DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
RateTheRef
HTML https://ratetheref.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: General Discussion
*****************************************************
#Post#: 98242--------------------------------------------------
Re: Newcastle v Tottenham - Thomas Bramall (VAR Paul Tierney)
DIR By: Ashington46
Date: December 4, 2025, 7:56 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Jake the Peg link ---
>
> If the offence had been committed outside the area with
Bentacur ignoring the ball and grabbing Burn would it have been
a free kick? Of course it would.
>
--- End Quote ---
Very true, except for the fact that it was Burn who committed
the first offence by holding on to his opponent in trying to
gain an advantage.
#Post#: 98252--------------------------------------------------
Re: Newcastle v Tottenham - Thomas Bramall (VAR Paul Tierney)
DIR By: rustyref
Date: December 4, 2025, 1:26 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Chris G?ld?r link ---
>
> [quote author=tef link=topic=7455.msg98205#msg98205
date=1764753773]
> [quote author=Chris G?ld?r link=topic=7455.msg98196#msg98196
date=1764714071]
> [quote author=tef link=topic=7455.msg98194#msg98194
date=1764713637]
> I’m fairly satisfied with the intervention purely because the
Tottenham player had no focus on the ball (or general play) and
was looking at Burn throughout.
>
--- End Quote ---
Didn't realise there was a law for awarding penalties for "not
watching the ball".
Absolutely dreadful review as seems to be the general opinion in
most places I have looked.
[/quote]
It's not explicitly written that was in the law, but is a
consideration for the holding offence. I refer you to this link,
specifically "Holding while focusing solely on the opponent and
paying no attention to challenging for the ball is usually an
offence."
HTML https://www.premierleague.com/en/news/4079609.
Blame
the guidelines if you want, but I'm not sure Tierney and Bramall
can be heavily criticized for abiding by then.
[/quote]
Thank you for referring me to a link which absolutely confirms
what I said - there is no law about being penalised for not
looking at the ball. Even in the guidelines you have stated
about not looking at the ball in isolation is not what is
considered. I refer you to the actual wording "Players who only
focus on an opponent and pay no attention to challenging for the
ball AND have a material impact, should be penalised. The key
word here is AND having a material impact. Having Dan Burn fall
on top of you after normal non material contact simply does not
constitute a penalty and when Howard Webb does his next match
officials mic'd up I would expect if this clip is included he
will admit this was an error to overturn.
Even if you believe this COULD have been a penalty, I would
still insist that it in no way meets the "clear and obvious"
criteria which we have been told is being applied this season
for a VAR intervention.
[/quote]
If a defender isn't looking at the ball what exactly are they
doing? They can't possibly have a chance of playing the ball as
they have no idea where it is, so all they are doing is trying
to block off and impede the attacker. You will rarely see
attackers doing this as it would need a total fluke for them to
score if they don't know where the ball is, so it stands to
reason that defenders are more likely to do this and therefore
are more likely to be penalised.
*****************************************************
Page 3 of 3
DIR Previous Page