+-

+-User

Welcome, Guest.
Please login or register.
 
 
 

Login with your social network

Forgot your password?

+-Stats ezBlock

Members
Total Members: 953
Latest: Yorksref
New This Month: 21
New This Week: 3
New Today: 1
Stats
Total Posts: 75097
Total Topics: 5526
Most Online Today: 148
Most Online Ever: 17046
(Mon 29 Mar 2021 19:08)
Users Online
Members: 7
Guests: 82
Total: 89

Author Topic: Graham Scott - Newcastle vs. Fulham - topics merged  (Read 2041 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

guest379

  • Guest
Graham Scott - Newcastle vs. Fulham - topics merged
« on: Sat 19 Dec 2020 21:36 »
I said poor old Fulham last week, well this is even worse right here....

Wilson clearly fouled by Andersen, of that there is no doubt whatsoever.  Scott gives the penalty as Wilson falls inside the box.  However, the foul is quite clearly outside the area, it's not close.  Wilson continues and springboards himself over so that it's inside.  Having looked at over 10 replays, the team of Madley & Scott, instead of looking for the key element of whether it was inside or outside, decide it's a red card for Andersen for DOGSO. 

The red card is probably right, it probably is a clear chance for Wilson to shoot and maybe score, but the decision to give a penalty and to not book Wilson for his dive afterwards for the imaginary second phase contact is ludicrous to say the least.  A joke.

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter


TheThingFromLewes

  • RTR Veterans
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4,036
  • Location: Eastbourne
    • View Profile
G SCOTT - Newcastle v Fulham
« Reply #1 on: Sat 19 Dec 2020 21:41 »
No complaints with the red card for DOGSO, and Scott has done well generally.

However Richard West on the near side has been awful. Two ridiculous flags for free kicks to Newcastle, one against Lemina who was just too strong and the other when Robinson was carded for a nothing challenge on Almiron.


guest379

  • Guest
Re: Graham Scott - Newcastle vs. Fulham
« Reply #2 on: Sat 19 Dec 2020 22:05 »
Let's also bear in mind this is the same official who decided Zaha being bundled over in very similar circumstances a few months ago at Selhurst Park against Man United was not worthy of a penalty.  Not a clue.
Disagree Disagree x 1 View List

Ashington46

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 830
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: Ashington, Northumberland
    • View Profile
  • Referee Level: Retired for years!
Re: G SCOTT - Newcastle v Fulham
« Reply #3 on: Sat 19 Dec 2020 22:07 »
No complaints with the red card for DOGSO, and Scott has done well generally.

However Richard West on the near side has been awful. Two ridiculous flags for free kicks to Newcastle, one against Lemina who was just too strong and the other when Robinson was carded for a nothing challenge on Almiron.

You will eventually believe me that they are  trying to ensure that any physical contact will be a foul one way or another.
Heading will enetually be banned and this will stop players jumping up for the ball and being penalised because there arms come up.
The modern game will be, as Whistleblower said in another post, a new game called Passball.
How long does it take for paint to dry?
Referee's decision used to be final!
Agree Agree x 1 View List

Claretman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,119
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: Nth lincs
    • View Profile
  • Referee Level: Retired local league
Re: G SCOTT - Newcastle v Fulham
« Reply #4 on: Sat 19 Dec 2020 22:33 »
No complaints with the red card for DOGSO, and Scott has done well generally.

However Richard West on the near side has been awful. Two ridiculous flags for free kicks to Newcastle, one against Lemina who was just too strong and the other when Robinson was carded for a nothing challenge on Almiron.

You will eventually believe me that they are  trying to ensure that any physical contact will be a foul one way or another.
Heading will enetually be banned and this will stop players jumping up for the ball and being penalised because there arms come up.
The modern game will be, as Whistleblower said in another post, a new game called Passball.
How long does it take for paint to dry?
For me def Dogso as never attempted to play the ball.
The initial foul started outside the area and continued on the line or just inside so a pen. (similar to incident at
Brighton a few weeks back).

Agree ashington with your comments about the way the game is going and as i said in another post of recent
Heading will be banned and thus no need to use arms when jumping.

One other point think you should move the apostrophe and read referees decision is now final!
« Last Edit: Sat 19 Dec 2020 22:38 by Claretman »

guest379

  • Guest
Re: G SCOTT - Newcastle v Fulham
« Reply #5 on: Sat 19 Dec 2020 22:39 »
No complaints with the red card for DOGSO, and Scott has done well generally.

However Richard West on the near side has been awful. Two ridiculous flags for free kicks to Newcastle, one against Lemina who was just too strong and the other when Robinson was carded for a nothing challenge on Almiron.

You will eventually believe me that they are  trying to ensure that any physical contact will be a foul one way or another.
Heading will enetually be banned and this will stop players jumping up for the ball and being penalised because there arms come up.
The modern game will be, as Whistleblower said in another post, a new game called Passball.
How long does it take for paint to dry?
For me def Dogso as never attempted to play the ball.
The initial foul started outside the area and continued on the line or just inside so a pen. (similar to incident at
Brighton a few weeks back).

Agree washington with your comments about the way the game is going and as i said in another post of recent
Heading will be banned and thus no need to use arms when jumping.

One other point think you should move the apostrophe and read referees decision is now final!

No it did not continue in the box, nowhere near!  Wilson continued and flopped over to get a penalty. *Edited not allowed *, truly awful how they can view that so many times and not see no contact at all after the initial foul way outside the box!  Fuming for Fulham.

Ashington46

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 830
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: Ashington, Northumberland
    • View Profile
  • Referee Level: Retired for years!
Re: G SCOTT - Newcastle v Fulham
« Reply #6 on: Sat 19 Dec 2020 22:48 »
No complaints with the red card for DOGSO, and Scott has done well generally.

However Richard West on the near side has been awful. Two ridiculous flags for free kicks to Newcastle, one against Lemina who was just too strong and the other when Robinson was carded for a nothing challenge on Almiron.

You will eventually believe me that they are  trying to ensure that any physical contact will be a foul one way or another.
Heading will enetually be banned and this will stop players jumping up for the ball and being penalised because there arms come up.
The modern game will be, as Whistleblower said in another post, a new game called Passball.
How long does it take for paint to dry?
For me def Dogso as never attempted to play the ball.
The initial foul started outside the area and continued on the line or just inside so a pen. (similar to incident at
Brighton a few weeks back).

Agree ashington with your comments about the way the game is going and as i said in another post of recent
Heading will be banned and thus no need to use arms when jumping.

One other point think you should move the apostrophe and read referees decision is now final!

Not going to do that because there is only one referee  as far as I am concerned and he is the guy on the field and his decision was final, whether it was correct or not. Players, managers and fans may not have liked it, however, it was accepted, the game went on and it was a discussion point in the pub for a couple of days afterwards. These days we are dragging up VAR decisions for months, refereing back to who was on VAR for that game etc., etc.  It is not what the game should be about and it is getting worse as each week goes by.
Referee's decision used to be final!

ClaretandBlue06

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 126
    • View Profile
Scott didn’t send him off though. My initial reaction in time was red card cant believe he didn’t send him. He was shocking again this evening just like at the Emirates last Sunday.  The clip on the foot of Wilson was the reason why it was a penalty.
Burnley Fan

Readingfan

  • RTR Veterans
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2,443
    • View Profile
It was an odd process from Scott.

Firstly, looking at the monitor, going to his back pocket and then walking back to llook again for quite a while.

Secondly, Fulham player had already been cautioned so you'd have expected at least a second yellow card originally. Scott obviously thought it wasn't DOGSO with attempt to play the ball (yellow inside the area) or SPA without attempt to play the ball (yellow card). It's quite a big jump from nothing at all to straight red in those circumstances.


rustyref

  • RTR Veterans
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1,602
    • View Profile
I said poor old Fulham last week, well this is even worse right here....

Wilson clearly fouled by Andersen, of that there is no doubt whatsoever.  Scott gives the penalty as Wilson falls inside the box.  However, the foul is quite clearly outside the area, it's not close.  Wilson continues and springboards himself over so that it's inside.  Having looked at over 10 replays, the team of Madley & Scott, instead of looking for the key element of whether it was inside or outside, decide it's a red card for Andersen for DOGSO. 

The red card is probably right, it probably is a clear chance for Wilson to shoot and maybe score, but the decision to give a penalty and to not book Wilson for his dive afterwards for the imaginary second phase contact is ludicrous to say the least.  A joke.

The foul started outside but continued into the penalty area, yet again you are criticising a referee without actually understanding the law.  I initially thought they were checking whether it was inside or out, but they were actually checking whether it should be DOGSO as they had already and quickly concluded there was contact inside.  Once you get to that point it can only be a red card as there was zero attempt to play the ball.

Absolutely correct decision, although Scott going to his back pocket only to then go back and have another look didn't look great. 
Agree Agree x 2 View List

Irishref1985

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 431
    • View Profile
I have to disagree totally on this one.. For me it's not a penalty and it's a dive from Wilson. Very poor refereeing once again from Graham Scott. Have to agree with the Match of the Day. Similar incident on Lookman in the first half and no penalty. the exact same contact. Absolutely poor officiating

guest379

  • Guest
I said poor old Fulham last week, well this is even worse right here....

Wilson clearly fouled by Andersen, of that there is no doubt whatsoever.  Scott gives the penalty as Wilson falls inside the box.  However, the foul is quite clearly outside the area, it's not close.  Wilson continues and springboards himself over so that it's inside.  Having looked at over 10 replays, the team of Madley & Scott, instead of looking for the key element of whether it was inside or outside, decide it's a red card for Andersen for DOGSO. 

The red card is probably right, it probably is a clear chance for Wilson to shoot and maybe score, but the decision to give a penalty and to not book Wilson for his dive afterwards for the imaginary second phase contact is ludicrous to say the least.  A joke.

The foul started outside but continued into the penalty area, yet again you are criticising a referee without actually understanding the law.  I initially thought they were checking whether it was inside or out, but they were actually checking whether it should be DOGSO as they had already and quickly concluded there was contact inside.  Once you get to that point it can only be a red card as there was zero attempt to play the ball.

Absolutely correct decision, although Scott going to his back pocket only to then go back and have another look didn't look great.

The foul started and finished outside the box, there is no separate or related contact inside the area.  Please stop defending a horrible decision to award the penalty.  There is no trip inside the box whatsoever.  Red card is correct for DOGSO.

rustyref

  • RTR Veterans
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1,602
    • View Profile
You need to watch more closely, Anderson's foot definitely catches Wilson's foot sole well inside the penalty area.  Whether that was enough to take him down is debatable, but once VAR see that they can't possibly say it was a clear and obvious error to award the penalty.

Ref Fan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 977
    • View Profile
You need to watch more closely, Anderson's foot definitely catches Wilson's foot sole well inside the penalty area.  Whether that was enough to take him down is debatable, but once VAR see that they can't possibly say it was a clear and obvious error to award the penalty.

Just a question - do they distinguish between a foul 'continuing' into the area and what could in fact be 2 separate fouls - the first outside and a second inside by the same player?

Leggy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 703
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: East Grinstead
    • View Profile
  • Referee Level: Long Retired Level 3
You need to watch more closely, Anderson's foot definitely catches Wilson's foot sole well inside the penalty area.  Whether that was enough to take him down is debatable, but once VAR see that they can't possibly say it was a clear and obvious error to award the penalty.

Just a question - do they distinguish between a foul 'continuing' into the area and what could in fact be 2 separate fouls - the first outside and a second inside by the same player?

It did look to me as though there was a holding offence outside the penalty area followed by a very slight clip of the foot inside the penalty area.  Whilst the contact was very slight, at high speed and with the other foot off the ground and with the attacker's knowledge that only by falling to the ground will be be awarded the penalty that he believes he deserves - the outcome was inevitable.  And, under the Laws and VAR protocols of today ...... correct.

Whether we like that or not is another matter ......
Agree Agree x 3 View List