Ingve Fløysand

@efctruth20802 So why not keep the tough sanctions also for Chelsea (and later also for City)? It will benefit several top clubs, as you say. But it is also a risk of damage the product of PL in that process? This is surely a balance they need to consider. It cant be that random as you suggest.

@FlIngve The problem with your conspiracy is why favour Chelsea & possibly City It’s clubs like Liverpool, Arsenal etc that were disadvantaged. Why aren’t the PL looking out for them?

Genuinely it’s not corrupt Incompetent, but not corrupt.

@efctruth20802 You struggle with tactical and I gave you examples of incentives. Speculations? Yes, but still tactical incentives. The PSR sanctions, that have worked well for deterrent, could serve multiple objectives for PL.

@efctruth20802 The relative tough sanctions for PSR breach (Everton and NF) could be seen in the context of (avoiding?) the establishment of the independent regulator. The relative light sanctions for Chelsea as a need for de-escalate sanctions before the City verdict.

@FlIngve I struggle with tactical Other clubs have lost out in titles/ Europe etc by Chelsea’s (and possibly City) cheating I’m struggling to see any tactical gain by not punishing them.

@efctruth20802 Well, it seems people generally jump to the corruption allegation when the rules enforcement of PL are in best case random (or incompetent). My take is that the different sanctions is neither corruption or incompetence. I suspect the sanctions have been set "tactical".

@FlIngve They shouldn’t be expected There is absolutely no indication of corruption. It’s widely used by people that should really know better.

@efctruth20802 Good call 👌

Tomorrow, subject to injury, I’m expecting O’Brien & Mykolenko to replace Keane & Tim George has had bright cameos when he can focus on attack. Struggled to impact as a starter.

@John_B58 @henrywinter @FA Difficult to see this as corruptions. The performance level is to random for that. But lack of leadership + lack of performance culture among PGMOL is genuine concerns.

@henrywinter The elephant in the room is poor leadership, and that’s from the very top so the @FA downwards. Accountability in senior executive roles is at best shallow, and many have income levels way above what they’d earn in any other industry. Concerns about corruption are genuine.

“If ever there was a case for keeping VAR, this shambolic refereeing performance was it." To-the-point headline in the Telegraph after the error-filled, VAR-less FA Cup tie at Villa Park. Missed pens, offsides, fouls. Chris Kavanagh and his assistants know they got plenty wrong. But was it poor officiating or they’re simply conditioned to having the comfort blanket of VAR to get decisions right? Probably, a bit of both. Technology was brought in so there would never be another Hand of God, Hand of Thierry or Lampard goal-line controversy. Plenty of mistakes triggered anger and debates pre-technology. The two worst refereeing performances I’ve seen were Pierluigi Collina, Valencia v Everton in 2005, and Tom Henning Ovrebo, Chelsea v Barcelona in 2009. Both pre-VAR. Goal-line technology, quick and accurate, is a huge plus. VAR would be a plus - if used properly and as originally intended. PL interventions are becoming fewer (good) but some interventions take far too long (infuriating). Many fans would like VAR scrapped because it robs/tempers that instant adrenalin shot of a goal and a generation are growing up in the PL not able to revel in the moment. But VAR is staying, clubs voted 19-1 for it. It’s about making it applicable to a fast-moving, emotion-rich game. It’s about making it less forensic, and focused only on catching clear and obvious mistakes. It's about making the Laws clearer. It’s also about investing even more in grass-roots officials and accelerating pathways. On a positive note, Farai Hallam earned plenty of praise from Hull and Chelsea fans for his assured handling of their FA Cup tie. The game needs more of his ability.

I am not sure if the Premier League's Key Match Incidents (KMI) Panel is helping the PGMOL improve in any way. I don't see how these findings actually help them improve. The establishment of the KMI is basically a sign of no confidence to the PGMOL. @DaleJohnsonBBC

@Paddy_Boyland I assume they will explain this by "they could not identify hair pulling 100 %". But we all know the truth, there is a clear lack of consistency in the application of the rules and guide lines. A result of a weak performance culture in the PGMOL?

So is hair pulling a red card or not?

@GavinBuckland1 @rogerefc @DaleJohnsonBBC @Paul17efc28 Do we have any confirmation that VAR actually identify hair pulling at the situation involving Tete? From Skysports live text: "It looks like Tete might have pulled Semenyo's hair, but the camera angles aren't great and they've dismissed the incident. He's got away with it."

@rogerefc @DaleJohnsonBBC @Paul17efc28 @FlIngve Yes Keane was challenging for ball and Tete nowhere near. Officials making it up as they go along as per.

Does Everton's Michael Keane deserve a three-match ban after his hair pull red card? A look at why hair pulling is seeing as violent conduct. Interpretation can change over time to make the punishment fit the crime. bbc.co.uk/sport/football…

@KieranMaguire I am like 60/40, "this is a prank" or "it actually happen". The odds on "prank" due to your friend Kevin. Else it would be 50/50.

Dwight McNeil transfer to Palace called off after the Crystal Palace deal sheet got stuck in the info@cpfc.co.uk 'Out' folder and no one checked to see whether or not it was sent.

@paul_worton @RyanSoccerAA @DaleJohnsonBBC @Marcotti If you point at the hair pulling red cards that our friend Dale used in his article as reference, they all lack the key element of "challenging for the ball".

@FlIngve @RyanSoccerAA @DaleJohnsonBBC @Marcotti There had already been two red cards in the EPL for this in the past year, plus one in the Women’s Euros QF. Keane can’t play dumb for yanking on Tolu’s scalp What I do agree with is that VAR means everything gets looked at forensically and that’s not football

Everton learn the written reasons for Michael Keane's rejected red card appeal. As I explained at the time about violent conduct and pulling hair, the FA Commission said it falls "outside the normal constituent elements of a challenge in football". 👇 bbc.co.uk/sport/articles…

@paul_worton @RyanSoccerAA @DaleJohnsonBBC @Marcotti Yes, the majority of panel agreed. But it also mean that is possible to view this differently. What about Michael Keane. Is it reasonable to expect him to understand on how the ref and majority of the panel will interpret law 12? When guidelines for this is missing.

@RyanSoccerAA @FlIngve @DaleJohnsonBBC @Marcotti One from a panel of 3. Means the panel agreed. Move on

@paul_worton @RyanSoccerAA @DaleJohnsonBBC @Marcotti Not everyone. The majority view was that "the forceful pulling of a person's hair can be said to fall outside the normal constituent elements of a challenge in football". I take that as 1 of the members disagree and follow the words of the law about not using violent conduct.

@RyanSoccerAA @DaleJohnsonBBC @Marcotti What can I say other than the fact that everyone of authority is disagreeing with you?

@DaleJohnsonBBC <<The majority view was that "the forceful pulling of a person's hair can be said to fall outside the normal constituent elements of a challenge in football">>. Does that mean 1 of the members actually follow the "text book" argument, that violent conduct can not be used?

@henrywinter @Bob_Helpful The established "pattern" so far have been very low bar for "making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent ". VvD's goal (MC vs LIV), O'Brian in (EVE vs TOT). Well, until they decide otherwise yesterday for White's goal (Gyokeres is offside).

@Bob_Helpful it's subjective, which offside shouldn't be, and I get it that the process was obviously not helped by the offside tech not working. Unconvincing because I wasn't sure what Haaland did wrong, both grappling, plus the lines were drawn.

The time and process taken to scrap Antoine Semenyo’s second goal was unacceptable. The breakdown of the offside tech was unacceptable. The final decision on a subjective offside was unconvincing. PGMO says VAR getting quicker and more effective, clubs voted 19-1 to keep ... 1/2

@DaleJohnsonBBC @GPB56 The established "pattern" so far this season have been very low bar for "challenging an opponent for the ball". This one is an outlier.

@GPB56 I spotted it straight away... But that's on me...

Clear that after last night the PGMO bosses have driven home that it does not advocate for forensic examination of situations. The potential Gyokeres offside was remarkably similar to Haaland. The offside check tonight was cleared swiftly. #CHEARS

@DaleJohnsonBBC The optimal balance of speed versus accuracy/consistency will always be a difficult to find. Why change this mid-season or even between to semi-finals?

@philmcnulty The call of offside offence was correct and should be clear enough if offside position could be established. The time delay was mainly due to some technical issues in establishing that. That is the risk of using technology for support.

Can anyone really have full confidence in a system that takes so long to decide whether a goal is legitimate? Even the officials looked unconvinced by it all. Sucking the joy out of the game. bbc.co.uk/sport/football…

@Tomoneill84 @DaleJohnsonBBC Holding BEFORE Semenyo touch the ball could be a pen. After the touch, not possible. Only call Haaland could get after the touch is a red card offence for Thiaw. Still would be offside :)

@DaleJohnsonBBC Fair enough. Don’t agree with that rule/law as one shouldn’t supersede the other. Hey ho, just another mess for the game to sort out. 😂

Three points on Haaland offside image as they keep being raised. 1) Offside line drawn to Pope as second-last defensive player 2) 5cm tolerance level auto applies if the red and blue lines touch, which they do not 3) Thiaw holding Haaland not relevant for offside judgement