Something urgent needs to happen (7 Viewers)

[Nick]

Wasn't it a dive that resulted in a penalty being awarded and a goal scored? I know a dive is a dive, but the resulting consequences have to be taken into consideration.

All players and teams dive all over the pitch. They see it as gaining an advantage rather than cheating. The same way as creeping up the line with a throw in, to gain yards. The same as putting the ball down for a free kick. Then another player comes to take free kick re spotting the ball a yard further forward. Players accept it as just part of the game, trying to gain an advantage. It annoys fans but normally only when the opposition do it.

Fans complain about lots of things but they are as inconsistent as any referee.

How many penalties have been given for dives? I'm pretty sure it's happened.

Bamford punched the ball in the net the other day, will he get banned?

Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk

 

---

[MalcSB]

That is how conspiracy theories start. The reality is refs can't see everything. Fans are often totally biased in how they view things. The view the ref has of any incident on the pitch is totally different to any fans view. We have all seen two TV camera angles that can make incidents look very different.

Millwall fans thought the ref was a complete homer.

The conspiracy is against refs, they can't win. The media don't help and VAR has made their situation worse not better. VAR refs are interfering too much which is against the original protocols of 'clear and obvious'. Some rules they have to enforce are open to individual interpretation which is an open door for criticism. The media devote a lot of post match time to the scrutiny of refs and the conclusion I draw from it is even the 'experts' agree to disagree.

The current rules for revisiting incidents seems to be random and inconsistent. But if a refs decision is overturned the public opinion will be the ref was originally wrong. Which obviously would not be a correct assumption in all cases.

That is how conspiracy theories start. The reality is refs can't see everything. Fans are often totally biased in how they view things. The view the ref has of any incident on the pitch is totally different to any fans view. We have all seen two TV camera angles that can make incidents look very different.

Millwall fans thought the ref was a complete homer.

The conspiracy is against refs, they can't win. The media don't help and VAR has made their situation worse not better. VAR refs are interfering too much which is against the original protocols of 'clear and obvious'. Some rules they have to enforce are open to individual interpretation which is an open door for criticism. The media devote a lot of post match time to the scrutiny of refs and the conclusion I draw from it is even the 'experts' agree to disagree.

The current rules for revisiting incidents seems to be random and inconsistent. But if a refs decision is overturned the public opinion will be the ref was originally wrong. Which obviously would not be a correct assumption in all cases.

I would argue that if a decision is overturned the ref WAS originally wrong - they might just have a really good reason for being wrong.

 

[wingy]

How many penalties have been given for dives? I'm pretty sure it's happened.

Bamford punched the ball in the net the other day, will he get banned?

Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk

Oh that'll just be a goal from normal play so allowed

 

[Legia Sky Blue]

How do the fa decide when they will look into stuff from footage and when they won't?

It has to be reported by someone first. I've not seen the incident discussed anywhere but in this thread, which I very much doubt the FA are monitoring.

 

[Bidda]

It has to be reported by someone first. I've not seen the incident discussed anywhere but in this thread, which I very much doubt the FA are monitoring.

That was a question I raised earlier. Should the video excerpt be shown on media to raise the issue?

 

[Hobo]

It has to be reported by someone first. I've not seen the incident discussed anywhere but in this thread, which I very much doubt the FA are monitoring.

I think the onus would be on the aggrieved club to make a complaint and submit any evidence they have?

Let's be honest if they opened it up to fans they would still be addressing stuff from games played in October.

 

[Hobo]

How many penalties have been given for dives? I'm pretty sure it's happened.

Bamford punched the ball in the net the other day, will he get banned?

Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk

How many penalties have been given for dives? I'm pretty sure it's happened.

Bamford punched the ball in the net the other day, will he get banned?

Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk

I agree it looked like he used his elbow to put it into the net. I have only seen it from one angle though.

But handball is one of those rules which they have over complicated by introducing an element of personal interpretation.

A couple of things that have to be considered. The ball is deflected off a defender changing the trajectory of the ball? Did it hit Bamford's chest first before going into his arm? Have Rotherham made a formal complaint?

For me the goal should have been disallowed.

 

[Macca1987]

I agree Hobo, my only worry is that MR may have got his fingers burnt on the Jamie Allen one and got nowhere, so has decided to just sit on this one

 

[Hobo]

I agree Hobo, my only worry is that MR may have got his fingers burnt on the Jamie Allen one and got nowhere, so has decided to just sit on this one

Yes, do we want to be the club that complains every week?

 

[steve cooper]

The club should complain about it, given the clarity of evidence it would be very difficult to ignore.
In any case I doubt the authorities saw us as wrong to complain about Allen, they probably didn't want to go against their own rules of not challenging a ref's decision, especially given the inconclusive video.

 

[Nick]

Yes, do we want to be the club that complains every week?

For things like that and Allen, yes.

 

[Hobo]

The club should complain about it, given the clarity of evidence it would be very difficult to ignore.
In any case I doubt the authorities saw us as wrong to complain about Allen, they probably didn't want to go against their own rules of not challenging a ref's decision, especially given the inconclusive video.

For things like that and Allen, yes.

And I would agree with both of you. But the club will have its own considerations to make. For instance we don't know what has been said between the two players and the clubs after the match?
They may feel it has been addressed and we move on?

 

[MalcSB]

Yes, do we want to be the club that complains every week?

Only if there is an assault on one of our players every week.

 

[MalcSB]

And I would agree with both of you. But the club will have its own considerations to make. For instance we don't know what has been said between the two players and the clubs after the match?
They may feel it has been addressed and we move on?

If that’s the case, why not say so?

 

[northstander]

"CoventryLive understands that the FA are aware of the incident and are reviewing it. That could mean a retrospective three match ban for violent conduct, if the FA feel an offence has taken place.

In order for the FA to take retrospective action it must first establish from the match officials whether the incident was ‘not seen’. If they confirm they did see it then in almost all cases no further action is taken. If it is confirmed the match officials did not see the incident, the FA convenes a panel of three ex-professional referees and asks them to review the video footage independently of one another.

Only in circumstances where the panel members are unanimous will the player be charged."

FA review Coventry City's Tatsu footage, warrior returns & TK's 'endless abuse'

Coventry City notebook from CoventryLive as Sky Blues reporter Andy Turner takes his weekly look at what is going on in and around the club

www.coventrytelegraph.net

 

[MalcSB]

So if they say they saw it, that’s the end of the matter?

I wonder why the difference between seeing something as a penalty when it wasn’t, and not seeing something as serious foul play when it was?

 

[Hobo]

If that’s the case, why not say so?

Why do they have to say anything? They haven't made any statement either way. Perhaps they are waiting on a process

 

[Nick]

So if they say they saw it but deemed it ok...

 

[mark82]

Why is deciding a decision is incorrect after the game any different to using video evidence during the game to change a decision? Bit mad that.

 

[Hobo]

Why is deciding a decision is incorrect after the game any different to using video evidence during the game to change a decision? Bit mad that.

Yes it is a bit mad? But even more mad we have some FA Cup games with VAR and others not.

 

[MalcSB]

Why do they have to say anything? They haven't made any statement either way. Perhaps they are waiting on a process

You said “They may feel it has been addressed and we move on?”
To which I replied, why not say so? If it has been addressed they won’t be waiting on a process and surely they can see the incident has stirred up some unrest and concern about a lack of action.

if it’s been addressed, tell us.

 

[steve cooper]

So if they say they saw it, that’s the end of the matter?

I wonder why the difference between seeing something as a penalty when it wasn’t, and not seeing something as serious foul play when it was?

It's an automatic red if the ref saw it, so he is unlikely to say he saw it and took no action. Allen's incident was different because the ref gave a free kick. He obviously didn't see any elbow contact and his on-the-spot decision was to just award a free kick. Without conclusive video footage who can challenge him.

 

[Hobo]

You said “They may feel it has been addressed and we move on?”
To which I replied, why not say so? If it has been addressed they won’t be waiting on a process and surely they can see the incident has stirred up some unrest and concern about a lack of action.

if it’s been addressed, tell us.

Perhaps they will when they know the outcome?There are lots of on going things the club don't tell us, they don't have to, they are in control of what and when they choose to make public statements.

 

[steve cooper]

"CoventryLive understands that the FA are aware of the incident and are reviewing it. That could mean a retrospective three match ban for violent conduct, if the FA feel an offence has taken place.

In order for the FA to take retrospective action it must first establish from the match officials whether the incident was ‘not seen’. If they confirm they did see it then in almost all cases no further action is taken. If it is confirmed the match officials did not see the incident, the FA convenes a panel of three ex-professional referees and asks them to review the video footage independently of one another.

Only in circumstances where the panel members are unanimous will the player be charged."

FA review Coventry City's Tatsu footage, warrior returns & TK's 'endless abuse'

Coventry City notebook from CoventryLive as Sky Blues reporter Andy Turner takes his weekly look at what is going on in and around the club

www.coventrytelegraph.net

That's an interesting choice of words. The FA were in an awkward position with Allen's issue, the ref had to say he saw it because he gave a free kick. If there was conclusive video evidence it's possible, given the wording above, that they would have taken retrospective action. I like to think they would have, anyway.

 

[Hobo]

That's an interesting choice of words. The FA were in an awkward position with Allen's issue, the ref had to say he saw it because he gave a free kick. If there was conclusive video evidence it's possible, given the wording above, that they would have taken retrospective action. I like to think they would have, anyway.

The thing with the Allen situation was he played on with the injury. How many of our fans reacted to the challenge before they knew the extent of the injury? I don't know the answer to that?

To me it was obvious he made contact with Allen that was avoidable. However it didn't look like a challenge that would cause injury. So I can understand why the ref thought a free kick was enough?

The protocols on how the FA sweep up after is more complex. Because what we don't want is endless post match challenges about refs decisions. Anymore than you want a ref blowing everytime there is contact, everytime a yard is gained from a free kick or throw in.

It is where VAR is leading us - for every decision to be correct. It can't happen because there will always be human error whether it is during the match or post match video evidence or not.

 

[MalcSB]

The thing with the Allen situation was he played on with the injury. How many of our fans reacted to the challenge before they knew the extent of the injury? I don't know the answer to that?

To me it was obvious he made contact with Allen that was avoidable. However it didn't look like a challenge that would cause injury. So I can understand why the ref thought a free kick was enough?

The protocols on how the FA sweep up after is more complex. Because what we don't want is endless post match challenges about refs decisions. Anymore than you want a ref blowing everytime there is contact, everytime a yard is gained from a free kick or throw in.

It is where VAR is leading us - for every decision to be correct. It can't happen because there will always be human error whether it is during the match or post match video evidence or not.

There was a clear and obvious, deliberate and calculated elbow to the face after the ball had gone.

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

There was a clear and obvious, deliberate and calculated elbow to the face after the ball had gone.

How’s Bamford’s not been banned for his handball cheating

 

[Warwickhunt]

So if they say they saw it, that’s the end of the matter?

I wonder why the difference between seeing something as a penalty when it wasn’t, and not seeing something as serious foul play when it was?

then if they say they seen it why did they not speak to the assailent about it?

 

[Warwickhunt]

The thing with the Allen situation was he played on with the injury. How many of our fans reacted to the challenge before they knew the extent of the injury? I don't know the answer to that?

To me it was obvious he made contact with Allen that was avoidable. However it didn't look like a challenge that would cause injury. So I can understand why the ref thought a free kick was enough?

The protocols on how the FA sweep up after is more complex. Because what we don't want is endless post match challenges about refs decisions. Anymore than you want a ref blowing everytime there is contact, everytime a yard is gained from a free kick or throw in.

It is where VAR is leading us - for every decision to be correct. It can't happen because there will always be human error whether it is during the match or post match video evidence or not.

however these illegal off the ball challenges need to be highlighted to the referee! at least VAR would have sent the ref to look at the incident, and in this case he would most definately sent the player off!

 

[thekidfromstrettoncamp]

How’s Bangor’s not been banned for his handball cheating

Agree he even had the nerve to add it to his celibrations.

 

[Hobo]

There was a clear and obvious, deliberate and calculated elbow to the face after the ball had gone.

In Sakamoto's case yes. With Allen it was leaning in with the shoulder as contact was made - which could makes the collision look more innocuous in real time?

The fact that the more obvious reckless challenge has luckily resulted in little injury and the more subtle but equally reckless challenge resulted in serious injury to Allen demonstrates the difficulties refs have. They get one take on things in the Championship. With the Allen incident a player runs across the refs field of view as it happens, which again may have masked the severity of the collision.

With Sakamoto the elbow was so late the ref may not have seen it. We are also looking at a video from one angle and the ref is on the opposite side of Sakamoto - so his view of the incident would be totally different to the one we have seen.

To me the the FA should just take video evidence and accept the ref may not have fully seen the incident with Sakamoto because of his position and view.

 

[thekidfromstrettoncamp]

Refs. say they don't see some things fair enough there human.They do see throw ins,fa law 15 is never adhered to "STAND" and "throw with both hands from behind and over the head from the point where it LEFT the field of play" .I've yet to see a game where this rule has been enforced.
This about the Jamie Allen one the ref has seen and took no action so that the end of it.When Matty incident happen the ref seen it gave the penalty and action was still taken. There maybe inconclusive evidence but a least look at it. Where is the difference?

 

[MalcSB]

Refs. say they don't see some things fair enough there human.They do see throw ins,fa law 15 is never adhered to "STAND" and "throw with both hands from behind and over the head from the point where it LEFT the field of play" .I've yet to see a game where this rule has been enforced.
This about the Jamie Allen one the ref has seen and took no action so that the end of it.When Matty incident happen the ref seen it gave the penalty and action was still taken. There maybe inconclusive evidence but a least look at it. Where is the difference?

Throw ins would soon be taken from the right place if creeping up the touch line meant the throw being given to the other side. Allowing the game to flow should not result in blatant disregard of the laws of the game.

 

[thekidfromstrettoncamp]

Throw ins would soon be taken from the right place if creeping up the touch line meant the throw being given to the other side. Allowing the game to flow should not result in blatant disregard of the laws of the game.

There are many more like free kicks for instants where the laws are disrgarded.The point I am making is the laws are slmple If teams were pulled up like you say "throw given to the other side". Encroching at free kick moving the ball 10 yards forward The game might just be played how it should be.

 

[Hobo]

There are many more like free kicks for instants where the laws are disrgarded.The point I am making is the laws are slmple If teams were pulled up like you say "throw given to the other side". Encroching at free kick moving the ball 10 yards forward The game might just be played how it should be.

The Sumo contest between about eight players at every corner is another thing that is spoiling the game.