Calvert-Lewin penalty claim VAR audio released

I'm glad it's out there because it will surely be contradicted over the next few months by these very same people.

Football is a game where subjectivity is constantly viewed differently depending on a particular person's view, but the more times these type of incidents and subsequent conversations are released into the public domain, the more chance we will be able to prove that these officials are not always straight. We will see!

On Gana's miss, surely if he had scored it would have been ruled out for Calvert-Lewin's kick on Burn.

In my view, Burn did not play the ball, he played the man. He had no chance of getting to the ball before Calvert-Lewin, so positioned his leg in front of him. It clearly impeded a goal-scoring chance by playing the man.

Take a look at the incident again and see where Burn ended up, his body facing away from Calvert-Lewin and leaning into the back of him, no attempt made to get the ball. Burn knew exactly what he was doing.

Anywhere else on the field, it's a penalty. He deliberately impeded a player about to score.

All this release has done has shown a bias against the club, once again, by this referee. Kavanaugh was influenced by Pawson and covered his back.

I don't know which I think is worse either. Both definite penalties for me but I'm no centre-back to be fair.

Penalty for me at the time and when I looked back.

It's gone now… so on to Ipswich and Fulham.

I know you've covid (get well soon) but "Anywhere else on the field it's a penalty."...

Run that by me again? 🤔

Had it been given, I'd have obviously taken it but it just looks like two people colliding. Burn may have been a bit cute with his positioning but that's what I'd expect our defenders to do in the same situation. It would have been a soft one to get imho.

Another way to put it: if you're looking to tackle someone and just get yourself between them and the ball, it's not a foul, right? Defenders shepherd the ball out all the time and it's called ‘good defending'. I don't see any difference to what Burn did, he didn't touch Calvert-Lewin after all.

As mentioned above, Gana should have buried the open goal in any case.

Overall, on the level of play, a point was a fair result for us. Their penalty was nailed on, no idea what Tarkowski was playing at – hope he bought Pickford a pint!

Burn doesn't even touch the ball or get close to kicking it. Watch from 1:55. especially at 2:08.

Yes, Calvert-Lewin kicks the back of Burn's'leg but Burn blocks the shot on purpose without making an effort for the ball.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rMYbnlXzjY0

Sorry to hear you've got the dreaded covid. I hope it's only mild and the Blues get you on to a speedy recovery.

As for the penalty, we can't do anything about it but the club can. Didn't David Moyes put out a video of all the wrong decisions against us and for a while the nonsense subsided?

But we move on to Ipswich and Fulham and an optimistic 6 points.

The description about running in a straight line being important is the hardest thing for me to fathom though because running in a straight line enabled the defender to block the attacker who was running towards the ball, from getting his shot off, even though the defender had no intention of trying to play that same ball.

We all see things differently, but to repeat what I said in post one, I'd be willing to place a huge bet on a similar incident resulting in an opposite decision in the near future, and I'd be willing to place an even bigger bet that the most common infringement in football doesn't start resulting in penalty kicks by the dozen, now that Tarkowski's stupidity has been punished.

I keep saying they have turned the game into a circus and, if I'm being honest, it's become very boring arguing about these very subjective decisions on a weekly basis. So why are you fucking arguing then? I know….

If the ref would have given the penalty, then I don't think VAR would have overturned it, is what Dan Burn said, which is probably about as much honesty that you're going to get out of any player immediately after the game.

This doesn't necessarily mean that Burn thought it was a penalty, but my only gripe is that either Pawson or Kavanagh will definitely give a penalty soon for a similar incident . Sorry for going on, but I suppose it won't be long before I'm off for good, unfortunately.

2 out of the 3 "incidents" involving Ashley Young against Forest last season looked more like penalties than this. Gana's row-DD howler looks worse every time I see it.

BTW, more importantly (at this present time), are any Stateside TW regulars affected by the hurricane? Best wishes if you've had to flee.

Premier League, Corrupt as Fuck.

And I don't think we can complain too much as we got away with murder against Forest last season, as has been pointed out by a previous poster.

As for Dyche and his comments, if you care to look it up, you'll find he said the exact same thing about not getting penalties when he was managing Burnley! I wonder if it has anything to do with his teams barely having any of the ball and spending the vast majority of nearly every match defending?

And it was a truly shocking miss by Gana, but I can't say I was all that surprised.

Onto Ipswich we go!

A player comfortable on the ball would take 2 touches, aware the running defender, would scoot past, leaving a better stance and improved balance, and the entire goal at his mercy. As it was, he took one awkward touch, couldn't get his feet sorted, and ended up with a crap strike… but that's what basic skill sets give.

And then there's the Gana follow-up… I mean, what is going on with that fella?

Re the penalty, it's a 50-50 for me. I've seen 'em called and I've seen 'em waved off. Dom clearly kicks Burn, not the other way around, so the debate is whether Burn acted illegally in putting his leg there. I didn't think so and probably wouldn't have called it myself.

As someone else commented, VAR would have confirmed it either way.

But Gana should have made the whole thing academic. For a veteran like him to panic like that is just terrible.

The professionals in the game especially on defence know all the little dirty tricks that will appear 50/50 and in a desperate situation are quite clever at times in confusing the onlookers.

That is why some incidents get red cards and some only get yellow or none at all.

Years ago, the Premier League deemed that all officials become full time and we all thought that would be better for the game. It never happened.

Many officials never played the game and are quite naive at times as the overpaid stars ham it up to get a free kick or have an opponent booked or sent off.

Why, after looking at an incident from every angle 10 or 15 times, does the VAR guy refer it back to the field official who then does the same thing?

That doesn't make sense and quite honestly makes VAR somewhat useless.

You took the words right out my mouth.

6 yards out, no keeper to beat, open goal and he manages to hit top row on the Stantion.

My 5-year-old could have put that one in.

I said before the game we won't be allowed to win the game with Pawson in charge with his partner in crime on VAR – just like so many other games with him, Oliver and the rest.

Nothing goes our way. 😤

It wasn't there when Dom pulled his leg back, so it's a deliberate block, and nowhere near the ball, definite penalty, and utter bullshit from Webb again.

Erm, while I admire the confidence Dominic ...

Christine: take care of yourself and get better soon (in your own time).

I've said many times, if I wasn't so emotionally attached to Everton, I wouldn't bother watching the Premier League at all.

What they are debating is whether the incident before that was a penalty or not. The Gana miss has fuck-all to do with that.

But with the fine lines that Everton and Dyche work by, most referees will be queried vocally, especially after a match they should have won.

Three results in a row is all we can hope to get. That is success for the way Everton are playing.

Burn didn't have control of the situation. He simply ran in front of Dominic with no attempt to play the ball. Most certainly a penalty.

Same as the Trakowski penalty, how many times, week on week, does the same shit happen? Yet again, Everton first to unite 'horrified' rest of corrupt officials etc.

I agree with Tony A, let's see and hear more of these situations. We Evertonians still try convincing ourselves it's same for all teams; personally, I am convinced something and someone has a very very personal and vindictive vendetta against Everton, since that bent Collina got 'that' game.

Best thing Moyes did was highlight stuff at the time. Hopefully we keep our head above water until some proper caretakers start looking after the best club in the world. Christine, hope you're fighting fit again soon.

It doesn't need slo-mo nor extensive analysis about whether Burn is running in a straight line (when did running in a straight line make something not a foul?).

This idea that Calvert-Lewin kicked Burn is wild. Calvert-Lewin was kicking the ball! Who on earth could think anything otherwise? Plenty of fouls involve a foot or leg being put in front of someone who then hits, collides, or goes over it.

Just a complete lack of understanding of football by people who haven't been in these kind of positions throughout their lives. It's not a particularly uncommon type of foul.

You don't need to define 'who made the contact', you need to understand 'who impeded whom'.

He knew he could not reach the ball.

That is obstruction.

Professional referees...

I hope it's not actually corruption.

It was a definite penalty in my view.

We sit just behind the cameras in the Upper Bullens and the TV crew could not believe it.

There is an incident they are talking about which is described as accidental, but then in the next breath they are calling it reckless or careless.

Maybe it's me, but the lunatics are making it up as they go along, and I can't reiterate my opinion enough, because if they keep this up, by continuing to let us hear the views and the conversations between the referee and the VAR, then they are going to be digging a big massive hole for themselves at best.

Seriously, I think the contradictions could end up resulting in litigation so it would surprise me if this show isn't axed in favour of something else before the season finishes.

Again…… we will see.

Given the revised ‘hands off' approach on VAR, we have to accept these subjective decisions made by the referee on the pitch will stand. To be honest, that is the way it should be.

The defender moves towards the ball, gets very close and is allowed to be where he is. The contact is entirely initiated by the attacker.

If it was given against us, I'd be absolutely livid.

I just don't see any injustice here, I wish people would stop being so desperate to find some.

The inconsistency around the subjectivity is going to end up killing the game.

If a striker is about to kick the ball and a defender puts his leg down between ball and striker trying to play the ball and striker kicks the defender's leg, is that a foul?

Just asking for a friend. :)

"...gets very close..."

Them's the fine margins between between a good interception and a foul.

"Yeah, Guv, minding me own business I was, when for no reason he deliberately hit my forehead with his nose."

But we all know Burn deliberately lurched or threw himself into Calvert-Lewin.

Anywhere else on the pitch, it's a foul; across Stanley Park, it's a penalty – just not for us.

As we already more or less knew and City have shown – they make this shit up as they go along and interpret their own rules any given day on a mixture of whim mixed with a dose of 'If your face fits', you're okay.

Football is bent as fuck. My only hope is we get taken over by equally corrupt hard-nosed results-driven owners. Point being, the world is ruled by the devil and to be in the world and not of the world is beyond most.

There is nowhere to go to escape utter unfairness, blatant lies and massive fuck-yous to the many who somehow spent the majority of heir lives being slaves, whose strength that got them through it all, came from decent people with morals convinced that cheaters never prospered.

It's the humour on TW that's keeping me going. Humble apologies, I have none to offer right now, but thank you to the many stronger folk that still bring joy during this rebirth of Everton Football Club.

Sticking a leg in front of an opposing player's kicking leg is a trip in anyone's book, so that's surely a penalty — and that's before consideration of the little clip to the back of Calvert-Lewin's leg immediately prior to the trip.

It's mad really. Burn had no other intent than to stop Calvert-Lewin taking the shot. I can't wait to see how consistent they are with this across the rest of the season with all teams.

VAR twat: "The defender's leg is not in a forward moving... er.. motion and he only makes contact after the attacker kicks the... um... ball... ahh... so there's no contact from the defender, coz his knees are on back to front and he's wearing them little shin pads so... erm.. .no penalty" etc blah waffle.

Reality: (that everyone saw) - the defender hurls himself at Calvert-Lewin, bringing him down, deffo a penalty.

It really was as simple as that. I saw it clearly from the Upper Gwladys and just as clearly on the replays.

Here's a useful tip for all Evertonians: when your eyes tell you one thing and VAR tells you something else, believe your eyes.

100% corruption (if only on a subconscious basis).

Complete con.

I am 100% certain, if that's Keane on Gordon, Pawson points straight to the penalty spot. It's a foul; they know it's a foul but it does not suit their agenda. They being the Premier League and their refs association. The influencers being the Sly Shite 6 or is it 8 now.

I'm quicky being turned off by the shit show that is the Premier League and all it stands for.

The standard of refs in the English game is now very poor and each season it gets worse. VAR needs binning until people are brought in who can actually use it correctly.

Get well, Christine, asap.

Stay Safe, all in Florida.

Joe Root, legend.

From what I've read, Pawson doesn't even know why he doesn't think it's a penalty, and so Kavanaugh is left to make his incorrect judgment about Burn getting kicked. Dom has position to play the ball and is in a kicking motion, and it's a penalty in real time when Burn leaves his foot in, but even more so if you slow it down and see the freeze frames.

And it's not obstruction, it's a trip, which means penalty. (Yes, there can still be indirect kicks in the penalty area, but this is not one of them.)

I get where people are coming from thinking it's not a clear penalty, but I think it is.

And as for Gana, with his shooting skills, he would've missed it with his right foot, nevermind his left. At least he was in position to put it away. At that point, it was about a 25% chance he scores.

A point is what we (barely) deserved, and so we move on.

Penalty for me.

While also exposing another clear case of incompetent refereeing and a bias against us — how much longer have we to tolerate it?

I genuinely thought they had done away with the indirect free-kick, because I genuinely can't remember the last time I saw anyone get an indirect free-kick inside the box.

But I've seen hundreds of very controversial penalties which all looked like they should have been given as indirect free-kicks to me.

Rules are rules and these guys are trying to explain why they are not applying them. Never heard so much bollocks.

Also; I so wish the indirect free-kick rule wasn't so ignored these days. I used to love seeing them awarded in the box, forcing an entire team to be stretched across their own goalline.

Burn does not make an attempt to tackle for the ball, there is contact and it's a penalty. Once again, we are cheated by officials.

Almost an entire line-up on the goalline. Then smash it.

Bring them back!

This might lead to more fouls of course, so it isn't ideal, but it would stop many players going down at the merest touch. It might also lead to more penalties given for pulling and holding in the area.

If that's not a solution, how about players who are pulling and holding prior to a free-kick or corner, they have to be immediately removed from the field of play until the ball next goes out of play.

One of my pet hates is that the officials are constantly walking up to players giving them warnings, if the players aren't aware of the rules by now, they never will be.

I thought Dominic should have been given a penalty last Saturday, I thought that at the match and I've seen nothing to suggest it wasn't since, despite the newspeak explanations given by pundits and many others.

If we expect nothing from referees, we aren't going to be disappointed so on to Fulham and Ipswich. Onwards and upwards!!

If Calvert-Lewin is running through on goal, and clips Burn behind him, it's a penalty.

The key for me is they wouldn't overturn the decision if it went either way.

Hang on a minute, so we are saying if there's an unconscious bias to give big teams the decisions, they're going to be the winner here on decisions? VAR will back them up?

Penalty for Salah

Penalty for Bruno

Penalty for Son

Penalty for Felix

Penalty for Doku

Penalty, Penalty, Penalty – and I want the whole team screaming for it like they believe it!!!!

Howard Webb said that even if a penalty had been given he would have expected Kavanagh to tell the ref to go and have another look at it because he didn't believe it was a penalty.

He said Van Dijk never held onto the Palace player for long enough and, the more you slow it down, the longer it looks like the Liverpool player had hold of the Palace player.

These are all subjective decisions but, the more we hear this very protected species speak, the more we are going to see and then hear the reasoning behind some very inconsistent decisions, and this is when I believe things will get interesting.

If they are not corrupt, then they will prove to everyone that they must be incompetent, and that's why I don't believe this openness will last long.

Calvert-Lewin is about to kick the ball. Burn is between Calvert-Lewin and the ball… Yet Burn is nowhere near the ball?

Burn is very near the ball. He's in-between Calvert-Lewin and the ball. If he weren't, Calvert-Lewin wouldn't be able to kick the back of his leg.

Seriously, guys we'll get plenty of shockers this season. This is not one of them.

“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”

If Dan Burn impeded Calvert-Lewin – which he did – then it's a penalty according to the laws of the game.

Interestingly the laws of the game make no reference to a defender moving in a straight line.

Is a defender allowed to use any part of his body to simply block an attacker's swinging leg in the act of playing the ball?

Like so many root cause analyses, I see Kavanagh (and then many after him) has stopped at what is basically a reiteration of what the ‘problem' was (attacker's leg making contact with defender's). There is no shepherding, the ball is not in the defender's possession or under his control.

Tony A, I too thought indirect free kicks had actually been done away with, but something can be accidental and careless or reckless (which can be different to deliberate). I would say in all honesty I have never deliberately fouled anyone but I have definitely given away free-kicks.

Which brings us back to the terrible decision last Saturday.
Burn lunged for the ball but missed it completely and consequently actively prevented Calvert-Lewin from striking the ball and that should not simply be summed up as Calvert-Lewin kicked Burn.

He doesn't get to the ball, he can't get to the ball. Calvert-Lewin can, he's literally about to strike it.

Of course there's always subjectivity in football, but the arguments against a penalty are just VAR speak. "Straight lines", "initiating contact", "near"... it's all invented non-football nonsense. One player impeded another. It's so simple.

For balance, why don't we analyse an incident when we had a penalty go in our favour when it probably wasn't one or when we didn't have a penalty given against us when it probably was one?

We just need to get over it... and move on.

The VAR ref was simply making it up as he was going along. Like he was dead clever for spotting this totally accidental collision, and then adding his own terminology for good measure.

That's how I saw it anyway, especially because it looked to me like the defender had his eyes totally on the ball.

You can find fault in loads of things if you want to, but once you start agreeing with a lot of these very contentious decisions, then if you don't become consistent, you will get found out in the end.

I am beginning to sound boring now, but at least I'm consistently boring!!

I’ve always tried to play the ball, not the man, but if I end up kicking the opponent instead (or he simply trips over my extended leg that has just missed the ball) then I’ve always accepted that as a free kick against me.

So I’d give a free kick against a player if they kicked the opponent a millisecond after the opponent got a toe to the ball even if they had kept their eyes locked on the ball all the time (peripheral vision comes in to it doesn’t it?) but I wouldn’t call it careless or reckless. Of course a player merely trying to strike the ball can be unfairly challenged by an opponent if it is impossible for the opponent to play the ball himself.

Who is kicked and intent only really come into it when both have had an equal opportunity to play the ball.

As for discussing other types of incidents... yes I think I/we do. I was equally disgusted with the VAR decisions when Forest came to Goodison last year.

And when they buggered up and then covered up the disallowed goal for our neighbours.

My Everton bias is not of my choosing, but I can still see plenty of right and wrong and call both out equally.

Why though do so many goal-scoring opportunities then fall to the one player in our side that cannot kick a ball straight from 4 yards?? Gana's ball strike quality is woeful.

If I am getting bored of the subject, I perhaps should choose another topic to read. :)

Burn hasn't fouled Dom and the argument about blocking the attacker doesn't justify it either. Dom didn't have the ball under control. He accidentally kicked into the defender and I struggle to see how a penalty could be awarded.

But, the referee could not have been confident in his decision. He should probably have blown for a penalty and have it checked and ultimately chalked off.

Other teams would have had it given initially by the ref, Everton and other teams don't get those 50:50 decisions.

In this instance, the ref was correct, in my view, more from luck than being confident in his decision. But, similar penalties have previously been given for less, I have no doubt will be again.

On the flip, Tarkowski was impeded by their attacker before he threw him to the floor. It could be argued that VAR got that wrong by not looking at the whole incident. But I understand what Tarkowski did to the opponent was too obvious and strong. A penalty was the right decision. I don't know why he didn't just grab him and block him rather than forcefully chucking him to the floor.

Lastly, imagine the stick Keane would have got if he had thrown a player down like Tarkowski had. My eyes and ears would still be bleeding now.

Before 10 or so years ago, a penalty had to be absolutely nailed on before they were given (unless it was at Anfield and they hadn't scored yet) but these days the merest nudge or tug gets a whistle (unless it's in our favour). They used to be given only for deliberate fouls – now there are many more given for accidental.

The one that still winds me up is the Gomes v Wilson one at Newcastle but that was given and backed by the same "experts" who are denying this one.

The other one that still stinks was the one at Brighton against Keane when not even the Brighton players knew what the fuck it was for.

Here's a question regarding that Villa Final at Wembley: There was only one non-English player in the Everton team. Without Googling it please, name him.

Nottingham Forest have been fined £750,000 and warned over their future conduct after posting comments about the VAR Stuart Attwell on social media in April.

I'm not standing up for Tarkowski for being overly aggressive inside the area but it does highlight that people only see what they want to see sometimes considering that Ndiaye was also getting impeded without going to ground and anyone who was watching that incident can clearly see this.

Burn can't get to the ball, but Calvert-Lewin can?

Burn is nearer to the ball than Calvert-Lewin is.

Because, from what I saw, that's what happened. All this ‘kicking Burn' is bollocks.

Calvert-Lewin literally did kick the back of Burn's leg. Not only is that not bollocks, it's an incontrovertible fact that we can all see for ourselves.

So, from now on, nobody can be said to have tripped another player up? He kicked you?

Even gobshite Shearer said Burn was “clever”, ie, he cheated, by putting his leg in the way of Calvert-Lewin's attempt to play the ball.

A cheat's charter. I despair...

If an Everton defender did that and was penalised, I'd be absolutely livid.

Fuck the whole fuckin planet.

If I swing my leg to kick something that you're nearer to, I've kicked you.

I would never kick you, Ray.

Anyway, Tim (102) has sorted the whole debate…

Not in a million years!

Mike are you watching a freeze frame after the foot on calf contact? You need to roll back time a few milliseconds and view it from the reverse angle.

DCL’s standing foot (and so ‘he’) is nearest the ball and he is goalside to Burn. His swinging leg has to travel from further away towards the ball because that is how you ‘shoot’!

Burn will never get to the ball first and so can’t be considered to be ahead of DCL (the ball is travelling in a completely different direction) so he gets his leg in the arc DCL’s striking leg is travelling.

Burn impedes DCL without being able to play the ball first. That constitutes a foul as far as I’m concerned.

You see them given when defenders get in the way of a back-swinging leg and prevent shots or trip the striker so why should this be treated any differently?

DCL is definitely not fouling Burn and it has to be one or the other in this situation.

The question was put as this:-"Do Eve rton ever deserve penalties?"

The verdict enshrined into the Minutes was thus:- "Not as long as mankind has a hole in its arse."

So there you go folks. Problem and debate resolved.

Get well soon, Christine!

So if mankind is everybody, if anybody didn't have the referenced feature, would that be sufficient? Are we looking for a single volunteer?

Debate re-opened?