Crystal Palace (FA Cup) 4th January

[Tonsta]

12 minutes ago, Zoo 2.0 said:

You really think it's just Pawson? I wouldn't trust any of the PGMOL to run a bath.

Maybe not but he sure has a vendetta against EFC.

[Romey 1878]

I'm not even going to comment on the rest of the game because that red card decision is an utter disgrace and I am raging. It's all I can concentrate on tbh.

I have never been one to think there's some sort of agenda against us but the amount of utter bollocks decisions that go against us is just getting ridiculous. That tonight was beyond a joke. Dom was not reckless, Dom was not out of control. So how the fuck can VAR decide after the ref saw nothing untoward that there was a clear and obvious error? WHAT THE FUCK?! He barely even touches him (if at all) and takes the ball. You'll see challenges like that every single game that go totally unpunished. You'll probably see an opposition player do the exact same thing against us in the next few weeks and absolutely nothing will happen. Why? Because IT'S NOT A FUCKING FOUL! And it's not violent conduct.

It's us though so of course it is, and of course it won't be rescinded. So that's us another player light for the next three games.

Fuck off.

[Cornish Steve]

1 hour ago, Haiku said:

Nobody can convince me that there isn't an agenda against Everton.

One day, it's all going to come out. There's no doubt VAR is being used to rig results, no doubt at all. The league's defence will be that football is no different from wrestling - it's entertainment, and they can rig it however they like - but that's not how fans see it. We demand honesty, fairness, and a single standard that's applied to all. The FA has it in for Everton, no doubt, and we've almost reached the point where an independent inquiry should be convened.

And if the FA wants to show me a red card for writing that, then "go ahead - make my day!"

[Cornish Steve]

57 minutes ago, Fosse Captain said:

I can see why it was red, but don't agree it should've been.
The fact that the ref didn't even see it as a foul and then upgrades it to violent conduct is mental, and a huge fuck up by him.
 

The BBC live text at the time stated "really good tackle from Calvert-Lewin".

[Fosse Captain]

1 minute ago, Cornish Steve said:

The BBC live text at the time stated "real good tackle from Calvert-Lewin".

Says it all. 
Wasn't a red. No one thinks it was even a foul!
 'studs were showing' but the slo-mo makes it look reckless.......which it very much wasn't.
Terrible decision 
 

[dunlopp9987]

26 minutes ago, Fosse Captain said:

Says it all. 
Wasn't a red. No one thinks it was even a foul!
 'studs were showing' but the slo-mo makes it look reckless.......which it very much wasn't.
Terrible decision 
 

9 times out of 10 the slo-mo will always look worse than it actually was. Yes he did go in slightly high with studs showing, there's no doubt about that, but to call it reckless and endangering an opposing player is ludicrous 

[Elston Gunnn]

I’ll be interested to see if the penalty is reduced from 3 down to 1 match.  I assume that is a possibility, yes?

[Gwlad]

Just now, Elston Gunnn said:

I’ll be interested to see if the penalty is reduced from 3 down to 1 match.  I assume that is a possibility, yes?

Yeah but not for Everton.

[Romey 1878]

Just now, Elston Gunnn said:

I’ll be interested to see if the penalty is reduced from 3 down to 1 match.  I assume that is a possibility, yes?

No. It'll either be reduced to no ban or the three will remain.

You can forget about there being no ban and count on Dom being missing for the next three games.

[Elston Gunnn]

1 minute ago, Romey 1878 said:

No. It'll either be reduced to no ban or the three will remain.

You can forget about there being no ban and count on Dom being missing for the next three games.

Ok, bear with me here.  Do I understand the possibilities to be: no ban, reduced to 1 match, stays at 3 matches?

If — if — there are 3 options, I can see overturning the red (no ban) is highly unlikely; and I can see keeping the 3-match ban is the most likely.  Yet the immediate and maybe universal buzz is that this was a horrible call, so if — if — there’s an option to reduce the penalty to one match, I’d think that would be given some consideration by the embarrassed EPL.

Though ...... I take the implied point that the EPL is beyond embarrassment in its vendetta against EFC.

 

[Btay]

40 minutes ago, Elston Gunnn said:

Ok, bear with me here.  Do I understand the possibilities to be: no ban, reduced to 1 match, stays at 3 matches?

If — if — there are 3 options, I can see overturning the red (no ban) is highly unlikely; and I can see keeping the 3-match ban is the most likely.  Yet the immediate and maybe universal buzz is that this was a horrible call, so if — if — there’s an option to reduce the penalty to one match, I’d think that would be given some consideration by the embarrassed EPL.

Though ...... I take the implied point that the EPL is beyond embarrassment in its vendetta against EFC.

 

If they review it and lower the suspension it will only further increase the question marks around VAR. More likely they will stand firm on the 3 games for that reason alone.

[Hafnia]

Appeal, keep the spotlight on the pricks. 

[Romey 1878]

2 hours ago, Elston Gunnn said:

Ok, bear with me here.  Do I understand the possibilities to be: no ban, reduced to 1 match, stays at 3 matches?

If — if — there are 3 options, I can see overturning the red (no ban) is highly unlikely; and I can see keeping the 3-match ban is the most likely.  Yet the immediate and maybe universal buzz is that this was a horrible call, so if — if — there’s an option to reduce the penalty to one match, I’d think that would be given some consideration by the embarrassed EPL.

Though ...... I take the implied point that the EPL is beyond embarrassment in its vendetta against EFC.

 

What I meant is that I don’t see how there’s a case to simply downgrade it, it’s an all or nothing situation.

If on appeal they decided it’s not violent conduct then it’s simply not a red card offence at all. So it should be a three game ban or nothing. 

[Matt]

 

 

[Matt]

 

 

[RuffRob]

6 hours ago, Hafnia said:

Appeal, keep the spotlight on the pricks. 

I agree, red cards can get retracted. I feel we'd have a decent case.

[Romey 1878]

• Crystal Palace are without a win in five games against Everton (D2 L3), failing to score in three of the past four.

• Just 25 goals have been scored at Selhurst Park this season (for and against), the fewest at a Premier League stadium in 2023-24.

• Dominic Calvert-Lewin has now failed to score in his past 12 appearances for Everton, his joint-longest goal drought with the Toffees (two other runs of 12 starting in January 2022 and March 2019).

• Calvert-Lewin picked up the first red card of his career, while two of Everton’s past three red cards have come against Crystal Palace at Selhurst Park (also Mason Holgate in April 2023).

• Seamus Coleman appeared in his 14th FA Cup campaign for Everton, the joint-most for an outfielder in the history of the club (level with Jack Taylor 1896-1910) and the second-most overall, behind Neville Southall (15).

[Romey 1878]

 

[Tonsta]

I don't think this is anything to do with Kavanagh,he did not even give a foul,  its 100% Pawson.

[Matt]

 

 

[Hafnia]

 

[Romey 1878]

1 hour ago, Tonsta said:

I don't think this is anything to do with Kavanagh,he did not even give a foul,  its 100% Pawson.

When he was sent over to the screen he didn't have to go with what Pawson said. So mostly Pawson but Kavanagh shouldn't be absolved of all responsibility.

[Tonsta]

21 minutes ago, Romey 1878 said:

When he was sent over to the screen he didn't have to go with what Pawson said. So mostly Pawson but Kavanagh shouldn't be absolved of all responsibility.

No i'm not absolving him, but when someone tells you i have looked at this from all angles and its a red, as we know they go with the VAR view, they think another top ref is putting me right, and that's the problem.

[Cornish Steve]

Here's what was written on BBC live text when DC-L made that tackle...

[Cornish Steve]

2 hours ago, Tonsta said:

I don't think this is anything to do with Kavanagh,he did not even give a foul,  its 100% Pawson.

On one sports show, Neil Warnock quoted other examples and made the explicit claim that Pawson has it in for Everton. But what would the motive be? Did we not send him a Christmas card?

[Hafnia]

28 minutes ago, Cornish Steve said:

On one sports show, Neil Warnock quoted other examples and made the explicit claim that Pawson has it in for Everton. But what would the motive be? Did we not send him a Christmas card?

Warnock and Pawson have history but it gives an insight into what Pawson is all about. Vindictive. 

no doubt about it - our fans have given Pawson dogs abuse which started somewhere, he likely hasn't heard the sort of stuff aimed at him anywhere else, then when refs go on their paintballing days out or play Warcraft online together they hear about how nasty our fans are. 
 

Either way - he can't be involved in our games anymore. 

[Elston Gunnn]

Not sure what to make of this, but it’s somewhere between weird and suspicious.  This BBC Sport article says the VAR ref was Michael Salisbury, not Pawson.

https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/67892373

[Tonsta]

I think because of the comments coming in the have changed the name, don't believe it for one minute 

[Elston Gunnn]

4 minutes ago, Tonsta said:

I think because of the comments coming in the have changed the name, don't believe it for one minute 

If so, I rather like this development, as it appears the FA (or whoever) is embarrassed by the VAR intervention, and is trying to deflect from Pawson’s rumored anti-Everton bias.  But in trying to deflect, they’ve simply drawn more attention to the situation and rendered it ever more suspicious.

Unless it’s just some BBC Sport scribe having a laugh.

[Cornish Steve]

2 hours ago, Elston Gunnn said:

Not sure what to make of this, but it’s somewhere between weird and suspicious.  This BBC Sport article says the VAR ref was Michael Salisbury, not Pawson.

https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/67892373

In a Sky News article: "But after Craig Pawson, the VAR, reviewed the images which showed Calvert-Lewin clipping Clyne's shin with his studs, Kavanagh was summoned to the monitor. After re-watching the incident multiple times, including in slow motion, a red card was issued. Everton have since appealed the decision."

Yahoo Sports claims Salisbury was the VAR referee.

Shields Gazette: "Referee Craig Pawson was involved in a controversial VAR decision during Everton's FA Cup match against Crystal Palace - just two days before he'll officiate Sunderland's huge fixture against Newcastle. Pawson was the VAR official who recommended that on-field referee Chris Kavanagh visited the pitchside monitor after a tackle from Everton striker Dominic Calvert-Lewin, before the player was shown a straight red card in the 79th minute."

The Sportsmole: "Everton have lodged an appeal against the red card received by Dominic Calvert-Lewin in the club's FA Cup third round tie with Crystal Palace on Thursday. The striker was sent off with just over 10 minutes remaining of the 0-0 draw at Selhurst Park, following a VAR review recommended by Craig Pawson."

Total confusion reigns. Is this genuine misinformation or deliberate obfuscation?

PS - Just to add to the confusion, it seems that Yahoo Sports has now edited out the name 'Michael Salisbury' from the article I read not 30 minutes ago.