Craig Pawson

[Mr Popodopolous]

Just been on.

All it showed was Swansea's goal, our equaliser and the late save from Wells.

[italian dave]

33 minutes ago, sh1t_ref_again said:

Watching MOD and seen penalty given to Stevenage against villa by VAR be interesting if they look at ours and what they think in comparison to our shouts

Definitely: and there have been several penalties over the course of the 3rd round weekend that just add to the feeling of grievance that we all have. 

[Midred]

4 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Just been on.

All it showed was Swansea's goal, our equaliser and the late save from Wells.

As I predicted, none of the penalty shouts shown! 

[Mr Popodopolous]

Just now, Midred said:

As I predicted, none of the penalty shouts shown! 

Was really just in the round up of goals shown, one of that category of games tbh.

[Midred]

7 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Was really just in the round up of goals shown, one of that category of games tbh.

I know the amount of time spent on the first three games and the VAR interventions just kind of rubbed it in! 

[Mr Popodopolous]

13 minutes ago, Midred said:

I know the amount of time spent on the first three games and the VAR interventions just kind of rubbed it in! 

Agreed.

If Man City's 2nd was a penalty then wow both Atkinson and Semenyo claims were. I had doubts about the latter but if that's the benchmark.

Edited January 8, 2023 by Mr Popodopolous

[Steve Watts]

All those talk of penalties.... We all know full well that when we finally get one we'llmiss!

[Olé]

22 minutes ago, italian dave said:

Definitely: and there have been several penalties over the course of the 3rd round weekend that just add to the feeling of grievance that we all have. 

As per the post you were replying to - that Stevenage one... wow. As brilliantly as they've done and as romantic as the story is, that penalty could have gone either way and was anything but clear cut. For it to be penalty and red card when it's exactly the sort of indifferent and (to referees at least) debatable shout we continually don't get penalties for. It's like we are being trolled by all of football.

[Major Isewater]

Craig Poorson

 

[Lew-T]

The first shout on Semenyo, it’s just laughable. Sliding tackle from behind in the box, didn’t get the ball…

Play on…

[Coxy27]

15 hours ago, Harry said:

Yep. The Atkinson one I’ve not really seen a clear replay of, but it certainly looked as if he was swiped. Probably gets given in the centre circle. 
 

The one on Semenyo was a definite penalty. Pawson gestured as if the defender had got the ball, but he didn’t. He went to ground, made contact and the ball went away because it hit Semenyo’s leg on the way down. 
 

The one involving Scott was odd. Seemed there was a penalty shout about 10 seconds prior with the melee in the box and then when it got cleared the ref wasn’t giving anything. Maybe he was playing an advantage but it wasn’t really clear and it wasn’t much of an advantage anyway, as they were on the edge of their own box! Ref only blew the whistle after the Swansea player had attempted to headbutt Scott. So if that was the offence he was blowing for (and for which the player was booked) then why is that not a penalty? If he’s played the advantage then the Swansea foul is surely in the next phase of play? Surely he should only call back an advantage if the player didn’t gain an advantage? Which wasn’t the case 

Scott fouls Wood immediately before the play is stopped, and Wood is booked for his reaction in the little scuffle afterwards. That one makes perfect sense and nothing to grumble about. BBC highlights show it quite clearly. I was a little confused at the game but it's fine in hindsight.

Should have had at least 1 of the others though.

[1960maaan]

24 minutes ago, Coxy27 said:

Scott fouls Wood immediately before the play is stopped, and Wood is booked for his reaction in the little scuffle afterwards. That one makes perfect sense and nothing to grumble about. BBC highlights show it quite clearly. I was a little confused at the game but it's fine in hindsight.

Should have had at least 1 of the others though.

He does, but the Ref didn't give the free kick. Their player is taking the ball away about 10 yards away from the area. No decision and no play on signal, that's why everyone is pissed off. If he is playing advantage, they still have the advantage and the reaction is surely a different stage of play, just an easy out to then pull it back. Really bad, unclear and muddled whatever the Ref is trying to do. 
They didn't lose their advantage as they still had the ball ,then their player barged Scott. I'm not sure what the correct decision but I would love to hear how the Ref saw it.

[Dredd]

Maybe we should get a big banner 'Time Since Last Penalty' with a ticker so we can update it for the next two years. Might put some pressure on refs

Edited January 9, 2023 by Dredd
Spelling

[Mad Cyril]

Do if the replay is still level after extra time, presumably the tie has to be resolved on penalties.

I imagine Swansea will be given 5, we won't be given any.

[Coxy27]

43 minutes ago, 1960maaan said:

He does, but the Ref didn't give the free kick. Their player is taking the ball away about 10 yards away from the area. No decision and no play on signal, that's why everyone is pissed off. If he is playing advantage, they still have the advantage and the reaction is surely a different stage of play, just an easy out to then pull it back. Really bad, unclear and muddled whatever the Ref is trying to do. 
They didn't lose their advantage as they still had the ball ,then their player barged Scott. I'm not sure what the correct decision but I would love to hear how the Ref saw it.

The referee is watching them - Scott clearly fouls Wood, but then gets shoved over. The referee never looks away from the incident and it all happens in about 5 seconds. Then he blows up.

It's quite clear what is given, and it's the correct decision too, on both counts.

[Harry]

2 hours ago, Coxy27 said:

Scott fouls Wood immediately before the play is stopped, and Wood is booked for his reaction in the little scuffle afterwards. That one makes perfect sense and nothing to grumble about. BBC highlights show it quite clearly. I was a little confused at the game but it's fine in hindsight.

Should have had at least 1 of the others though.

I see what you are saying and to an extent I agree. However, my argument would be thus :

If there is a foul by Scott, then he should give it. 
He didn’t give it, he allowed advantage. 
The advantage was not lost, so there is no need to whistle and bring it back for the foul. 
Wood assaults Scott. That’s what he whistles for. 
Given that the advantage is still in play, the whistle should be blown for the assault and not for the Scott foul. It becomes a separate incident. Wood barging Scott does not affect the advantage being played. 
 

But yes, I get why he made the decision he did. I just don’t necessarily agree. Particularly as he displayed incompetence during multiple other penalty box incidents. 

[italian dave]

It's a difficult one for the ref. If he lets play go on he risks it becoming a general punch up. If he pulls it back but treats it as a new offence then he's effectively giving a penalty for retaliation. Which begs some pretty obvious questions. (And, given that we don't get penalties even for blatant fouls is never going to happen to Bristol City).

So I think @Coxy27 is right - although I think it's only "quite clear" with the benefit of hindsight and several replays - it certainly wasn't clear what was going on at the time! Not to me anyway!

[BCFCGav]

Add Pawson to the list then. What on Earth is going on. 5 shouts, but the two in the first half are so so clear. EFL and FA need to be asked the question, something is clearly playing on refs minds at this point and it's causing an uneven playing field where 91 teams get penalties and one don't.

One in 2+ years isn't coincidence.  

[Coxy27]

11 minutes ago, Harry said:

I see what you are saying and to an extent I agree. However, my argument would be thus :

If there is a foul by Scott, then he should give it. 
He didn’t give it, he allowed advantage. 
The advantage was not lost, so there is no need to whistle and bring it back for the foul. 
Wood assaults Scott. That’s what he whistles for. 
Given that the advantage is still in play, the whistle should be blown for the assault and not for the Scott foul. It becomes a separate incident. Wood barging Scott does not affect the advantage being played. 
 

But yes, I get why he made the decision he did. I just don’t necessarily agree. Particularly as he displayed incompetence during multiple other penalty box incidents. 

I think he was just watching to see what would play out and whether he could allow an advantage. He never signals for advantage, he's watching Scott and Wood, so he's not actually playing an advantage, he wants to, but he's watching the incident still to see as he can tell something's going on with those two.

Your point about it becoming a separate incident unfortunately isn't how it works. For example, if you're offside (not not flagged), score a goal, and then someone, for the sake of this let say, punches you in the face... With VAR, according to the rules, the correct way to resolve that is - offside, no goal, freekick to the opposition. Violent conduct, red card. It still resolves in the order of play, you can't supersede a previous infringement with another one - UNLESS it's the same team committing the infringements, like a foul which starts outside the box but continues into it, for example, which is then a penalty.

We might not like it and it wasn't clear at the time from the stands, but it's been correctly refereed, unfortunately.

Just now, italian dave said:

It's a difficult one for the ref. If he lets play go on he risks it becoming a general punch up. If he pulls it back but treats it as a new offence then he's effectively giving a penalty for retaliation. Which begs some pretty obvious questions. (And, given that we don't get penalties even for blatant fouls is never going to happen to Bristol City).

So I think @Coxy27 is right - although I think it's only "quite clear" with the benefit of hindsight and several replays - it certainly wasn't clear what was going on at the time! Not to me anyway!

Agree with you, I was confused for a bit sat in the stand at the time. I am speaking with hindsight watching it back.

[cidered abroad]

If I remember correctly about Pawson and our promotion season match at MK Dons.

In the second half, did he fail to give MK a cast iron penalty in exactly the same way that he ignored two for us yesterday?

[1960maaan]

1 hour ago, Coxy27 said:

The referee is watching them - Scott clearly fouls Wood, but then gets shoved over. The referee never looks away from the incident and it all happens in about 5 seconds. Then he blows up.

It's quite clear what is given, and it's the correct decision too, on both counts.

Well we disagree, partly, I don't think it's clear and that's why people disagree on here. He doesn't blow for the foul, and IMO starts to turn away. He does keep his eye on the incident but hasn't given a foul. There is a tangle and it is a foul by Scott, though they both seem at it, it's the non decision that causes the problem. That's why I said I'd love to see his report. My first post said that he could have been playing on but then pulled it back, but he neither signals advantage (as they normally do) or go to give the free kick against Scott.

I don't know why we bother discussing decisions any more, specially ones that could be Pens. 

[Clutton Caveman]

19 hours ago, 1960maaan said:

Worst of all the bad Prem Refs we've had.
Foul after foul given, but it took until about the 75th minute for him to book one of theirs.
Managed to book one of theirs for something in the their area, but give them a free kick.
Stopped play, I think we may have had the ball,  for a Swansea player with a bad back. Trainer comes on and gives him treatment but for some reason he didn't have to leave the pitch.
I won't mention the Penalty shouts as I've given up. 

******* unless.

Just before the goal, didn't the linesman flag for offside and they took the free kick in our half.

[NcnsBcfc]

3 minutes ago, Clutton Caveman said:

Just before the goal, didn't the linesman flag for offside and they took the free kick in our half.

Yep, Conway was offside. Running from their half into ours.

They took the free kick from 5-10 yards in our half.

There sure was some strange decisions going on yesterday.

[kit]

1 minute ago, Clutton Caveman said:

Just before the goal, didn't the linesman flag for offside and they took the free kick in our half.

That's correct though and actually should have been deeper into our half. 

The offside is taken at the point that the player becomes offside which is really where he touched the ball which was 20 yards or so from where he was stood in an "offside" position when the ball was played. 

It is a stupid rule but it was correct. 

[italian dave]

1 minute ago, kit said:

That's correct though and actually should have been deeper into our half. 

The offside is taken at the point that the player becomes offside which is really where he touched the ball which was 20 yards or so from where he was stood in an "offside" position when the ball was played. 

It is a stupid rule but it was correct. 

Thanks. That's an example where it really would help to have refs able to explain what they're doing - like in rugby.

Although, as I sit in the Dolman, I'd never have a clue what he or she was saying. 

[Open End Numb Legs]

So does this mean the offside player, knowing they are offside, should run towards the oppos goal and receive a pass 40 yards offside so the free kick is deeper in their half?

[1960maaan]

2 minutes ago, italian dave said:

Thanks. That's an example where it really would help to have refs able to explain what they're doing - like in rugby.

Although, as I sit in the Dolman, I'd never have a clue what he or she was saying. 

I actually missed Atkinsons bad pass debating this. 

I really don't know the Laws now, slight changes that make what we have been brought up with completely wrong.
Spurs disallowed goal before the World Cup, the ball went backwards to the scorer, but he was still offside. Looks days to understand that one. The offside from when he touches the ball is ridiculous IMO. Very few of the tweaks have made it easier for anyone but I think they will keep going until it works for VAR, which of course doesn't help the rest of the EFL.

[Clutton Caveman]

10 minutes ago, kit said:

That's correct though and actually should have been deeper into our half. 

The offside is taken at the point that the player becomes offside which is really where he touched the ball which was 20 yards or so from where he was stood in an "offside" position when the ball was played. 

It is a stupid rule but it was correct. 

Yes but you can't be offside in your own half

[asfred]

But when the offence started (being offside) he was in the opposition half, running back into our half, where he then directly affected play. It is at that point where the kick is taken,

[kit]

2 minutes ago, Clutton Caveman said:

Yes but you can't be offside in your own half

I think there is a typo with what i wote, without referencing the actual rulebook I think below is probably more factually correct.

The freekick is taken at the point that the player becomes active which is really where he touched the ball not where he was stood offside originally.

But like i said it's a stupid law.