Match Day Thread Bournemouth v Pellegrino In Sunday 3 December 1:30 pm

Hence it would have been a penalty if he hadn't have dived. You can clearly see in the first frame he is going down before contact by dragging his back foot.

 

I am a bit bemused about the suggestion that a Referee would apologise to a player at half time for making a mistake, that doesn't ring right to me. (Sky have changed the story to "apologised later" now).

 

I still think it's a penalty too but the ref didn't give it so **** 'em.

I've always said that Jon Moss is a great ref

 

There’s no contact in those stills. Mainly because there was no contact.

 

Funny that you should isolate those three frames. They aren't the best ones, but all three show no contact whatsoever.

 

We should be pleased he wasn't trying to sell him to a "BIG CLUB" as that is what MotD pundits usually do when discussing any of our players.

 

What this does show is that using video reviews during a game would hold the match up and not necessarily produce a clearer or more correct result....as it would depend on human opinion just as it does during the live game. There will be clearer cases than this, but I bet most will remain contentious.

 

Whilst there was no contact, he had to do something to avoid contact, not every foul has to have contact.

The 5 main things to take away from this are:

1. That could easily be given and we got a little lucky in that some refs would give it
2. We deserve a little luck
3. Boufal should have tackled blind like that
4. Good to see Boufal tracking
5. We didn’t let a close rival in the table beat us and gain 3 points over us

 

Any potential system would have to be based on the Rugby Union methods. The referee would, in cases like this, have to make his decision and then ask the video ref if he could see any reason why he should change his mind. If the footage is inconclusive we simply go with the ref's original decision. I think that would catch the most obvious errors despite leaving a fair bit of grey for everyone to argue about. This particular incident is a classic case of people reaching different conclusions from using precisely the same organs to evaluate the evidence! I mean it was clearly a penalty. Clearly. But LTL has got me doubting my own peepers now

 

The only thing I’ll accept here is that he dived in order to avoid contact/injury (he didn’t, but still).

Another thing confusing me is the concept that had it been awarded, we’d have gone in 2-0 down which would have been a “mountain to climb”.

Well, no - firstly they’d have to score the pen, and if they do, it’s 1-0 at the time. The course of the whole match is then changed ffs. That Wesley cock-up doesn’t magically still happen!

 

Should have been a penalty. Serves him right though, for throwing himself to the ground.

Life is full of contradictions.

 

A good point well made. Going in at 1-0 down actually made me feel less nervous because we needed a reaction. I'm more concerned when we look too comfortable, and invite waves of pressure on after half time.

 

Main thing I took from that match is the need to play the ball forward faster and keep up pressure when playing the non top teams. First half we kept looking for the safe balls and passing it backwards and then faffing about in defence before booting it long, not only do we not have the players to win those balls but it was through this we conceded.

Second half we were much more agressive, played more risky balls high up the pitch and often lost it but with the players we have in midfield we gained it back and bournemouth had less chances because of it.

This team has to stay on the front foot in matches like that.


Boufal still needs to learn to play the simple ball more. For all his skill and effort, his simple pass to play in bertrand was his most influential of the night.

 

I agree with most of this except your main point (I assume you mean “shouldn’t” in point 3). Law 12, paragraph 1 of the Laws of the Game states:

“A direct free kick is awarded if a player commits any of the following offences against an opponent in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force:

• charges
• jumps at
• kicks or attempts to kick
• pushes
• strikes or attempts to strike (including head-butt)
• tackles or challenges
• trips or attempts to trip

If an offence involves contact it is penalised by a direct free kick or penalty kick.”

So there does have to be contact for a penalty to be given. Nothing I’ve seen suggests there was any contact, and that it was indeed a dive. If Smith, on the other hand, had not wanted to go down, he could easily have jumped over Boufal’s leg to avoid it, as you would if there was a player lying on the ground in front of you. But I do agree with everything else you say.

 

What we are all forgetting is that these things happen in a split second...to be fair to the Bournemouth player I doubt there was too much actual thinking going on.....instinct and reflexes take over in situations like this. His brain then filled the gaps in later. The pictures we paint and then repaint as time passes becomes reality to us.

 

I don't think it is a dive, I think he was trying to avoid the contact so not to get clattered. He is a defender after all and probably was just looking to avoid getting injured. He should've kept running and let Boufal clean him out to make it an obvious pen, but I guess as he is not used to that situation he naturally tried to avoid getting kicked. Still a pen for me but can see why the ref saw him going down and decided not to give it.

 

Except that instinct tells you that the last thing you want to do is go down. In any situation involving physical conflict your main aim in life is to stay on your feet and keep moving. Unless you are actually tripped, which he wasn’t in this case, it has to be premeditated. Players are trained to dive, after all, however much it is denied.

 

Personally I think that the PL should review it and take our point away, giving Bournemouth 3 points. I am surprised MOTD haven’t started a campaign for this yet.

How many times did they review the Bromley players trying to swap shirts before the game had finished?

 

“He is a defender after all and probably was just looking to avoid getting injured”

Mmm, if that’s the case I’ll report him to the defenders union and they can take his card away. I’ve spent all these years thinking it was strikers who tried to avoid injury and the defenders we’re the hard men



.

Ps. If you want to avoid injury my suggestion is that you jump upwards, lifting your legs in the air and keeping your arms out to the die for balance. Placing your hands together, with your arms stretched in front of you tends to aid you falling forwards and downwards.... just like those people do on the side of a swimming pool. Can’t recall what that’s called ...

 

No, you were right Fats.
Defenders, being real men, neither fear nor acknowledge pain.
Strikers, being for the most part big girls blouses, spend their lives either moaning to the referee, or feigning agony.