DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
RateTheRef
HTML https://ratetheref.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: General Discussion
*****************************************************
#Post#: 90583--------------------------------------------------
Re: Fulham v Liverpool: C.Kavanagh (VAR M.Donohue)
DIR By: Craven
Date: April 7, 2025, 12:42 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Failed Ref link ---
>
> Dale Johnson has had his say on the possible penalty overturn
at Everton: Lewis-Skelly challenge on Harrison
>
> "Verdict: This is why supporters find it so hard to understand
VAR. It's an incredibly soft penalty, and the Premier League's
Key Match Incidents (KMI) Panel will vote that it shouldn't have
been awarded. Yet the panel will also say it's not a "clear and
obvious" error, so the VAR was correct not to intervene.
> So we have a penalty that shouldn't have been awarded, but
shouldn't be canceled because of the constraints of VAR
protocol." Hummm!
>
> Regarding the Kelleher incident Johnson says:
>
> "Kelleher's challenge on Pereira, however, showed how referees
in all leagues make different judgements with goalkeepers and
how they come for the ball.
> An unavoidable, natural, coming together in a genuine attempt
to play the ball isn't likely to be punished with a penalty,
even if the goalkeeper collides into the attacker. The
goalkeeper usually has to be reckless to give away a spot kick.
> Verdict: While the laws don't distinguish between challenges
made inside the area, or give goalkeepers the right to make a
careless challenge, in practice they are looked at differently.
As goalkeepers are expected to throw themselves at the ball,
it's accepted there will be times when there's connection with
an opponent after the ball has gone.
> For the VAR to get involved, it would have to be clearly
reckless -- a challenge in which the keeper had no chance of
winning, or in a way that was most likely to cause a foul.
> Many may feel Kelleher did cross this line, but it's unlikely
to be seen as a missed intervention by the KMI Panel."
>
> One person doesn't think it is a clear penalty and on RefWatch
although DG felt it was, the others were hardly convinced it was
wrong. Football refereeing is about opinions and not all people
agree on everything. I have already expressed the view that
Kelleher didn't have a meaningful impact on the game as Pereira
had already passed the ball and was never prevented from playing
it again.
>
--- End Quote ---
What Dale Johnson has come out with there, is exactly the sort
of guff I’m talking about! A keeper can come out, completely
miss the ball, collide with the attacker, blah blah blah, yet
it’s looked at as a natural collision? Do me a favour. This is
the kind of BS that is confusing everyone. What a ridiculous
state of affairs.
#Post#: 90584--------------------------------------------------
Re: Fulham v Liverpool: C.Kavanagh (VAR M.Donohue)
DIR By: rustyref
Date: April 7, 2025, 1:38 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Craven link ---
>
> [quote author=Failed Ref link=topic=6880.msg90579#msg90579
date=1744045802]
> Dale Johnson has had his say on the possible penalty overturn
at Everton: Lewis-Skelly challenge on Harrison
>
> "Verdict: This is why supporters find it so hard to understand
VAR. It's an incredibly soft penalty, and the Premier League's
Key Match Incidents (KMI) Panel will vote that it shouldn't have
been awarded. Yet the panel will also say it's not a "clear and
obvious" error, so the VAR was correct not to intervene.
> So we have a penalty that shouldn't have been awarded, but
shouldn't be canceled because of the constraints of VAR
protocol." Hummm!
>
> Regarding the Kelleher incident Johnson says:
>
> "Kelleher's challenge on Pereira, however, showed how referees
in all leagues make different judgements with goalkeepers and
how they come for the ball.
> An unavoidable, natural, coming together in a genuine attempt
to play the ball isn't likely to be punished with a penalty,
even if the goalkeeper collides into the attacker. The
goalkeeper usually has to be reckless to give away a spot kick.
> Verdict: While the laws don't distinguish between challenges
made inside the area, or give goalkeepers the right to make a
careless challenge, in practice they are looked at differently.
As goalkeepers are expected to throw themselves at the ball,
it's accepted there will be times when there's connection with
an opponent after the ball has gone.
> For the VAR to get involved, it would have to be clearly
reckless -- a challenge in which the keeper had no chance of
winning, or in a way that was most likely to cause a foul.
> Many may feel Kelleher did cross this line, but it's unlikely
to be seen as a missed intervention by the KMI Panel."
>
> One person doesn't think it is a clear penalty and on RefWatch
although DG felt it was, the others were hardly convinced it was
wrong. Football refereeing is about opinions and not all people
agree on everything. I have already expressed the view that
Kelleher didn't have a meaningful impact on the game as Pereira
had already passed the ball and was never prevented from playing
it again.
>
--- End Quote ---
What Dale Johnson has come out with there, is exactly the sort
of guff I’m talking about! A keeper can come out, completely
miss the ball, collide with the attacker, blah blah blah, yet
it’s looked at as a natural collision? Do me a favour. This is
the kind of BS that is confusing everyone. What a ridiculous
state of affairs.
[/quote]
That is how it has been for as long as I can remember though,
goalkeepers have always been given more leeway for clattering
opponents. It isn't anything new.
#Post#: 90585--------------------------------------------------
Re: Fulham v Liverpool: C.Kavanagh (VAR M.Donohue)
DIR By: TA_Ref
Date: April 7, 2025, 2:19 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: rustyref link ---
>
> [quote author=Craven link=topic=6880.msg90583#msg90583
date=1744047771]
> [quote author=Failed Ref link=topic=6880.msg90579#msg90579
date=1744045802]
> Dale Johnson has had his say on the possible penalty overturn
at Everton: Lewis-Skelly challenge on Harrison
>
> "Verdict: This is why supporters find it so hard to understand
VAR. It's an incredibly soft penalty, and the Premier League's
Key Match Incidents (KMI) Panel will vote that it shouldn't have
been awarded. Yet the panel will also say it's not a "clear and
obvious" error, so the VAR was correct not to intervene.
> So we have a penalty that shouldn't have been awarded, but
shouldn't be canceled because of the constraints of VAR
protocol." Hummm!
>
> Regarding the Kelleher incident Johnson says:
>
> "Kelleher's challenge on Pereira, however, showed how referees
in all leagues make different judgements with goalkeepers and
how they come for the ball.
> An unavoidable, natural, coming together in a genuine attempt
to play the ball isn't likely to be punished with a penalty,
even if the goalkeeper collides into the attacker. The
goalkeeper usually has to be reckless to give away a spot kick.
> Verdict: While the laws don't distinguish between challenges
made inside the area, or give goalkeepers the right to make a
careless challenge, in practice they are looked at differently.
As goalkeepers are expected to throw themselves at the ball,
it's accepted there will be times when there's connection with
an opponent after the ball has gone.
> For the VAR to get involved, it would have to be clearly
reckless -- a challenge in which the keeper had no chance of
winning, or in a way that was most likely to cause a foul.
> Many may feel Kelleher did cross this line, but it's unlikely
to be seen as a missed intervention by the KMI Panel."
>
> One person doesn't think it is a clear penalty and on RefWatch
although DG felt it was, the others were hardly convinced it was
wrong. Football refereeing is about opinions and not all people
agree on everything. I have already expressed the view that
Kelleher didn't have a meaningful impact on the game as Pereira
had already passed the ball and was never prevented from playing
it again.
>
--- End Quote ---
What Dale Johnson has come out with there, is exactly the sort
of guff I’m talking about! A keeper can come out, completely
miss the ball, collide with the attacker, blah blah blah, yet
it’s looked at as a natural collision? Do me a favour. This is
the kind of BS that is confusing everyone. What a ridiculous
state of affairs.
[/quote]
That is how it has been for as long as I can remember though,
goalkeepers have always been given more leeway for clattering
opponents. It isn't anything new.
[/quote]
Really? How come attackers can literally initiate contact with a
gk in a 1v1 and always get a pen. Last season, Onana clattered a
Burnley player from a cross and a penalty was awarded (on
review).
I don’t think it’s fair to say goalkeepers can clatter opponents
and get away with it
#Post#: 90587--------------------------------------------------
Re: Fulham v Liverpool: C.Kavanagh (VAR M.Donohue)
DIR By: rustyref
Date: April 7, 2025, 2:53 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: TA_Ref link ---
>
> [quote author=rustyref link=topic=6880.msg90584#msg90584
date=1744051110]
> [quote author=Craven link=topic=6880.msg90583#msg90583
date=1744047771]
> [quote author=Failed Ref link=topic=6880.msg90579#msg90579
date=1744045802]
> Dale Johnson has had his say on the possible penalty overturn
at Everton: Lewis-Skelly challenge on Harrison
>
> "Verdict: This is why supporters find it so hard to understand
VAR. It's an incredibly soft penalty, and the Premier League's
Key Match Incidents (KMI) Panel will vote that it shouldn't have
been awarded. Yet the panel will also say it's not a "clear and
obvious" error, so the VAR was correct not to intervene.
> So we have a penalty that shouldn't have been awarded, but
shouldn't be canceled because of the constraints of VAR
protocol." Hummm!
>
> Regarding the Kelleher incident Johnson says:
>
> "Kelleher's challenge on Pereira, however, showed how referees
in all leagues make different judgements with goalkeepers and
how they come for the ball.
> An unavoidable, natural, coming together in a genuine attempt
to play the ball isn't likely to be punished with a penalty,
even if the goalkeeper collides into the attacker. The
goalkeeper usually has to be reckless to give away a spot kick.
> Verdict: While the laws don't distinguish between challenges
made inside the area, or give goalkeepers the right to make a
careless challenge, in practice they are looked at differently.
As goalkeepers are expected to throw themselves at the ball,
it's accepted there will be times when there's connection with
an opponent after the ball has gone.
> For the VAR to get involved, it would have to be clearly
reckless -- a challenge in which the keeper had no chance of
winning, or in a way that was most likely to cause a foul.
> Many may feel Kelleher did cross this line, but it's unlikely
to be seen as a missed intervention by the KMI Panel."
>
> One person doesn't think it is a clear penalty and on RefWatch
although DG felt it was, the others were hardly convinced it was
wrong. Football refereeing is about opinions and not all people
agree on everything. I have already expressed the view that
Kelleher didn't have a meaningful impact on the game as Pereira
had already passed the ball and was never prevented from playing
it again.
>
--- End Quote ---
What Dale Johnson has come out with there, is exactly the sort
of guff I’m talking about! A keeper can come out, completely
miss the ball, collide with the attacker, blah blah blah, yet
it’s looked at as a natural collision? Do me a favour. This is
the kind of BS that is confusing everyone. What a ridiculous
state of affairs.
[/quote]
That is how it has been for as long as I can remember though,
goalkeepers have always been given more leeway for clattering
opponents. It isn't anything new.
[/quote]
Really? How come attackers can literally initiate contact with a
gk in a 1v1 and always get a pen. Last season, Onana clattered a
Burnley player from a cross and a penalty was awarded (on
review).
I don’t think it’s fair to say goalkeepers can clatter opponents
and get away with it
[/quote]
I was referring to Dale Johnson's comment. It is accepted they
have to come out and throw themselves at the ball so there is
likely to be contact, and this is often let go, even more so
after the attacker has got the shot or pass away as was the case
here. How many times have you seen a keeper penalised when at
attacker gets a shot away and then the keeper clatters into him?
Yet this happens multiple times every match day.
#Post#: 90598--------------------------------------------------
Re: Fulham v Liverpool: C.Kavanagh (VAR M.Donohue)
DIR By: Joecphillips
Date: April 8, 2025, 2:31 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: rustyref link ---
>
> [quote author=TA_Ref link=topic=6880.msg90585#msg90585
date=1744053564]
> [quote author=rustyref link=topic=6880.msg90584#msg90584
date=1744051110]
> [quote author=Craven link=topic=6880.msg90583#msg90583
date=1744047771]
> [quote author=Failed Ref link=topic=6880.msg90579#msg90579
date=1744045802]
> Dale Johnson has had his say on the possible penalty overturn
at Everton: Lewis-Skelly challenge on Harrison
>
> "Verdict: This is why supporters find it so hard to understand
VAR. It's an incredibly soft penalty, and the Premier League's
Key Match Incidents (KMI) Panel will vote that it shouldn't have
been awarded. Yet the panel will also say it's not a "clear and
obvious" error, so the VAR was correct not to intervene.
> So we have a penalty that shouldn't have been awarded, but
shouldn't be canceled because of the constraints of VAR
protocol." Hummm!
>
> Regarding the Kelleher incident Johnson says:
>
> "Kelleher's challenge on Pereira, however, showed how referees
in all leagues make different judgements with goalkeepers and
how they come for the ball.
> An unavoidable, natural, coming together in a genuine attempt
to play the ball isn't likely to be punished with a penalty,
even if the goalkeeper collides into the attacker. The
goalkeeper usually has to be reckless to give away a spot kick.
> Verdict: While the laws don't distinguish between challenges
made inside the area, or give goalkeepers the right to make a
careless challenge, in practice they are looked at differently.
As goalkeepers are expected to throw themselves at the ball,
it's accepted there will be times when there's connection with
an opponent after the ball has gone.
> For the VAR to get involved, it would have to be clearly
reckless -- a challenge in which the keeper had no chance of
winning, or in a way that was most likely to cause a foul.
> Many may feel Kelleher did cross this line, but it's unlikely
to be seen as a missed intervention by the KMI Panel."
>
> One person doesn't think it is a clear penalty and on RefWatch
although DG felt it was, the others were hardly convinced it was
wrong. Football refereeing is about opinions and not all people
agree on everything. I have already expressed the view that
Kelleher didn't have a meaningful impact on the game as Pereira
had already passed the ball and was never prevented from playing
it again.
>
--- End Quote ---
What Dale Johnson has come out with there, is exactly the sort
of guff I’m talking about! A keeper can come out, completely
miss the ball, collide with the attacker, blah blah blah, yet
it’s looked at as a natural collision? Do me a favour. This is
the kind of BS that is confusing everyone. What a ridiculous
state of affairs.
[/quote]
That is how it has been for as long as I can remember though,
goalkeepers have always been given more leeway for clattering
opponents. It isn't anything new.
[/quote]
Really? How come attackers can literally initiate contact with a
gk in a 1v1 and always get a pen. Last season, Onana clattered a
Burnley player from a cross and a penalty was awarded (on
review).
I don’t think it’s fair to say goalkeepers can clatter opponents
and get away with it
[/quote]
I was referring to Dale Johnson's comment. It is accepted they
have to come out and throw themselves at the ball so there is
likely to be contact, and this is often let go, even more so
after the attacker has got the shot or pass away as was the case
here. How many times have you seen a keeper penalised when at
attacker gets a shot away and then the keeper clatters into him?
Yet this happens multiple times every match day.
[/quote]
It seems to be down to where he plays the ball as its a regular
occurrence that the striker nicks the ball puts it out of play
but gets caught so it's a penalty
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 2
DIR Previous Page