Rousseau

Dermot Gallagher, a professional referee for over 20 years, doesn't know what he's talking about? OK. Edit: I actually think I might be wrong - I think Dermot says that Collum (VAR) decides its no penalty and that it's a bye kick because it comes off Sima, not the Referee. I can see why the Referee should have been asked to have a look. That's fair. It's irrelevant anyway because of the offside, but at the very least it's incompetence again - which is nothing new with our Referees.

That's what Dermot Gallagher said on Ref Watch.

The Referee thinks it's no penalty, then that the ball bounces off Sima, hence bye kick. VAR checks the penalty, seeing that it's not 'wrong' (I disagree with this). If the penalty is given, then VAR would need to check the attacking phase of play, which would have ruled it out as offside. I don't see the cheating.

I don't know. It's a handball, but that doesn't mean it's a penalty. The Referee did make that decision; VAR just backed him up because it's not wrong.

I don't think VAR did release it; SKY did. I don't know why - probably to show that it wouldn't have mattered what the Referee gave on the pitch; it would have been offside anyway. Where's the cheating? Because the Referee made a decision we disagree with? That's childish. Even if you remove all the offside stuff and focus on the penalty, it's not an egregious decision, IMO. I do think the Referee was wrong, but, like I said elsewhere, if that goes against our defender I'd be furious. It's just incompetence.

You sound like SykseyBear!

That's fair enough. It's just how it looked to me. Like I said, I still think it should have been awarded.

I didn't say 'the decision to award a penalty for handball is purely subjective'. I said it 'has a level of subjectivity to it'.

The hand ball rules should definitely be improved, yes.

I must have worded it poorly. I believe a penalty should have been 'awarded' (given on the pitch), but it's subjective, as it is for the Referee, because it's not a stonewaller, hence the reason why many have opposing opinions. I also believe it is partly accidental, but I don't think that means it shouldn't be awarded - I might be mistaken, there.

It's offside or it's not, yes, but the penalty decision has a level of subjectivity to it - hence the reason why some think it was a penalty (Dermot Gallagher) and some think it wasn't (Jay Boothroyd). There's always a level of subjectivity in many decisions; that will never change.

The narrative has moved because you don't agree with the Referee's decision. He made the decision, rightly or wrongly, yet you seem to think there's a crime (Bill's word, not yours) involved. I agree it's the wrong decision, but it's not egregious - I'd be furious if that went against our defender. The offside stuff shows that it doesn't matter what the Referee decided. It would have been ruled out if it had been given. The offside stuff has come from SKY, if I'm not mistaken, which is not wrong.

What crime? I agree a penalty should have been awarded, but I'm not of the opinion that it's a stonewall penalty; it's partly accidental. This morning, Dermot thought it was a penalty, yet Jay Boothroyd, who was in the discussion, thought it wasn't. It's not an egregious decision not to award a penalty.

Like I said, I trust Dermot over a 'journalist'. I'm not convinced it was a stonewaller - it was accidental, but he does move his hand towards the ball - but I do think the Referee should have given it. It would then have been overturned because he was offside in the build-up.

It's pretty clear, IMO. I'm just repeating what Dermot Gallagher said on Ref Watch. I certainly trust Dermot over some 'journalist'.

It was clearly offside. This is a non-issue. They didn't check for offside; It didn't matter, it didn't get that far. I'll leave you to that opinion.

I thought Yilmaz had Maeda's number all game. That is partly down to Maeda being rubbish, but he has punished us in the past.

You're right, but it was offside.

Yes, the Referee and/or VAR should be giving the penalty. However, it would have been ruled out anyway in this instance. In another instance (no offside in build-up) we would have been robbed.

The offside didn't matter.

The offside didn't matter because they decided it wasn't a penalty, rightly or wrongly. Only if the penalty was given would they then check the build-up, which would have ruled it out because it was offside.

There was a still on Ref Watch. It looks offside to me. I don't think there's any doubt. Yes, I don't understand how the Referee doesn't give it; He is looking directly at it. It would have been overturned, anyway, because Sima was offside.

Dermot also thinks Bernardo (?) shouldn't have been sent off for a second yellow; it's a foul, but no yellow. Dermot thinks that Johnstone should have been sent off for the second yellow.

Dermot Gallagher on Ref Watch suggests it should have been a penalty, which the VAR checked. Rightly or wrongly, VAR decided against. If VAR had given the penalty, then they would then have to check the offside, which then would have cancelled the penalty. No penalty is the right decision.

He's not a good DM, though; he's just a good destroyer-type. And, yes, I agree, that is useful going forward, but I think we need something more to be first choice. Like I've said elsewhere, I think Clement likes a couple of box-to-box players to play CM.