- Oct 3, 2013
- 36,831
- 10,612
GWT: Premier League Round 16
- Thread starter Live in the Now
- Start date
Mount Suribachi
Registered User
I'm old school like that too, and I hate the "there was contact" justification for giving penalties. Just because there was contact doesn't make it a foul.
Except in the modern game it does. And given that's how it is these days, that was dumb ass defending. Attacker is going away from goal, there is no danger, and you bump into the back of him. You do that, you are giving the ref an opportunity to give a peno against you. Every pundit I've heard since yesterday (even ex Liverpool players) say it was a peno and that CL was right to go down.
Burner Account
Registered User
- Feb 14, 2008
- 37,418
- 1,744
It was a harsh call. But if your opponents only have 20% of the ball and you put them in a position to dive and win a penalty, they will.
Well then the pundits are wrong. Or stupid and can't apply logic to arguments.
A guy going down and cheating may be smart (or dumb of the defender to place a hand on him), but it is still not a foul.
It was also horrible reffing, there was no danger to the goal and in those situations it needs to be 100% clear there was a shove, or shirt pulling etc.
There wasn't and it wasn't, yet Pawson called it.
FWIW, I think Craig Pawson is a mediocre referee (at best) and the quality of reffing in the EPL has plummeted down over the last couple of years.
They (the refs) are fortunate to not have the players in their faces the whole time like in La Liga, or the crowd on their backs - then they would actually be on the reputation level of La Liga refs.
Clattenburg may be a pompous git, but the guy is (on most nights) a ref on a level that Pawson and his like will never come close to.
EPL needs VAR, they are being stubborn and are thinking of themselves better than Serie A or Bundesliga. And despite early hiccups, VAR is proving to be a massive success in both league, and a significant amount of points has already been prevented from going the wrong way due to bad ref decisions.
Honestly, the easiest test of this stuff is to imagine you're playing a 5v5 game with your mates. Noone will dive, noone will have to dive.
If its a foul, where you're impeded by your buddy on the opposing team, you'll call it and they'll agree.
But if you call a foul for what Lovren did there, everyone will laugh at you. Rightly so.
....
Also, it'll be quite interesting to see whether DCW gets a suspensions for cheating / deceiving the ref.
maclean
Registered User
- Jan 4, 2014
- 8,486
- 2,598
While I agree with you, the nationality of who you're playing with comes into play with this point
Chimaera
same ol' Caps
Every pundit didn't say it was a penalty.
Heck, Neville, probably one of the most biased viewers possible, said it wasn't a penalty, and that it was soft at best.
I'm ok with it, it is what it is, the balance of the ledger should hold fair in the long run, and you put yourself in that situation by putting your hands on the players back, but it was a poor call.
Everton were awful. They stole a point.
Heck, Neville, probably one of the most biased viewers possible, said it wasn't a penalty, and that it was soft at best.
I'm ok with it, it is what it is, the balance of the ledger should hold fair in the long run, and you put yourself in that situation by putting your hands on the players back, but it was a poor call.
Everton were awful. They stole a point.
Chimaera
same ol' Caps
Oh and Jose is funny. His act is so tired, but he knows his team is not good enough.
Maybe Lukaku should worry about scoring on the pitch instead of punching or kicking players.
Maybe Lukaku should worry about scoring on the pitch instead of punching or kicking players.
bluesfan94
Registered User
maclean
Registered User
- Jan 4, 2014
- 8,486
- 2,598
found it here Video: Dejan Lovren controversial penalty foul vs Everton! | Witty Futty scroll down and the clip shows the penalty shot first then a few different replays of the foul. I'd say it looks slightly worse than I thought at the time, but it still looks more like CL runs into Lovren
YNWA14
Onbreekbaar
- Dec 29, 2010
- 34,543
- 2,560
What is Lovren guilty of exactly? He didn't make any contact -- that was CL. He was running and sticking tight to his man. There is no push or arm extension at all. He puts his hands on him, as does every other defender on the planet when sticking tight to their mark, and as soon as CL feels it he drops to the ground. I could show you clips of how all game CL was battling with the CBs and holding his own -- but it wouldn't make a difference.
Lovren makes his fair share of mistakes but it's almost like a curse at this point because even when he does nothing wrong (in this case, he was just defending tightly and well) he gets punished and then attacked by fans. Lovren's been great actually since returning to the team and he should have no responsibility for this goal at all. He was left 1 on 1 with his marker, stayed tight to him as he should, didn't commit a foul and was punished by a dive that was obvious to anyone watching the game. If he hadn't stayed with him and CL was able to round him, or cut back and tee someone up or make a cross everyone would have been crying that Lovren didn't defend it well enough, was out of position, etc.
It's over and time to move on but it was an appalling call, and Lovren ends up the scapegoat again through no fault of his own.
Lovren makes his fair share of mistakes but it's almost like a curse at this point because even when he does nothing wrong (in this case, he was just defending tightly and well) he gets punished and then attacked by fans. Lovren's been great actually since returning to the team and he should have no responsibility for this goal at all. He was left 1 on 1 with his marker, stayed tight to him as he should, didn't commit a foul and was punished by a dive that was obvious to anyone watching the game. If he hadn't stayed with him and CL was able to round him, or cut back and tee someone up or make a cross everyone would have been crying that Lovren didn't defend it well enough, was out of position, etc.
It's over and time to move on but it was an appalling call, and Lovren ends up the scapegoat again through no fault of his own.
TheMoreYouKnow
Registered User
You can usually tell in these close calls if it's a penalty or not from the movement of the players. Both were moving away from goal at that point so no defender consciously fouls the attacker there and the incentive for the forward to dive dramatically increases (as the chance is basically dead). The ref's decision *can* be defended by the letter of the law, but it's pretty bad officiating in terms of making decisions with a feel for the game (and I think that's sort of what Klopp tried to get at). It's a bit like in football (the American variety) where you could technically call holding on every play but if a nothing hold gets called against you in a game-deciding situation you have every reason to feel wronged.
Just to be clear, Lovren was clumsy and had no need to even be up close, but let's be real here, playing tight and getting into contact isn't automatically a foul. Neither is causing contact and the opponent falling to the ground as a result. There's a zone of referee discretion there taking all aspects into account. The media are typically provocative knobheads in this situation because on the one hand they cry about diving all the time, on the other hand it's the mentality of 'contact means penalty' that helps encourage diving and yet they propagate that mentality when it suits them.
Just to be clear, Lovren was clumsy and had no need to even be up close, but let's be real here, playing tight and getting into contact isn't automatically a foul. Neither is causing contact and the opponent falling to the ground as a result. There's a zone of referee discretion there taking all aspects into account. The media are typically provocative knobheads in this situation because on the one hand they cry about diving all the time, on the other hand it's the mentality of 'contact means penalty' that helps encourage diving and yet they propagate that mentality when it suits them.
Live in the Now
Registered User
Baxterman
Registered User
- Aug 27, 2017
- 6,939
- 1,499
I think it was a pretty weak call but far from a travesty and probably not even a top 10 bad call this year in the EPL.
But Lovren did plenty wrong that play. he may not deserve to be the scapegoat for getting the penalty called but that is another terribly played long ball by him and once again he lets an attacker get behind him easily in a threatening position.
But Lovren did plenty wrong that play. he may not deserve to be the scapegoat for getting the penalty called but that is another terribly played long ball by him and once again he lets an attacker get behind him easily in a threatening position.
Live in the Now
Registered User
maclean
Registered User
- Jan 4, 2014
- 8,486
- 2,598
I know where arguing with you gets so I'm not going to, I just want to know what your position is because I feel like you've said two different things in the past two posts - one that it's because Lovren makes a bad play, another that it's understandable the ref made the call. The latter I can agree with, there is one angle where it looks like Lovren hip checks him, so sure I can see how the ref may have seen it like that. But to us it should be clear, or at least it seems to me, that the other player initiates the contact - they are both running to the left, Lovren is closing in, then the attacker shifts to the right and leans into Lovren, who puts his hands up, honestly as one does when another player runs into you, but it was all a trick and the attacker uses that to go flying. True, Lovren is at fault for letting the player get past him in the first place, if that's your point then I agree on that too.
Paulie Gualtieri
R.I.P. Tony Sirico
- May 18, 2016
- 12,328
- 3,062
Spot on. It's so easy to decide if it's a penalty or not by looking at angles the referee have no access to. Check out the replay at thirty seconds:
Image Hosting Made Easy
The referee is staring at the players backs from a good distance. From that angle and distance I'm not particularly surprised that a penalty was called. I found it relatively obvious that DCL would try cutting off Lovren so that he could shield the ball, cut it back easier and maybe force something stupid out of Lovren. I think Lovren could have handled the contact better, but I agree that DCL embelishes. I can name a lot of worse penalty calls from the past year.
Yes, the ref angle is clearly a good bet to call a penalty.
Where Lovren is making a mistake is that he had no business closing in like that on a play that wasn't dangerous. Striker used Lovren's position as a great chance to initiate contact and make it look like he was, as you said, hip checked.
It was a stupid play from him that fooled the ref in the end.
I can see how Pawson gets it wrong at reg speed but it's not a penalty with replay. Get VAR here now.
Mane's crazy decision to not slide the ball over to someone in a red shirt was what really cost them this game however. They may have gone on to a 5 0 win if he gets that one right.
Mane's crazy decision to not slide the ball over to someone in a red shirt was what really cost them this game however. They may have gone on to a 5 0 win if he gets that one right.
YNWA14
Onbreekbaar
- Dec 29, 2010
- 34,543
- 2,560
The problem is that the ref has to be able to tell that the player is going to go looking for something like that in that situation. He should be damn sure that it's a penalty and not need people like Evilo stretching at far as they can to justify it. It was a bad call. Period. Never should have been called given the run of play and the situation. I don't care what angle he came from it was plain as day that it was not a penalty.
But anyway.
But anyway.
