VAR

[mahermi1]

What is more likely, is that a ball will be played down the wing, Ipswich attacker running onto it (not yet touched the ball or under his control), Ashley Young will get his foot in front of the attacker without playing the ball (as he is apparently able to do). Ipswich attacker will then run into / kick the back of Young, fall over.

You guessed it...

Free Kick Ipswich and yellow card for Young.

Above is the more likely scenario.

They were guaranteed pens for Gerrard and he put his foot in front on purpose, still remember poor Tony Hibbert being done for a Gerrard special in the derby years ago.

 

[Raino85]

They were guaranteed pens for Gerrard and he put his foot in front on purpose, still remember poor Tony Hibbert being done for a Gerrard special in the derby years ago.

Controversial decision, but I've always thought that was a foul.

 

[Wat Tyler]

 

[LouReedwalkonthewildside]

Have always said it, VAR in principal is a good idea, where it falls down is that their are bellends sitting in a room overseeing it and referee’s will always see things differently, therefore no consistency.

 

[Jacko93]

Controversial decision, but I've always thought that was a foul.

It was never a foul. It was 100% initiated by Gerrard. Had he not spread his legs across where Hibbert was running, no contact would have been made. It was his go to move, knowing the officials fell for it every time.

 

[Bez2k2k]

I honestly thought it was a normal "he kicked the defender when shooting and fell over" type rejection. As soon as I saw that angle I knew it wouldnt be given. Seemed correct to me, so why release the audio, it's hardly that controversial? Or are they doing it for all now?

I honestly find it dead strange how people don’t think it’s a penalty. It was a penalty real time, it was a a penalty on the replays. The two angles that are more than convincing is the angle facing Dom prob around the main stain, you can see Burn clatter into him. Then the slowed down one where Burns foot actually clips Dom’s ankle. Yes Dom kicks him however to me it’s a clear and obvious error. The audio proves that Pawson was never going to give it or even consider it as a penalty, it should have been. It’s not even an argument to me, it’s a penalty.

 

[Bedfordblue]

I honestly find it dead strange how people don’t think it’s a penalty. It was a penalty real time, it was a a penalty on the replays. The two angles that are more than convincing is the angle facing Dom prob around the main stain, you can see Burn clatter into him. Then the slowed down one where Burns foot actually clips Dom’s ankle. Yes Dom kicks him however to me it’s a clear and obvious error. The audio proves that Pawson was never going to give it or even consider it as a penalty, it should have been. It’s not even an argument to me, it’s a penalty.

It should have been a penalty even with the legs tangling, the shove in the back was sufficient.
Let alone he catches his standing ankle too

 

[Kendal]

Obstruction. Penalty no argument. Just bull rap from officials from premier league. VAR another paymaster for them.

 

[bicycleheader]

I honestly find it dead strange how people don’t think it’s a penalty. It was a penalty real time, it was a a penalty on the replays. The two angles that are more than convincing is the angle facing Dom prob around the main stain, you can see Burn clatter into him. Then the slowed down one where Burns foot actually clips Dom’s ankle. Yes Dom kicks him however to me it’s a clear and obvious error. The audio proves that Pawson was never going to give it or even consider it as a penalty, it should have been. It’s not even an argument to me, it’s a penalty.

Yeah I'd have to see it again. Not seen it since the game and tbh as soon as I saw him kick Burn I thought that was it

I don't recall seeing much contact before that would result in a penalty but fair enough

 

[Tel001]

Going off that … when a player is dribbling down the line .. the defender can just pkace his leg between the attacker and the ball… letting the attacker “kick” his leg and then fall over and it’s not a foul.

So when that happens normally it’s a trip .. but in this case it’s a coming together ?

 

[mahermi1]

Controversial decision, but I've always thought that was a foul.

Not in my view mate Gerrard definitely played for that and I think roundabout then Carragher refereed the derbies i respect you're opinion though.

 

[Raino85]

Not in my view mate Gerrard definitely played for that and I think roundabout then Carragher refereed the derbies i respect you're opinion though.

Thanks for the last bit, sometimes having an opinion brings terms such as 'are you special'

For me its the aftermath of that, the yellow card in hand until Gerrard walks past him to turn it a red. (Then obviously the Kuyt one and Lescott getting dragged down)
Out of all the decisions in that derby, giving the penalty was probably the least controversial

But for me, there's contact from Hibbert to Gerrards leg, who initiates it, but Hibbert still runs into him. Its not stonewall, but we have seen thousands of them be given in the Premier League since

 

[Raino85]

Interesting that Pawson's comments on the pitch are very dismissive
'Not for me, not for me, not for me'

Do you think a bit more of a 'Not for me, but it will get checked' would be a better level of communication to the players?

 

[Tipp blue]

Controversial decision, but I've always thought that was a foul.

Even if it was a foul it was outside the box.

 

[twoblue]

Have always said it, VAR in principal is a good idea, where it falls down is that their are bellends sitting in a room overseeing it and referee’s will always see things differently, therefore no consistency.

Soft rule is… give the pen for bigger clubs , var doesn’t overrule.
Don’t give the decision to the rest of us and let var point out if it’s a huge error.
Jota pen against Newcastle when the ref what in other half. No way saw it. But it’s the way it is.