The NSNO Everton Forums

Cozzie wrote: ↑Mon Apr 22, 2024 7:38 pm It would be quite hilarious if they stiffed them and took more points off them.

Now wondering if they'll come out complaining their social media person is a blue

As has been said, barely one was a pen, two incidents weren't even likely. The one that probably was, wasn't conclusively so either. Almost every foul was let go throughout anyway.

All three were pens imo. Not even being contrarian, just think they're all penalties these days. We saw Jota get a penalty for barely a millimetre of contact against Newcastle earlier this season. The handball is the only arguable one but even that's only because the refs change their mind every week on those.

I know what you're saying, but previous refereeing mistakes aren't cause to change the rules, or perception of what denotes a foul in the box.

The ever-moving views of public/commentator opinion, the "seen then given" opinions, especially those at the margins, should be irrelevant. It's muddying the water.

It has already moved too far from the definition over the last ~20 years, and shouldnt be accommodated further as it's ruining the game IMO... it's a slippery slope that's worsening by the season, confusing players, managers and fans. Games effectively being decided by who can deceive to receive a penalty; highlighting the judgement of, in some cases, one tiny and very subjective incident to determine a result.

As an aside, from what I saw, those 3 non-decisions are the outcomes I'd hope and expect to see result from similar challenges in the box, whether they're for us, or against us. The third one was closer to the definition yet by the book neither were particularly careless, reckless, or used excessive force, foul play that impeded (unless you're going to give a penalty for every incidence of players being held in the box that you see at every corner/free kick). Impeding the player must be due to the action of their opponent, the first one, the dive upon player contact, was obviously not.

The decisions surrounding the handball rule are thankfully returning to a more sensible interpretation, after recent flirtation with the ridiculous.

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/foo ... 647665.amp

Considering suing sky now?

They’re going all out

All 3 would have been given if it was earlier in the season as we have seen.

1st ruled as not enough contact , he planted his foot after being touched then fell.
2nd Hand ball deemed his arm was in a normal position and proximity to the ball.
3rd was a stone wall caught out , clumsy and clearly never touched the ball as the ref indicated.

All these have been interpreted differently all season. We got lucky

Don't even know what the rules are anymore but for me the first 2 shouldn't be penalties (might be but shouldn't be) the first 1 he's barely touched and launches himself to the floor. The second 1 the ball goes over his head and his arm comes out as he reaches to control the ball with his foot. Then it's blasted at him from about 1 yard. Third 1 probably is but we've been on the wrong end of worse than that. We had a city player clearly control a ball with his arm a couple of years ago and got fuck all

Deleted this post as it turns out this is the work of Darren Farley who is about as funny as stepping in dog shit.

777Kidnappings wrote: ↑Tue Apr 23, 2024 8:26 am Don't even know what the rules are anymore but for me the first 2 shouldn't be penalties (might be but shouldn't be) the first 1 he's barely touched and launches himself to the floor. The second 1 the ball goes over his head and his arm comes out as he reaches to control the ball with his foot. Then it's blasted at him from about 1 yard. Third 1 probably is but we've been on the wrong end of worse than that. We had a city player clearly control a ball with his arm a couple of years ago and got fuck all

Always been amazed when players feel a feather touch off a defender in the box manage to plant their foot ok but then end up 3 foot in the air.

6 match officials for every one of 10 matches per round

80 ref's in the current pool

Even if there was a strong feeling about the perception of some refs being fans of some clubs...

And even if there were only a handful who declared an allegiance to a PL club in some way...

It would still be nigh on impossible ensuring that there was no appointment with a potential conflict of interest in some way, (even as loosely as this recent example) with this small a pool of refs whilst still being able to effectively allocate for the required matches.

If you were the VAR, would you risk your career, or even make a decision that might put your integrity in doubt?

Stumpy wrote: ↑Tue Apr 23, 2024 6:59 pm Always been amazed when players feel a feather touch off a defender in the box manage to plant their foot ok but then end up 3 foot in the air.

Conditioning, through being taught to do it, and rewarded for doing so.

Cods wrote: ↑Wed Apr 24, 2024 3:01 am Conditioning, through being taught to do it, and rewarded for doing so.

Bleeds in to all levels too... I coach my son's footy team (under 9s) and he's awful for it, to the point parents and my other coaches have nearly pissed their pants laughing at some of the times he's gone down.

I've had to work really hard with him to stay on his feet... Even a couple of games ago he nearly went down off a tiny touch but thankfully didn't... He said to me 'we could have got a penalty but I didn't go down' to which I replied 'if you could have gone down but were able to stay on your feet then you weren't fouled'.

It's not like he's even good at diving, he's never won a single penalty doing it

Monkey see monkey do though... When he watches footy and commentators and pundits talk about it being a penalty for the smallest of contacts then it bleeds in to their subconscious that they then need to go down as they're told it's the right thing to do in effect

AjaxAndy wrote: ↑Wed Apr 24, 2024 6:07 am I've had to work really hard with him to stay on his feet... Even a couple of games ago he nearly went down off a tiny touch but thankfully didn't... He said to me 'we could have got a penalty but I didn't go down' to which I replied 'if you could have gone down but were able to stay on your feet then you weren't fouled'.

See this is wrong. Just because you're not ending up on the floor doesn't mean that you weren't fouled. If you have to take an extra step to get your footing after someone trips you then thats your chance to shoot/pass impeded.

Goaljira wrote: ↑Wed Apr 24, 2024 7:11 am See this is wrong. Just because you're not ending up on the floor doesn't mean that you weren't fouled. If you have to take an extra step to get your footing after someone trips you then thats your chance to shoot/pass impeded.

I think once you get to the professional level that's a fair argument in some cases, but at under 9s they need to just get on with it and try to stay on their feet and adapt to the situation. They learn nothing from going down if they aren't brought down.