Palace - Bournemouth

[Tealeaf]

The Andersson/Lerma incident. I’m genuinely unsure on this.

Post match we have Gary O’Neil saying Lerma has a broken nose. Yet he plays the whole game without any seeming ill effects. That and the smile as he says it screams “con job” to me. I’ve seen, heard and been on the receiving end of similar BS from managers including a player “with a broken leg” who promptly came out of the physio room with an ice pack on, laughing and joking with teammates.

But I digress - the incident itself. VAR look at it and Lineker does the whole “excuse” routine, about the lack of a swinging arm.

I’ve seen it back multiple times and I wouldn’t want to make that call. It would be guesswork. The hand is closed, granted. Clenched? Less clear. And there’s no backswing consistent with a punch, nor an obvious jab. And Lerma does move towards him.

We have an alleged injury, and a potential cause. But is that enough to go for red? I just can’t sell it to myself.

 

[Mooseybaby]

Slightly biased as I am a West Londoner living in Bournemouth exile for the past 16 years, so have a soft spot for my adopted local team.

Easy to miss the incident in normal time and these sort of incidents always look worse in slow motion. For me it wasn't the cleverest thing to do and did have a hint of cheap shot at an unsuspecting element. The amount of force seems negligible, but if you're looking push away an opponent, normally you use an open palm and not what appears to be a closed/clenched fist like action. Would be good to hear the VAR official's thoughts on what they saw.

 

[RustyRef]

I think if I saw that real time I'd be going red, really don't think his hand would be in that closed shape if it was accidental. Very little chance I would see it real time though. With VAR in operation he was taking a huge risk, probably 50/50 whether they recommend a review or not there.

 

[Runner-Ref]

Really weird incident. I think if you see this, red card is the only way to go. Andersen can’t even use the excuse that he was trying to brush him off.

For VAR to get involved, I guess it comes down to them asking Brooks what he has seen and his response. If he says he saw it, don’t think VAR can do too much

 

[Paul_10]

Really weird incident. I think if you see this, red card is the only way to go. Andersen can’t even use the excuse that he was trying to brush him off.

For VAR to get involved, I guess it comes down to them asking Brooks what he has seen and his response. If he says he saw it, don’t think VAR can do too much

Did he see it though because if he hasn't then that's what the monitor is there for and how it should be used.

 

[Runner-Ref]

Did he see it though because if he hasn't then that's what the monitor is there for and how it should be used.

That’s the scenario I can’t really think of an explanation before. If ref tells VAR he hasn’t seen anything happen, I don’t understand how VAR can’t have ref check screen.

But if ref says he saw his raise his hand, this probably takes out what VAR can do

 

[Paul_10]

That’s the scenario I can’t really think of an explanation before. If ref tells VAR he hasn’t seen anything happen, I don’t understand how VAR can’t have ref check screen.

But if ref says he saw his raise his hand, this probably takes out what VAR can do

There's a difference between raising your arm and punching someone though. The ref should of been sent to the screen and let him decide if it warrants a red card or not.

 

[Runner-Ref]

There's a difference between raising your arm and punching someone though. The ref should have been sent to the screen and let him decide if it warrants a red card or not.

I agree with you. It I imagine it ultimately came down to what the referee told VAR he has seen.

Hopefully we’ll get some insight to it on MNF

 

[socal lurker]

There's a difference between raising your arm and punching someone though. The ref should have been sent to the screen and let him decide if it warrants a red card or not.

That’s not how VAR works. The VAR only recommends a review if he believes it was a clear and obvious error not to have given the red card. And the R then decides whether to go to the screen for a review (though it would be shocking if a ref declined the recommendation to review).

 

[Paul_10]

That’s not how VAR works. The VAR only recommends a review if he believes it was a clear and obvious error not to have given the red card. And the R then decides whether to go to the screen for a review (though it would be shocking if a ref declined the recommendation to review).

If the referee has not seen it and the VAR has picked it up then he should be sent over for the referee to decide. If the ref has seen it and does not even thought there was anything wrong then it's very poor refereeing but I suspected what happened here is the ref did not see it and in the VAR opinion there was not enough conclusive evidence for a review. Can understand why Bournemouth were annoyed because it should of been a penalty and a red card.

 

[Runner-Ref]

If the referee has not seen it and the VAR has picked it up then he should be sent over for the referee to decide. If the ref has seen it and does not even thought there was anything wrong then it's very poor refereeing but I suspected what happened here is the ref did not see it and in the VAR opinion there was not enough conclusive evidence for a review. Can understand why Bournemouth were annoyed because it should have been a penalty and a red card.

Not sure it would have been a pen or not. I’ve tried freeze-framing it a few times and can’t tell if hall was in play

 

[Tealeaf]

Can understand why Bournemouth were annoyed because it should of been a penalty and a red card.

Cannot be a penalty as Bournemouth were defending a corner.