Everton benefit from questionable new directive

The shove put Williams of balance and the following leg contact sent him down not 'too easily' but because his centre of gravity passed way beyond his feet.

It's my view that the directive is principally aimed at the footballers who are all over the attacking team. Pulling back, arms all around, blatant obstruction, etc. The RS have been doing it for years. And very adept at it they've been. It's how teams like Stoke defend. Ryan Shawcross is a master of the dirty game. And it's cheating. No other word for it. It spoils the game and my enjoyment of it. It's about time something happened.

Look, if an Everton player gives away a penalty on a dubious refereeing decision, well, it wont be the first time. But if they were pulling back, arms all round an attacker, then it's a penalty. As the little rodent says "simples". No argument.

I think most fans want their team to win because they played well, not because they're accomplished cheats.

Having had that little rant, I wouldn't have said yesterday's incident warranted a penalty. All I saw was a tangle of legs with no intent.

Some things never change – one rule for the media friendly teams and another for us duffers!!!

Garry (10) – I don't think intent matters. If you accidentally stop someone getting to the ball in the box by being too tight, it is still a penalty in my book.

Just watched City Vs WHU, they are good.

Penalties become goals and can change games but so often we all become frustrated when it appears linesmen and referees view something blatant from both angles and give nothing, as in the Hull game yesterday.

I applaud the league's new get tough attitude with all the holding and clutching in the box as it has allowed many penalty incidents go unchecked and basically fostered dirty defending as it is mainly the defenders who do it.

Referees would take the easy way out and penalise the attacking player far too often.

We deffo need another striker before Wednesday's deadline. Kone has done okay in the last two sub appearances but he's not the answer. Lukaku didn't know when to pass or shoot yesterday, and made the wrong choice quite a few times. l really wonder if he will start scoring again cos overall I think he's a shit footballer.

If you have the game recorded have a look and slow it down yourself. When you see it in slo-mo it is obvious what has happened.

While all this is happening by the way, Shawcross has his arms wrapped around Lukaku and another defender has his arms wrapped around Barry and holding him back. Whichever way you look at it there is a penalty in there somewhere!

I appreciate that even Slo-mo may not be conclusive but Williams had no reason to fall. He was running into space with the prospect of a good header from the corner. Oh, and by the way, a 'tangle of legs' or whatever does NOT have to be with intent to deserve a penalty just as a handball in the area does not have to be intentional. Take no notice of the fucking 'pundits' who might think otherwise.

What the sky recording showed was Bardsley aiming to push Williams but making no contact with his hands mainly because Williams was already pitching forward from an accidental contact between his heel and Bardsley's knee. Not even a tangle of legs and it may be that this is a penalty offence but perhaps it was as the commentators said accidental contact. This contact was clear, the non-contact with the hand was also clear so there was no penalty for pushing for me at least. Perhaps some others could give their views, no penalty was unanimous from the Sky punters and it looked correct to me.

Of course I realise that Sky pundits are only ex-players who have spent a life in the game and can't possibly know as much as fans. I really can't understand why fans aren't invited on to give their expert opinion on games, club's performance in the transfer market and general mistakes that boards make in the running of clubs. :-)

They watch the match in the evening after the game has been played and just pick out situations that suits their summary of the game. You might agree with them, Martin; you only watch football on TV for reasons you have explained.

I've done my decades of following Everton everywhere but that was in the days when the atmosphere was dominant in my enjoyment and the strange wish to say that I was there. I've flown from Malaysia to England just to watch Everton play but I won't now. I watch it from the best place to watch all sports which is my armchair.

I saw the issue differently to you Dave, that's all, and I don't necessarily share your view that Sky commentators are wrong just because of what they are. You should also see that I put a smiley there to show that I was pulling your leg so stop taking yourself so seriously and get over it.

Many thanks

By the way I was not having a go at you for not going to live games, I know you have family concerns which take up quite a lot of your time.

That smiley you put on must have gone for a walk if was meant for me it wasn't on my thread, Martin you never bother me I find you very funny in a strange way.

Firstly, I think you are getting your Daves mixed up. You appear to be replying to me when it was actually Dave Abrahams who picked you up regarding sarcasm.

It is of no concern to me if you prefer to watch Everton on TV rather than at Goodison but I do take issue with your general view that you can see more than I do from, let us say, the Bullens Road Upper Stand.

The only explanation that I can think of is that you have tunnel vision or you have some difficulty moving your eyes because from your TV you can only see what the television cameras show you which at best is about a third of the pitch which is applicable to ball watching. So whereas I can glance at who is running off the ball, who is covering while the full back raids up the wing or who is running late into the area a la Tim Cahill (or Williams in this instance) from your armchair you cannot do so. You cannot in any respect see more from your 48" HD Samsung than you can from being at Goodison. It may be more comfortable in many respects, especially with a few cans in the fridge, but your comprehension of the game in such comfort is severely limited.

Neither do I require the likes of Jamie Carragher to tell me what I should think of what I have just seen with my own eyes from the Upper Bullens. All he and his ilk offer is an opinion which has no greater value than mine or yours for that matter. The only difference is, he gets a million quid a year for offering his, I usually keep mine to myself except when I hear or read stupid opinions like that was not a penalty.

I hope this clarifies the matter for you.

Still, going back over the years we're owed about 19 more penalties against Stoke anyway, so fuck them.

At the ground, with no benefit of replay nobody would have had a clue what happened to Baine's penalty. Everybody would have believed that Shawcross pushed Williams for a penalty

Attending the match, I can choose to look at something outside of the scope of the TV camera which the TV viewer doesn't have the luxury of.

Absolute bollocks.

So, everybody in the ground...those sat in the stands, those on the bench, those out actually playing on the pitch...all wander out the ground after a game wondering what the fuck happened there?

I've never watched a game, thought 'he was great' but 'so and so was wank', subsequently watched a recording of it and found I had to completely reverse my opinion. I've never gone home believing Everton thoroughly deserved to win only to later find out from Jamie Carragher that they were lucky as fuck (well, ok, that one I have but I refused to believe him on grounds of squawky twanged twatishness).

If you can't ever make sense of a game while it is ongoing, unless you're sat in front of a tv screen, then how does a manager respond and react to what is unfurling right in front of his eyes? Does he just pull any old tactical change or switch of personnel out of his arse then clench those cheeks tightly until he gets home later that night, when he can finally confirm whether he had real reason to make the decision he made...by hitting the red button on Match Choice?

This season we've had a fortunate goal against Spurs, a fortunate penalty award yesterday, a fortunate goal yesterday and then the Arnautovic/Walters miss.

I know this is off-topic but I just wanted to say it. We are not unlucky.

I feel better now.

How does a manager react to the game? He watches videos and then tries to learn from what actually happened as opposed to what he thought happened. Unlike most fans the manager understands what he is seeing in front of him.

It will be bang on topic if you say whether you reached that decision after watching on tv though, Shane. It could also grant your statement an automatic air of authority not attainable by those cyclopian numpties who cock-block themselves from the finer nuances of a game by actually going the game.

I think you misunderstood what I wrote. In fact, with the aid of peripheral vision I probably can see 100% of the pitch from the Upper Bullens (apart from the bit blanked by the roof support and the silly hat of the bloke in front of me!) At least in the sense of 'seeing' an opposition shirt readying itself for a break if our attack breaks down or I have no 'sense' of a blue shirt covering Baines for instance if he's on a raid up the left wing. But that is not what I was suggesting.

What I am saying is that even amidst the excitement of an Everton attack I can still glance to see what is happening elsewhere on the pitch. Just a quick look to see if a midfielder is running up to offer support or to see if the defence is covered in case of a defender's clearance down the middle etc. It is that which you cannot do watching on the television because you can only see what the camera shows you. Sometimes if an attack is underway the cameras zoom in on little more than the penalty area so that you have no idea what is happening elsewhere on the pitch not even peripherally.

Have you ever watched a goal scored on TV and it was obvious it was offside? Then a view from another camera shows the defender just out of view of the main shot playing everybody onside. That is what you cannot see on TV. It is not even the case that you are guaranteed to see it from the Upper Bullens but if I take a glance I just might do so. And that is why I do take glances because the game is not only where the ball is.

You're saying every manager in the game is making senseless decisions based on a possible misunderstanding, misreading, of what is actually occurring out on the pitch because he hasn't referred to a monitor showing action replays before making such decisions. Meanwhile, the one guy with a true understanding... the guy at home in his undercrackers, drinking Um-Bongo and crushing crisps between two slices of bread covered in Utterly Butterly...is either nodding his head sagely or screaming his fucking house down, depending on whether an effectively blind manager has blundered his way to a correct call.

I seriously have never heard so much rubbish spouted by you on this site, which is quite a statement. No TV camera has the peripheral vision of the human eye; no cameramen can move the camera with the speed of an eyeball flicked from side to side which then can flick back almost instantly to take in the whole ground in a fraction of a second. No microphone picks up the real sound of a game. Since you mention MOTD, well I can go home and watch that as well as my view in the ground whereas you can't get the view I have had by attending.

John D just to expand on your manager point, which is obviously correct, then logically the players themselves cannot understand what is going on in the game either, so they must just be booting the ball in vague directions and hoping for the best rather than playing with any sort of tactical understanding of what is happening around them. Logically of course, there could have been no sort of tactical understanding of football at all before retrospective viewing in the 60s, or live games in the 80s (the Cup Final and internationals excepted).

Just laughable.

The only questionable thing(s) about the decision is;

1) How/why it took them so long to get a grip on it and...

2) how/why have they managed to make such a pigs ear of enforcing it.

If they were doing properly, eg actually aiming to stamp it out, there should be a dozen penalties per 10 games, which would go down to 9, 6, 3, 2, 1, 0 as teams slowly twigged.

On the game; Yes we got a bit 'lucky', but the old golfing quote of; The more I practice ( or in footballing terms - apply my self to the job in hand in a none Martinez manner) the 'luckier' I seem to get' might fit the bill here.

It's early days yet; Koeman said 2 yrs. While taking that under advisement, the baby steps he's taken so far all seem to be in the right direction.

Because, Ole Bean, RM fiddle faddled with those things which worked quite well or better, but managed to deliberately ignore the very things which most required attention.

My Grandad once advised me "Listen son, it's those little giveaways that tell you everything. They've always played upon your mind, but when the penny drops, it doesn't really come as a surprise."

(Such as a man who insists upon wearing brown shoes with a navy suit. Daring ? Or just bloody contrary for contrary's sake ?).

"Everton benefit from questionable new directive"
We did ?
Could that be because we have been "decent chaps" and consequently have had "The Royal Piss" taken out of us by shit-house yard dogs for donkeys years ?
I feel less than fuck all sympathy for these "Bill Sykes" style pickpockets, burglars and ne'erdowells.

Tough shit gobshite !
Rough justice this may seem, but the mrtn skrtl's n ryn shwcrss's are getting their long overdue invoices. Fuckem.

The next directive really should address the "Oh Vic ! I've fallen", school of theatricality, also being practiced by the "deeply afflicted" Stoke-on-Trent school of "Drama and Wrestling".

• 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 endangers the safety of an opponent and must be sent off

My point stands, regardless of where you watch the game, that we are not any more unlucky than any other team. This year, after three games, I would suggest we've been more fortunate than most.

I live 270 miles from Goodison and only see a few live games a year so depend on Sky Sports and BT Sport but the only way to fully appreciate a game is to be there regardless of how good or not the view might be. TV highlights are exactly that – highlights! They don't show the bad passes, the poor decision-making, the lack of effort by certain players (not referring to this season here) and they can build a players reputation by showing the good stuff and cutting out the bad. Okay, the action replays can enable us to fully understand what might have happened – the penalty award was one of those – but if I don't go to the game, then I would far rather rely on Paul, Lyndon, Michael or Ken to give a view on how a player performed than rely on my own view based on what has now been cut to around 20 minutes of action on Football First (I thought we had an hour of this last season??).

As for 'unlucky', I think Tony Draper sums it up beautifully. Stoke have defended corners for years as if the late Mick McManus (infamous wrestler, for you younger Webbers) had coached them and for Hughes to have the brass neck to moan about conceding penalties is priceless. If these new rules were applied retrospectively Stoke would have finished in the bottom three every year due to the number of penalties they should have conceded. Stoke and RS have flouted the rules for years and whilst yesterday's was arguable they have played with fire for years and sometimes they will come unstuck and maybe their reputation influenced the ref.

Live at the match cannot be beaten!

In all seater stadiums, everybody in areas like lower Gladwys Street would be able to see if people remained seated or remained standing. That doesn't happen though, what happens is that people stay seated until the ball comes near to that goal and they then stand. Yes, people who do that are dickheads because if they stayed seated they'd see more. Not all fans in LGS btw, only those who stand when the ball approaches making everybody else do the same if they want to see.

Watching on TV you can effectively see the game from the best seat in the ground with no restricted view. The only downside is that atmosphere can't be generated on TV.

Gana looked fab on live TV as well. Got my goat a bit watching MotD later show clip after clip of Kante making interceptions for Chelsea – EXACTLY what Gana did for us – very similar players and glad that ours didn't cost £30m.

Like you, I'm an expat in the Far East and have to watch on TV... but at least that allows us to see every match live... which I don't think is always available in the UK, hence they sometimes assume we are watching highlights.

We are already starting to see less holding and tugging, long may it continue. All we need now is for someone to pick up two bookings for diving and you never know, a game of football may break out somewhere

I just think you are out of order to refer to significant numbers of your fellow Blues as "dickheads" – in doing so you insult every single one of our magnificent away following, including myself and my mates, as ALL such fans stand up.

I can assure you that we are not dickheads and whilst we do have a small number who you could attach the label to, it is NOT because they stand up!

Doesn't affect me now of course because when I go I sit in Bullens road where nobody feels the need to stand up during the game, wouldn't you agree that they are the large majority?

I'd fully support standing areas for those who want but once areas are made all seating I believe it's up to the club to stop people standing and up to fans to have the decency not to during general play.

As a you say I have a right to my opinion on what I see as a basic right for people who buy a seat to see the game. I'm also not going to get into conflict over it so this is my last word.

ps: You dickhead COYB.

After two years of nervously sitting there getting a square numb arse, this new found exercise routine is doing me the world of good both mentally & physically...

To my fellow dickheads, REJOICE! and long may it continue!

Simple – Penalty.

ps: Rebound penalties off the keeper should be treated as deflections and Baines given the goal. Keeper actually touched it onto the post so should be considered as going in till deflection.

If Given's touch brought it on target then fine, it's Baines's goal. As it stands it was a clear o.g.

Although I agree with the players ratings for Everton against Stoke, too many of the higher ratings for Everton players were for defenders Yet, if Everton are to be a force this season, more attacking players should have higher ratings than defenders. After all said and done, Everton were only playing Stoke.

When I was away on holiday, I watched us play a pre-season game on telly in 'lo def' and I genuinely had no idea who Kone was as he hadn't dyed his hair!

I laughed so much with some of your comments

I dug this up especially for you!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYj5o4kQsXs

To me it stems from the failure to impose the law for obstruction, which seemed to disappear from the game two or three decades ago. Blocking a player from getting the ball is not strong defending, it's obstruction, as is holding, or keeping your arms up, so they can't get past.

I honestly don't care if there's six penalties a game if it gets rid of this mayhem. I am aware that unless other countries have referees that impose the same standards, there'll be problems in European games, but it'd still be a good initiative for our referees to take.

What are people complaining about? The FA can't win.