Diaz cut the ball back so the defender got no contact at all with the ball. However, the contact with Diaz didnt come until after he changed directions trying to get to his cut back. The ref seemingly interpreted that as Diaz creating the contact. It’s a nonsense interpretation, but one seemingly a lot of people are ok with.
6 Likes
I thought it was a stonewall penalty but I also am pretty strict on things like defenders diving in where they don’t need to. I think defenders need to be smarter than that and it deserves punishment.
6 Likes
The Diaz penalty incident, for me, fell under ‘seen them given.’ Without wishing to open up conspiracy theories, several other players in the Prem routinely draw contact (a basketball term) and go over in the box. Harry Kane did it for years.
Diaz changed direction and it was too sharp for the defender, who took him out. Not with the biggest of scythes, but enough contact to fit alongside many other penalties I have seen given.
2 Likes
I think it’s one of those where with the directive for refs to not give them when it’s the attacker who creates contact you see refs trying to be too clever in their ability to identify those scenarios and applying it in absolutely nonsense ways. See the Jota one against Spurs a couple of years ago.
This is not Ronaldo dangling a leg so it strikes a defender not even making a challenge. This is a forward beating a defender’s crude challenge and then being taken out before the can make his next touch.
5 Likes
I just looked at the Diaz one again and he is changing direction to play the ball. I can’t tell from the angle whether he has moved into the defender. I thing the side angle would have shown that (or not).
The challenge is not allowed to prevent him making the natural movement required to retain possession of the ball. I think there are only 3 reasons you would not give a foul there
- he lost the ball to a different defender in the cut back
- there was no contact and Diaz threw himself to the ground
- Diaz made a movement he didnt need to make to take his next touch so that he create contact with the sliding challenge.
I don’t think any of those are really defensible.
2 Likes
Jesus, this is after Diaz had chopped the ball back away from the challenge. Tell me how he is supposed to avoid being cleaned out by that
7 Likes
That’s one of those ones the diving foreigners don’t get, but an English player does
2 Likes
Apparently, the “dive” was not commensurate with the contact. It was certainly commensurate with a player jumping to protect his ankles though
4 Likes
On stills it looks obvious, I just didn’t feel it was on normal replays and that’s what I go off.
If they want to use stills though for Jones they probably should be overturning it. Seen them given and not given and I can’t fault the refs on this really. I don’t even remember seeing that angle.
It’s strange with that handball on on angle you don’t think it’s stretched out as much but on the other it’s bloody obvious. Then again both angles are a handball.
2 Likes
I’m sorry but on the replay I didn’t think it was obvious, on that still it is but that still was never replayed.
People want to make every decision black and white but it can’t be, let’s get the obvious stuff right to me that was on Saturday.
And if we want every grey decision to be punished then Konate should probably have gone. Even Klopp said he was lucky.
My view it’s not a yellow and I wouldn’t give a pen on the rolling Tv I saw on Saturday
3 Likes
Not really. Even the commentators noted at the time, there wasn’t much in it…
Stills are fine for offside or seeing if a ball has crossed a line but not for anything that involves motion and context. It rather annoys me when people post stills on Twitter thinking that it somehow proves anything. I’d be interested to see the footage that still came from. I’m assuming that VAR would have at least looked at it. Was that indicated? (I’m only going on highlights as I missed the game).
3 Likes
Yeah. Any penalty appeal is going to be looked at, but you’ll only see evidence of it if the review takes long enough to clear that the restart of the game has to be delayed the next time the ball goes out. In this instance, the loose ball was immediately cleared for a throw in and there was a slight delay in that being allowed to be taken. It was pretty quick though so clearly the VAR was fine with it.
It is one of those that once the ref has decided not to give it VAR is very limited in being able to overrule it. So in the category where you’ll hear things like “VAR was right to not overturn it, but the better decision from the ref on the pitch would have been penalty.”
2 Likes
The one I’d love to see is the one on Gomez just before the Elliott shot. That looked really nasty, but it’s been forgot after Harvey’s drive took the attention away.
4 Likes
I think there’s a lot on here who need glasses, or new ones, we should have had at least 5 penalties and Konaté should not even have been given one yellow card let alone 2.
I mean who DO you support!!!
Hmm this first was a yellow.
You said others need glasses
Garth Crooks: “ Was Everton’s Ashley Young’s sending off for a second bookable offence really necessary? If it was then Liverpool’s Ibrahima Konate had to go. Young’s tackle was a genuine one to try and win the ball. Konate’s challenge on Beto was cynical and crude and what the yellow card was designed for but the Liverpool defender didn’t receive one for the challenge in question.”
What the bloody blazes is he on about?! Both Young’s bookings were totally warranted.
Btw that above paragraph was supposed to be about how good VVD was.
What a wanker!
7 Likes
Garth Crooks is known for picking players who don’t play.
He’s best ignored.
7 Likes
WTAF is on about with this comment? Designed for?!?