Quote from: The Edge on November 24, 2020, 09:58:24 AMQuote from: Drummond on November 24, 2020, 09:43:26 AMThe grass was too long for our game. The ball was moving around more slowly than normal.All joking aside. I did comment while watching the game that the pitch didn't look it's usual immaculate best on Saturday. Just an observation.I was being serious!... Well just a little bit. I'm not blaming it as its the same for both sides but I did think it looked slow.
Quote from: Drummond on November 24, 2020, 09:43:26 AMThe grass was too long for our game. The ball was moving around more slowly than normal.All joking aside. I did comment while watching the game that the pitch didn't look it's usual immaculate best on Saturday. Just an observation.
The grass was too long for our game. The ball was moving around more slowly than normal.
Several days later and there's still not a consensus which says it all. What bothers me though is that I've yet to see a ref get called over to look at the monitor and stick to their original decision. As soon as they get called over, you might as well forget it. That's what bothers me about it.
I would have n problem with refs re-looking at every penalty decision. I the context of the importance on the outcome of a game, a ref spending less time than Ben Foster does to take a goal kick double checking he is happy with his call would be fine by me.
Quote from: chrisw1 on November 24, 2020, 12:44:13 PMI would have n problem with refs re-looking at every penalty decision. I the context of the importance on the outcome of a game, a ref spending less time than Ben Foster does to take a goal kick double checking he is happy with his call would be fine by me. At least then the ref wouldn't have a bias before reviewing them. Being summoned over is like being told 'you made the wrong decision, here's your get out of jail card'.
I think the number of Villa fans on here that did not think it was a pen is a clue as to why it was not given.Its not as clear cut as the Fernandez foul on Konsa for example that did arrive at a penalty decision (incredbly) and every one of us agreed it was an abomination of a decision..And this was more of a penalty because the contact was instigated by March.
Quote from: ChicagoLion on November 24, 2020, 10:06:59 AMI think the number of Villa fans on here that did not think it was a pen is a clue as to why it was not given.Its not as clear cut as the Fernandez foul on Konsa for example that did arrive at a penalty decision (incredbly) and every one of us agreed it was an abomination of a decision..And this was more of a penalty because the contact was instigated by March.Wrong! It was given and then reversed. The indecision here only suggests that it was not a "clear and obvious error" which means the penalty should have stood.
Quote from: pelty on November 24, 2020, 07:00:14 PMQuote from: ChicagoLion on November 24, 2020, 10:06:59 AMI think the number of Villa fans on here that did not think it was a pen is a clue as to why it was not given.Its not as clear cut as the Fernandez foul on Konsa for example that did arrive at a penalty decision (incredbly) and every one of us agreed it was an abomination of a decision..And this was more of a penalty because the contact was instigated by March.Wrong! It was given and then reversed. The indecision here only suggests that it was not a "clear and obvious error" which means the penalty should have stood.i have said before the clear and obvious error meant it should have stood, not sure where I am wrong.
Quote from: ChicagoLion on November 24, 2020, 07:05:59 PMQuote from: pelty on November 24, 2020, 07:00:14 PMQuote from: ChicagoLion on November 24, 2020, 10:06:59 AMI think the number of Villa fans on here that did not think it was a pen is a clue as to why it was not given.Its not as clear cut as the Fernandez foul on Konsa for example that did arrive at a penalty decision (incredbly) and every one of us agreed it was an abomination of a decision..And this was more of a penalty because the contact was instigated by March.Wrong! It was given and then reversed. The indecision here only suggests that it was not a "clear and obvious error" which means the penalty should have stood.i have said before the clear and obvious error meant it should have stood, not sure where I am wrong. Apologies then, CL. I did not see the earlier post. I read your post as indicating that we can understand why it is reversed, but I can not understand it simply because it does not meet the "clear and obvious" standard in any way. If the penalty was not given in the first place and we were debating if it is a foul at all, then I agree that people can see it differently, but that is not what the issue is in this instance. I am not speaking against you here, CL, just the pathetic state of refereeing these days.