The worse Penalty Given

[Jesus Reigned]

Having watched it a few times it does look very harsh; however playing devil's advocate Seaborne didn't seem to complain much.

[brightspark]

I'm a referee and i'm always the first person to step in and defend one, claiming the fans are hugely biased and frequently feel its OK to over react to an abusive level.

 

But unfortunately i'm angered by this decision big time. IT WAS A DIVE. Seabourne does not move that leg! IT DOES NOT MOVE. The ref is in the perfect position to see this and yet his lack of concentration and possibly lack of balls meant he gave the penalty. Their number 4, Lods are whatever he is called, IS A CHEAT.

 

This is where I can excuse the fans for having a go. Because there is no excuse for the referee here when usually he has at least one. But here he has a perfect view, the maximum time to make a decision, and he is standing still, meaning he should have whole concentration on the game. For him to muck this up is the equivalent of a michelin star chef undercooking your meat.

[Hamilton Saint]

One of the worst penalty decisions I've ever seen. A classic case of an under-pressure, nervous ref, not taking those extra few seconds needed to make the correct decision.

[saintjay77]

Rugby is a completely different sport to football, there is very little point comparing the two. There is an obvious scenario that no-one has been able to give me a clear answer to. At what point is the game stopped for a decison to be made? Next time the ball goes out of play? What if after a penalty shout, the defending team goes up the other end and scores and that is the next time the ball goes out of play? Imagine the goal might not count, every stands around for 4 or 5 mins while the penalty shout gets replayed enough times and from different angles for the decision being made? It would kill the game.

 

Or if you stopped play straight away and had a bounce ball once the decision had been made, again it would become a slow moving, scrappy farce. And who would decide which incidents were relayed to a video judgement?

 

Football thrives on it's pace, the way it can flow from one end to the other and back again. Video technology will not stop the controversy, but just slow down and kill a large part of what makes watching football entertaining.

 

Of course Rugby is a completly different sport, as is Tenis and Cricket. But these sports have found a way to acomodate video technology without slowing down or ruining the game. Cricket is constantly evolving its use of technology and I guess it will continue to do so untill it has a balence between human judgement and hi-tech wizardry.

 

Football is standing still and more and more games are being ruined by some pretty bad decissions. IMO the officials need help and the use of technology is well over due.

 

Watching a game on sky and the ref misses something, it takes no more than 30 secs to see a replay showing what they missed. If a replay system was in use on Sat the ref may well have decided his view was impared by Morgan so could have asked for a replay. no more than 1 minute would have passed for him to make a more informed decission. Still his decission, he could still make the wrong decission giving fans something to talk about after the game and the game would not have stopped for any longer than it did with players argueing the case.

 

Same the other end, He saw Barny go down but gave the benifit of doubt to the defender. He could have just made sure with a quick replay.

 

After the game had he not used the help that was available he would have been judged on poor decissions. The game would still have its controversy and would move as fast as it does now. But the officials would get more respect as more often than not they would make the right decissions.

 

IMO its worth trying in some capacity and football needs to move forward

[The9]

I suppose the only other indirect free-kick offences in your own area must be dangerous play and anything which needs a yellow card, such as dissent or unsporting behaviour. Not many people know that you cannot score an own-goal straight from your own direct free-kick or corner kick, nor that you cannot be offside from a goal-kick.

 

I do, it's a corner ! All comes under that "ball not in play until touched by another player" umbrella in practice.

 

You can't score direct from a throw in either, and I was surprised Peter Enckelman wasn't arguing that one in the Birmingham derby a few years ago when it went under his foot, it worked in our favour this season too when one went straight in.

[The9]

Certainly isn't, not say compared to some of the blatant diving and plunging that have obtained penalties with no contact at all.I don't like the look of where Seaborne's right elbow is and I suspect that the ref didn't either.Could be nothing in it but there's definite contact and that elbow up under the blokes chin is suspect. Probably just another knob ref though but a bloke in his first season as a League ref might get easily confused by that.

 

I suspect that the ref was looking straight at the number 19 in the middle of Schneiderlin's back at the time, seeing as he was stood between the ref and the incident and he clearly couldn't see a thing.

 

Where's that photo ?

[The9]

Having watched it a few times it does look very harsh; however playing devil's advocate Seaborne didn't seem to complain much.

 

Most of them had given up complaining by then.

[The9]

I'm a referee and i'm always the first person to step in and defend one, claiming the fans are hugely biased and frequently feel its OK to over react to an abusive level.

 

But unfortunately i'm angered by this decision big time. IT WAS A DIVE. Seabourne does not move that leg! IT DOES NOT MOVE. The ref is in the perfect position to see this and yet his lack of concentration and possibly lack of balls meant he gave the penalty. Their number 4, Lods are whatever he is called, IS A CHEAT.

 

This is where I can excuse the fans for having a go. Because there is no excuse for the referee here when usually he has at least one. But here he has a perfect view, the maximum time to make a decision, and he is standing still, meaning he should have whole concentration on the game. For him to muck this up is the equivalent of a michelin star chef undercooking your meat.

 

Actually I don't think it was a dive, he just fell over when trying to go for the ball he'd flicked up. It was "Edds", btw. He didn't even try for the penalty, just fell over backwards when trying to regain his balance after dinking the ball into the air away from Seaborne.

 

The ref certainly looked like a cheat for giving it after the decisions he'd been giving all the way through though.

 

And for the umpteenth time, he doesn't have a perfect view, Schneiderlin is in the way.

[The9]

Ho hum, if you need something done... he clearly has no idea what's happening behind Schneiderlin and was just guessing.

 

[Sour Mash]

Of course Rugby is a completly different sport, as is Tenis and Cricket. But these sports have found a way to acomodate video technology without slowing down or ruining the game. Cricket is constantly evolving its use of technology and I guess it will continue to do so untill it has a balence between human judgement and hi-tech wizardry.

 

Football is standing still and more and more games are being ruined by some pretty bad decissions. IMO the officials need help and the use of technology is well over due.

 

Watching a game on sky and the ref misses something, it takes no more than 30 secs to see a replay showing what they missed. If a replay system was in use on Sat the ref may well have decided his view was impared by Morgan so could have asked for a replay. no more than 1 minute would have passed for him to make a more informed decission. Still his decission, he could still make the wrong decission giving fans something to talk about after the game and the game would not have stopped for any longer than it did with players argueing the case.

 

Same the other end, He saw Barny go down but gave the benifit of doubt to the defender. He could have just made sure with a quick replay.

 

After the game had he not used the help that was available he would have been judged on poor decissions. The game would still have its controversy and would move as fast as it does now. But the officials would get more respect as more often than not they would make the right decissions.

 

IMO its worth trying in some capacity and football needs to move forward

 

Cricket, rugby and tennis are MUCH slower sports than football, with many more natural stops in play.

 

You were unable to answer my question above regarding obvious problems with when play would be stopped for a decision to be made.

 

I agree there will be decisions that only take a minute, but equally there will be plenty of decisions that take a lot longer, as shown by Saturday's game, that despite numerous replays from different angles, it is still not possible to make a clear decision. It won't ever work and it won't ever happen.

[Whitey Grandad]

One of the worst penalty decisions I've ever seen. A classic case of an under-pressure, nervous ref, not taking those extra few seconds needed to make the correct decision.

A bit like Mike Riley's first premiership game at Leicester when 'we was robbed'.

[saintjay77]

Cricket, rugby and tennis are MUCH slower sports than football, with many more natural stops in play.

 

You were unable to answer my question above regarding obvious problems with when play would be stopped for a decision to be made.

 

I agree there will be decisions that only take a minute, but equally there will be plenty of decisions that take a lot longer, as shown by Saturday's game, that despite numerous replays from different angles, it is still not possible to make a clear decision. It won't ever work and it won't ever happen.

 

I would never ask for technology to replace the need for the officials to make a decission so if the ref decides there was nothing happening then he doesnt blow the whistle. Thats his judgment and the game carry's on. If he thinks its 50/50 on it being a foul or not then he knows he can blow and take a look at the replay. It only needs to be shown once or twice for him to make a more informed decission. It always stays his decission and there is always the chance he will still get it wrong so human error is not taken out of the game.

 

So play would only stop when the ref wants it to stop. If he is sure he saw nothing and play should carry on then it does. If that is a mistake and he didnt use the help that is available to him then he will have to answer to the FA. Its in the refs best interest to get decissions right so the result is a fair one. If he is not a very good referee then he will get found out and it will be easier for the FA to deal with it. It should in time produce a better level of referee's at all levels.

 

I dont want a stop start system that slows the game to a crawl but I believe the technology is there to assist referee's in the decissions they make. Maybe if they were making the right decissions more often the respect from the players and managers would return that would also help there respect campaign.

[Sour Mash]

I would never ask for technology to replace the need for the officials to make a decission so if the ref decides there was nothing happening then he doesnt blow the whistle. Thats his judgment and the game carry's on. If he thinks its 50/50 on it being a foul or not then he knows he can blow and take a look at the replay. It only needs to be shown once or twice for him to make a more informed decission. It always stays his decission and there is always the chance he will still get it wrong so human error is not taken out of the game.

 

So play would only stop when the ref wants it to stop. If he is sure he saw nothing and play should carry on then it does. If that is a mistake and he didnt use the help that is available to him then he will have to answer to the FA. Its in the refs best interest to get decissions right so the result is a fair one. If he is not a very good referee then he will get found out and it will be easier for the FA to deal with it. It should in time produce a better level of referee's at all levels.

 

I dont want a stop start system that slows the game to a crawl but I believe the technology is there to assist referee's in the decissions they make. Maybe if they were making the right decissions more often the respect from the players and managers would return that would also help there respect campaign.

 

So you'd have the ref stopping play, restarting with a bounce ball? A game like Saturday there were easily 10 decisions that could have been reviewed. Do you not see how that would kill the game? Yes of course there are decisions that won't take long, but there are plenty of decisions that would require several replays from different angles and are still inconclusive. And as we all know how much stick refs get for incorrect decisions he will want to refer as much as possible to the video checks, to ensure he is not criticised afterwaards for not doing so, he will always cover his back and err on the side of caution in such situations.

[Window Cleaner]

I suspect that the ref was looking straight at the number 19 in the middle of Schneiderlin's back at the time, seeing as he was stood between the ref and the incident and he clearly couldn't see a thing.

 

Where's that photo ?

 

I slowed down and froze framed the highlights video a few times,Seaborne's elbow is under the blokes chin from the camera angle. From the other side it might look perfectly innocent though but as there's no photographic image freely available I just couldn't say.

[Whitey Grandad]

Technology's not the answer. What we need are better refs. Saturday's ref might have had his view blocked by Schneiderlin but he should have been better positioned so that it wasn't. I'm sure that the assessor will have mentioned it but it won't help us now. Our forwards' mistakes were more significant the the referee's.

[The9]

I actually think the only way football should use technology is by removing the ref from the pitch altogether and having the guy sit in a tv control booth, using big screens to convey information to the players.

 

I mean if we're going to hand the simplicity over for the sake of accuracy, what's the point in having someone there to be argued with ? Decisions can be seen immediately from a number of angles, explained by onscreen prompts and there's no scope for confusion or argument.

 

Blow a loudspeaker klaxon instead of a too-easily-copied whistle, whack up a "free kick to..." message, use some kind of projector light-pointer technology to indicate the location of the foul - players will soon stop sneaking yardage if all that happens is the screen keeps saying "move the ball back" until they get it right... same for the wall...

 

Hand over the clock to a timekeeper, drop the "45 mins" to the 25 mins actual ball in play time and stick it on the screen so there's no doubt over remaining time, and that should remove anything remotely contentious or humanising from the game, and give Sky free reign to charge what they want for services rendered to the FA.

 

Let's not half-arse this, who needs officials on the pitch ?

[The9]

I slowed down and froze framed the highlights video a few times,Seaborne's elbow is under the blokes chin from the camera angle. From the other side it might look perfectly innocent though but as there's no photographic image freely available I just couldn't say.

 

There are a couple of photos from behind the goal on here which appeared just after the match.

 

There's no way the ref could see that through Schneiderlin and Edds' bodies anyway, he can't even see the players' legs past Schneiderlin to judge on contact there. He gave it on Edds falling over, which is all he was aware of.

 

Just to add, the comments about restarts with drop ball have just reminded me of another inexplicable decision, which was the ref restarting with a drop ball on the edge of the Tranmere box, which he bounce-rolled straight to the keeper. I think it was during treatment for (Lallana?) injury when he hadn't quite left the pitch and the ball was returned to play too early by Tranmere I think, but the usual procedure for an uncompeted drop ball is for the attacker to put it off the pitch for a goal kick, and this happened absolutely nowhere near where the ball had been when the ref blew up.

 

Lambert was stood right next to the ref asking him what he was doing at the time.

[saintjay77]

So you'd have the ref stopping play, restarting with a bounce ball? A game like Saturday there were easily 10 decisions that could have been reviewed. Do you not see how that would kill the game? Yes of course there are decisions that won't take long, but there are plenty of decisions that would require several replays from different angles and are still inconclusive. And as we all know how much stick refs get for incorrect decisions he will want to refer as much as possible to the video checks, to ensure he is not criticised afterwaards for not doing so, he will always cover his back and err on the side of caution in such situations.

 

If someone goes down in the penalty box its usually either a dive or a foul. 8 out of 10 times the ref has a clear view and makes his own decission. sometimes he doesnt have a clear view like Sat and makes a dodgy decission or no decission at all. If he had the chance to see a replay from an angle that he cant see, (I am only suggesting 1 different view to avoid replays from 15 different camera's) it should give him a better chance to make a more informed decission. He may still have given the penalty or he may have given us a free kick for a dive. If the ref has a clear view then there should be no need for him to waste time with a replay. There shouldnt be many times in a match that the ref could do with it so the FA could also use the use of the technology as a measure on how well a ref controls a game.

 

I am still sure there is a way of bringing in the use of technology without slowing the game down. The technology is there ready to be used. All the Footballing world need to do is to find a way it can be used to benifit the game rather than ruining it. Excuses of how it will take over and cause problems are IMO a bit extreme as if it were to be brought in then it would soon be overhaulled if it was causing more problems than benifits.

[Mr X]

http://www.skysports.com/football/match_video/0,26719,11065_3151228,00.html

 

50 seconds in.

 

He ran in and turned to his left. Opo went the other way and went over Seabornes leg.

 

Its not obstruction if you dont move so Seaborne had every right to be there and hold his position.

 

I do agree however that it was a 50/50 one and its pot luck if its given or not. Had the ref not missed blatent penaltys earlier in the match I doubt there would be as much debate on this one.

 

its over and done with, but that was never a penalty in a million years he never even touched the player in my opinion. we were robbed

[Window Cleaner]

its over and done with, but that was never a penalty in a million years he never even touched the player in my opinion. we were robbed

 

 

 

Oh he touches him alright, goes right through him and if the highlights video was a bit cleaner I think we might even see him pulling the bloke's shirt a bit.

Stupid tackle, the bloke was going nowhere, just needed to stand off him and make sure he didn't turn or backhead the ball. Still all very academic now, shouldn't have subbed Harding anyway.

[The9]

Oh he touches him alright, goes right through him and if the highlights video was a bit cleaner I think we might even see him pulling the bloke's shirt a bit.

Stupid tackle, the bloke was going nowhere, just needed to stand off him and make sure he didn't turn or backhead the ball. Still all very academic now, shouldn't have subbed Harding anyway.

 

Now I just think you're trying to be controversial. The two photos below show quite clearly that Seaborne's contacting leg is still. It also barely moves between (pic 1) the point when the player flings himself backwards, and the attacker being in mid air (pic 2), showing that all the movement was by the attacker. Seaborne didn't "go through him", he stood still.

 

Given that the only contact between the two is from Seaborne's right thigh against Edds' leg which was already in motion in the air from kicking the ball, we're expected to believe that he somehow caused the attacker's right (standing) leg with all his weight on it to fling itself upwards despite Seaborne not making any contact with it or moving ?

 

Clearly the attacker flicked the ball up, realised he wasn't going to get to it, and without any involvement from Seaborne then flung his standing leg away to fall over in an attempt to either overhead kick it, or put himself on the floor to force the ref to judge.

 

 

 

The pics also show the ref's terrible positioning, and his view of the incident which indicate that he couldn't see it.

 

I'm starting to wonder if you've got Schneiderlin between you and the screen or something.

[Pat from Poole]

A bit like Mike Riley's first premiership game at Leicester when 'we was robbed'.

 

 

God I was there that night. Beyond shocking.

[Cabrone]

Seabourne just stands his ground, nothing wrong with that - it's what I expect a CH to do.

 

TBH if we had been awarded a penalty like this then I'd have considered it a very lucky break for us.

 

Unfortunately the rub of the green was against us this time but we've had our fair share of rubbish decisions too (some absolute Uriah Rennie shockers at SMS spring to mind).

[Window Cleaner]

Now I just think you're trying to be controversial. The two photos below show quite clearly that Seaborne's contacting leg is still. It also barely moves between (pic 1) the point when the player flings himself backwards, and the attacker being in mid air (pic 2), showing that all the movement was by the attacker. Seaborne didn't "go through him", he stood still.

 

Given that the only contact between the two is from Seaborne's right thigh against Edds' leg which was already in motion in the air from kicking the ball, we're expected to believe that he somehow caused the attacker's right (standing) leg with all his weight on it to fling itself upwards despite Seaborne not making any contact with it or moving ?

 

Clearly the attacker flicked the ball up, realised he wasn't going to get to it, and without any involvement from Seaborne then flung his standing leg away to fall over in an attempt to either overhead kick it, or put himself on the floor to force the ref to judge.

 

 

 

The pics also show the ref's terrible positioning, and his view of the incident which indicate that he couldn't see it.

 

I'm starting to wonder if you've got Schneiderlin between you and the screen or something.

 

but these pictures are 2 or 3 frames too late. Have you access to Saint's player? look at the highlights between 2 minutes and 2 minutes and 8 seconds.

You'll see that Seabourne approaches the players from behind,stops and then goes through him with his arm up around the blokes face (or pulling his shirt)

To me it's a tackle from behind and is probably sanctionnable,whether the ref can see it or not is something else, I'd say he can but who knows.

[AlfredKo]

So that is the **** ex-exeter defender cost us one point.

[The9]

but these pictures are 2 or 3 frames too late. Have you access to Saint's player? look at the highlights between 2 minutes and 2 minutes and 8 seconds.

You'll see that Seabourne approaches the players from behind,stops and then goes through him with his arm up around the blokes face (or pulling his shirt)

To me it's a tackle from behind and is probably sanctionnable,whether the ref can see it or not is something else, I'd say he can but who knows.

 

The ref still can't bloody see it from where he is anyway.

[Window Cleaner]

The ref still can't bloody see it from where he is anyway.

 

as to that I couldn't say; Following his gaze on the video he seems to be looking at the incident, whether he can see it or not is something else.If Seabourne had kept that bloody arm down I don't think he would have given it, perhaps the arm is all he sees.

[saintjay77]

as to that I couldn't say; Following his gaze on the video he seems to be looking at the incident, whether he can see it or not is something else.If Seabourne had kept that bloody arm down I don't think he would have given it, perhaps the arm is all he sees.

 

It still looks to me that Seaborne closed him down quickly, (being around 10 yards from the goal I think thats a good decission) unsuccesfully tried to turn Edds towards the goal line instead of accross the 6 yard area and Edds went the other way and over his leg. Its the kind of decission that goes either way in plenty of matches.

 

The problem however, is how restricted the ref's view of the tackle is. If all he can see is an obstructed view then his decission on a Pen or not is a guess at best. Did anyone see if the Lino waved his flag furiously because he saw a foul?

 

Question for the Ref's on here though. If you had an unsighted view of a penalty box incodent would you give a decission to either side or wave play on? And if you a video replay was available which gave you a better view of the incodent would you feel it would help or hinder any decission?

[Liquidshokk]

The worse Penalty Given

 

The worst Penalty Given

 

 

Sorry, had to get that off my chest.

[The9]

as to that I couldn't say; Following his gaze on the video he seems to be looking at the incident, whether he can see it or not is something else.If Seabourne had kept that bloody arm down I don't think he would have given it, perhaps the arm is all he sees.

 

From these pics I can see what you mean re:the arm, as Schneiderlin starts out of the way and then having put his body in the ref's line of sight is leaning and moving slightly to the right during the incident. He clearly blocks some of it but the ref only saw the "bad bits".

 

Ahhh, anyway, time for some more screenshots from iPlayer...

 

Seaborne moves in and stops short

Seaborne pivots on his left and steps in right foot first, with his arm up.

Edds starts to lean back into Seaborne whilst chipping right footed

Edds puts right foot down whilst still pulling his left off the ground, falls back

 

What I've realised from watching this endlessly, is that the Tranmere player actually tries to switch standing leg - as he chips the ball up with his right foot, his standing foot is his left (in contact with Seaborne), but he then quickly tries to change feet, throws his right foot at the ground while his left is still in mid-air and falls over backwards as a result. He'd have fallen over doing that if the nearest defender was 30 yards away.

Edited 9 March, 2010 by The9

[The9]

Question for the Ref's on here though. If you had an unsighted view of a penalty box incodent would you give a decission to either side or wave play on?

 

If you can't see it you can't give it.

[The9]

The worst Penalty Given

 

 

Sorry, had to get that off my chest.

 

Beat you to it.

[stu0x]

It clearly wasn't a penalty.

 

Watch what Edds does after he goes down. He gets up, the whistle goes, and THEN he immediately flings his arms open and looks about, as if to remonstrate with the ref.

 

Why? Because he thinks the ref is blowing for a foul against him. He knows that there is no way it's a penalty, so the only possibility in his mind is that the ref is blowing up against him, presumably for raising a boot or similar (which would have been almost as harsh as what he actually did).

 

After a second or so he realises that the ref is signalling for a penalty, and he just drops his hands, as if to say "ah... okay then".