty as the contact was not of major consequence so can see why VAR would not intervene.

In terms of others VAR decisions last season this was not a pen either, that time it was the Wolves keeper:

https://twitter.com/El_Loco_Jo/status/1555972827647541248?t=wyIrPLJi2Gg2WjVEO9OpjQ&s=19

~Rebel~

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120982094#Comment_120982094

Most fouls and penalties are accidental. If something isn't accidental then it's violent conduct and a straight red and 3 match ban or more.

Mitch Connor

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120981921#Comment_120981921

The spurs keeper ran 15 yards abd left one on a player.

Robson99

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120981800#Comment_120981800

You would swear it was as bad a challenge as that with way some are throwing the toys out of the pram over no pen. Probably helps to deflect away from there own clubs problems

cj maxx

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120982895#Comment_120982895

It should have been a penalty but.

doc_17

The campaign to show more respect to referees took a bad hit today….referees make a mistake and they stood down….Probably was a penalty.

Harry Maguire looking for £7m to leave Utd. He’s dead right too.

Widdensushi

How can you respect them if they are getting things so wrong, surely there has to be penalties for **** ups and rewards for good performances ?

bingobango12

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120983456#Comment_120983456

Stop on. Do your job correctly and you will get respect.

Referees are barely blowing for a penalty at all anymore. Simply waiting for VAR to do it and the less said about VAR the better. The referee in Brighton Luton made two penalty decisions himself so fair play to him but referees having the balls to make the call themselves now are few and far between.

golfball37

Yes but he never took his eyes off ball unlike Onana. The collision was natural unlike the Onana one imo

~Rebel~

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120983882#Comment_120983882

This isn't a collision like two lads going for a 50/50. If one player has the ball, and the other comes out specifically trying to get the ball - but fails, and cleans out the man, it's a foul. The fact the ball was already gone is one of the things that makes it a foul. If you commit to contact - as the keeper did - then you better make sure you get the ball.

The "eyes on the ball" thing is moot - 90+% of fouls are committed by players with their eyes on the ball.