Match Thread Everton vs Brentford - Preview, Match Report and MotM Poll.

[smileychap]

Sean is clearly not the savor that so many of you are dreaming of.
We got away with it today, holding on just as we did against Leeds.
Sean never plays our best team, Sean never knows when to make a change.
If by god, jesus and allah all combined we stay up this season, it won't have anything to do with Sean

Humour me... our best team please :

 

[davek]

 

[Chewbacca]

Sean is clearly not the savor that so many of you are dreaming of.
We got away with it today, holding on just as we did against Leeds.
Sean never plays our best team, Sean never knows when to make a change.
If by god, jesus and allah all combined we stay up this season, it won't have anything to do with Sean

Alright Christine?

 

[Tylard]

I can't believe Dwight McNeil was our MOTM. I voted for him too, but it's still unbelievable.

 

[Bluerover]

I watched that Gray disallowed goal again. The defender kicked the ball straight at him.

If that had been a defender would it have been a penalty??? Not on your nelly

 

[NilSatisOptimum]

Seems to be a cunning Dychian plan for Doucoure to get into a fight around the 60/70 minute mark. With a. View to drawing more players into some sort of melee.

Can’t say I’m against the idea?

Yes, we're men. Men is what we are.

 

[blindbert]

I watched that Gray disallowed goal again. The defender kicked the ball straight at him.

If that had been a defender would it have been a penalty??? Not on your nelly

It's daft isn't it., but them's not the rules.

 

[Tylard]

I watched that Gray disallowed goal again. The defender kicked the ball straight at him.

If that had been a defender would it have been a penalty??? Not on your nelly

The rule is written differently for defenders (or anyone else). You cannot score with your hand whether deliberate or not. All other handling offenses (such as a defender) must be a deliberate action in order to be a foul. This distinction was brought in 3-4 years ago, prior to this the goal would have stood no problem.

Gray certainly didn't deliberately handle the ball, he had no time to, and you're right it blasted into him. But if it hit his arm than it would be a foul and no goal. It's still tough to tell of it did his arm though, that's a different discussion.

 

[andy4efc]

The rule is written differently for defenders (or anyone else). You cannot score with your hand whether deliberate or not. All other handling offenses (such as a defender) must be a deliberate action in order to be a foul. This distinction was brought in 3-4 years ago, prior to this the goal would have stood no problem.

Gray certainly didn't deliberately handle the ball, he had no time to, and you're right it blasted into him. But if it hit his arm than it would be a foul and no goal. It's still tough to tell of it did his arm though, that's a different discussion.

Correct re: rules..

Im convinced it didnt hit his arm. Watching them slow it down as much as possible to look for any extra movement of hte ball, which didnt happen, and for them to then rule it out was shambolic.

 

[msb]

Correct re: rules..

Im convinced it didnt hit his arm. Watching them slow it down as much as possible to look for any extra movement of hte ball, which didnt happen, and for them to then rule it out was shambolic.

I don't think the ref had given it, then VAR would need evidence of a clear and obvious error. Had the ref given it, I think it would have stood. He did not signal goal, I'm pretty sure of that, despite being 3 foot off the ground and screaming "gooooooooooaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaal" at the time.

 

[andy4efc]

I don't think the ref had given it, then VAR would need evidence of a clear and obvious error. Had the ref given it, I think it would have stood. He did not signal goal, I'm pretty sure of that, despite being 3 foot off the ground and screaming "gooooooooooaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaal" at the time.

I dont think he awarded the goal immediately either. I think if you watch it back he immediately says to Brentford players "it's getting checked" almost immediately. Which I've no problem with, if he had doubts that's absolutely fine, doesnt really matter if he awards a fk or awards the goal when he knows for sure it needs checking.

For him not to be told to go and check it for himself, is baffling. VAR officials cannot have been sure about giving that as handball. They just couldn't have. At least if the referee goes and looks, and then rules it out at least then you've got two officials both with the same judgement.

If me and you see an incident, we may both have different opinions on it. So if the ref goes over and disagree's with VAR, then they keep it as on field and hte referee effectively takes control. Perhaps would be brave but when there is an incident like that and they can't be sure, they have to let it go. If the referee goes over to the monitor and says yes, i think it hits his hand. At least then you've got some sort of safety in numbers and your likelihood of being right at least goes up a little.

For all we know the ref may have seen it at half time, or full time and gone, that didn't hit his hand. VAR got that wrong, but he's taken it out of his hands by not being told to go and check the monitor.

 

[msb]

I dont think he awarded the goal immediately either. I think if you watch it back he immediately says to Brentford players "it's getting checked" almost immediately. Which I've no problem with, if he had doubts that's absolutely fine, doesnt really matter if he awards a fk or awards the goal when he knows for sure it needs checking.

For him not to be told to go and check it for himself, is baffling. VAR officials cannot have been sure about giving that as handball. They just couldn't have. At least if the referee goes and looks, and then rules it out at least then you've got two officials both with the same judgement.

If me and you see an incident, we may both have different opinions on it. So if the ref goes over and disagree's with VAR, then they keep it as on field and hte referee effectively takes control. Perhaps would be brave but when there is an incident like that and they can't be sure, they have to let it go. If the referee goes over to the monitor and says yes, i think it hits his hand. At least then you've got some sort of safety in numbers and your likelihood of being right at least goes up a little.

For all we know the ref may have seen it at half time, or full time and gone, that didn't hit his hand. VAR got that wrong, but he's taken it out of his hands by not being told to go and check the monitor.

I sort of agree with you. Until we know what is being said from Ref to VAR, we'll never know if it is fair. He could easily have said "no goal handball" they check and say "we can't say either way" and it is then disallowed. Sort of okay.

Or he could have said "probably a goal" check for handball - they then see what impact it has on the famous five and decide it's Everton, so no goal. Sort of probable.

What we need is transparency of the process, strange how decisions are made. We have a lot to learn from Cricket & Rugby in this element of the game. Personally I'd scrap it, it is ruining football in its current format.

 

[andy4efc]

Completely agree.

Even if they get a decision seen as wrong by most, if we can hear their reasonining or the discussions, it puts accountability on the table and at least some sort of thought process behind the decision.

It's not a big ask.

 

[Tylard]

I sort of agree with you. Until we know what is being said from Ref to VAR, we'll never know if it is fair. He could easily have said "no goal handball" they check and say "we can't say either way" and it is then disallowed. Sort of okay.

Or he could have said "probably a goal" check for handball - they then see what impact it has on the famous five and decide it's Everton, so no goal. Sort of probable.

What we need is transparency of the process, strange how decisions are made. We have a lot to learn from Cricket & Rugby in this element of the game. Personally I'd scrap it, it is ruining football in its current format.

I'm pretty sure the referee rules a goal on the field. The default call is nothing unless you have seen a foul, so I really think the ref and AR have nothing in real time so the call is a goal.
ALL goals are checked by VAR, so the refs default answer to Brentford is the goal (and every other goal this season in the league) is being checked by VAR and if it's handling we will disallow the goal. This stops players from yelling at the ref who isn't even going to be the one making the final decision anyway, which is a fruitless endeavor.
For this specific decision there "should" be less gray area. If it hits his arm no goal, if it doesn't hit his arm then goal. The referee isn't really going to add much to the conversation when there are already 5 plus people watching the replay so I don't think there is much value to the ref going over to the monitor. On a challenge that is a borderline red card, then the opinion of the on field referee would be more valuable because they've reffed the first 70 minutes of the match and are the actual match official. In theory whether a ball strikes an arm is black or white. A lot of red card challenges fall into the gray orange card area.
The referee on the field hasn't seen it 100% hit Gray's arm so he lets play continue, the referee also has to trust his VAR to give him the correct information.
All that said...I'm not convinced it's hit Gray's arm. The angles I saw on TV don't show 100% it did so you would expect the goal would have stood.
More clarity of the mechanics of how VAR works would be helpful, but we're a long ways from having the refs mics feed broadcasted.
I referee quite a bit, not at this level for sure, but most of my matches we do wear mics. Only some matches I work have video review. Every league has different rules surrounding VAR and referees are bound to those rules. The problem as has been stated here is spectators are left in the dark a lot of times.

 

[Voodoo Billy]

Loved having the sirens back.