Independent Leyton Orient Forum

Did anyone see this?

It just reiterates why I no longer watch the EPL. What a disgrace.

The threshold is not whether he touched him, it’s surely whether he impeded him. He didn’t impede him. Fernandes cheated by diving. It’s a free kick to Wigan and a yellow card for Fernandes. Why has the referee given that?

It just infuriates me. Game at the top level has been destroyed.

Vent over.

I saw it, the blokes an absolute cheat and should be embarrassed.
The Wigan players big toe scuffed his boot and the reaction on his face as if he'd been shot.

I agree, no pen. I don`t the referee was sure about it either. He hesitated and made the wrong decision.

Why doesn’t the FA do something?

I get the response - it's Fernandez and he's very easy to dislike at the best of times, even more so when he acts like that.

But there was clear contact.

(Although the commentators were saying that's no longer what counts, so who knows?)

It’s neither a kick or a trip which I believe is the rule. I agree he touched him, but that in itself is not a foul. Fernandes dived. Never a penalty.

Hoover Attack wrote: ↑Tue Jan 09, 2024 9:00 am I get the response - it's Fernandez and he's very easy to dislike at the best of times, even more so when he acts like that.

But there was clear contact.

(Although the commentators were saying that's no longer what counts, so who knows?)

Was that ever what counted? As far as I can recall it's never been a case of 'if there's contact it's a pen' before VAR came along (which wasn't even in use last night).

Difficult for the Ref as he did catch his foot but very slightly and not enough for a penalty IMHO.
Fernandes is probably one of the most disliked players in the PL and a bad example for youngsters.

Surely an equally big issue is the woeful standard of refereeing ? Anthony Taylor has already been “ demoted” from Premier League games once this season after an awful penalty decision given against Wolves. In other walks of life such serial incompetence would have more long lasting consequences.

redintheface wrote: ↑Tue Jan 09, 2024 9:19 am Surely an equally big issue is the woeful standard of refereeing ? Anthony Taylor has already been “ demoted” from Premier League games once this season after an awful penalty decision given against Wolves. In other walks of life such serial incompetence would have more long lasting consequences.

That may be so, but it’s so much harder for the referee when players cheat by diving. Nothing will happen to Fernandes. If they banned him for five games it would soon stop. It baffles me that the FA does nothing.

I agree - never a penalty. The trouble is bad decisions like this will lead to calls for VAR at our all levels which is the last thing we want.

Proposition Joe wrote: ↑Tue Jan 09, 2024 9:12 am

Hoover Attack wrote: ↑Tue Jan 09, 2024 9:00 am I get the response - it's Fernandez and he's very easy to dislike at the best of times, even more so when he acts like that.

But there was clear contact.

(Although the commentators were saying that's no longer what counts, so who knows?)

Was that ever what counted? As far as I can recall it's never been a case of 'if there's contact it's a pen' before VAR came along (which wasn't even in use last night).

Well yes. If a defending player made a tackle, making contact with just the attacking player and not the ball, that was always a foul.

Gonna get all spenny and read the Law book now to see what that says.

My concern is that whether VAR is in use or not in any given game, referees have adjusted their refereeing to the context of VAR, and it has had a net negative impact on their willingness/ability to make big calls.

It feels to me that the whole “clear & obvious error” in practice leaves a whole grey area of indecisiveness where referees assume errors will be picked up on, but VAR will only intervene some of the time.

Anyway, as far as Fernandes goes - shouldn’t be a penalty.

Law 12 Fouls & Misconduct

Direct and indirect free kicks and penalty kicks can only be awarded for
offences committed when the ball is in play.
1. Direct free kick
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.
• Careless is when a player shows a lack of attention or consideration when
making a challenge or acts without precaution. No disciplinary sanction
is needed
• Reckless is when a player acts with disregard to the danger to,
or consequences for, an opponent and must be cautioned
• Using excessive force is when a player exceeds the necessary use of force
and/or endangers the safety of an opponent and must be sent off
A direct free kick is awarded if a player commits any of the following
offences:
• a handball offence (except for the goalkeeper within their penalty area)
• holds an opponent
• impedes an opponent with contact
• bites or spits at someone on the team lists or a match official
• throws an object at the ball, an opponent or a match official, or makes
contact with the ball with a held object

I’m not saying it shouldn’t be a penalty according to the laws - it is a penalty, and pundits thrashing it out should just refer to the laws you posted.

It’s more that the laws of the game are not fully fit for purpose and offer disproportionate awards for minor offences while not fully punishing larger ones.
Really, even the idea of a “penalty area” is outdated and the size and shape of it is pretty much arbitrary and would bear no relevance at all to a shape representing the parts of the pitch from where a foul is most likely to prevent a goal.

In fact, that’d be an interesting bit of research - what *should* a penalty area look like?

I'm not saying it should be a penalty after reading that...

I didn’t read it, to be honest

He wasn’t impeded though. He dived. I still don’t think it’s a penalty by the letter of the law.

DrWindy wrote: ↑Tue Jan 09, 2024 11:34 am He wasn’t impeded though. He dived. I still don’t think it’s a penalty by the letter of the law.

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

Maybe you’re right. I still think it stinks though.

Was it careless or with excessive force. Not so sure

I'm with you, he's a **** (fool). It totally stinks. I'd be going mental if an opponent done that to me.

But I still think the ref has done the right thing, sadly.

Obviously no excessive force (which is why there was no yellow card) but it was careless.

DrWindy wrote: ↑Tue Jan 09, 2024 11:34 am by the letter of the law.

What IS the letter of the law? L?

bobo66 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 09, 2024 10:29 am I agree - never a penalty. The trouble is bad decisions like this will lead to calls for VAR at our all levels which is the last thing we want.

So true. I want to be home by Sunday when we play.

Okay, I'll say it - if only we had VAR