Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

Register Log in

[Albion] Was it a penalty?

Was it a penalty?

  • Total voters
    403
  • Poll closed .


Flounce

Flounce

Well-known member
Nov 15, 2006
1,148
hans kraay fan club said:
Yes.

You'd be APOPLECTIC if that were not given, for us.
Click to expand...

Wouldn’t have been given at 0-0 against THE Arsenal however angry it made you. The ref was biased..end of..imo

I wouldn’t have had a problem with it being given, if he hadn’t given every marginal decision to them prior to the penalty.

How did Ben White get away without a booking for such clear simulation? The twat started the contretemps with a shoulder into Pervis too.
 
Last edited:






M

METALMICKY

Well-known member
Jan 30, 2004
6,089
Sid and the Sharknados said:
Whatever the people who think it's not a foul are on, I'd like to try some of it.
Click to expand...
Well I certainly thought that originally and I might add that I still thinks it's a penalty. However, albeit aided by ' blue and white ' specs bias and i can see the basis of the argument for it not being a penalty.

It's apparent that nobody is quite sure of the relevance of getting a touch on the ball in the decision making process for adjudging a foul. And if there is a relevance is it consistently applied?

If you watch Sky's Ref Watch today it goes not much further in clearing up the debate. Stephen Warnock clearly thinks it's not a penalty because of the touch on the ball. The Sky presenter then asks Dermot Gallagher if " there is a threshold of how much of the ball do you need to contact" to perhaps validate it being a fair tackle? To which the ex ref mentions the path of the ball and that the Arsenal player can still get to it.

After all that I still think it's a penalty. However, if we now conclude that this whole scenario is subjective and it's not as simple as whether you touched the ball or not, then initially the ref should have not given the penalty. It should have been for the VAR to point out where the ball has travelled and the degree of impact on the Arsenals players leg.
 


Bozza

Bozza

You can change this
Helpful Moderator
Jul 4, 2003
55,786
Back in Sussex
METALMICKY said:
Well I certainly thought that originally and I might add that I still thinks it's a penalty. However, albeit aided by ' blue and white ' specs bias and i can see the basis of the argument for it not being a penalty.

It's apparent that nobody is quite sure of the relevance of getting a touch on the ball in the decision making process for adjudging a foul. And if there is a relevance is it consistently applied?

If you watch Sky's Ref Watch today it goes not much further in clearing up the debate. Stephen Warnock clearly thinks it's not a penalty because of the touch on the ball. The Sky presenter then asks Dermot Gallagher if " there is a threshold of how much of the ball do you need to contact" to perhaps validate it being a fair tackle? To which the ex ref mentions the path of the ball and that the Arsenal player can still get to it.

After all that I still think it's a penalty. However, if we now conclude that this whole scenario is subjective and it's not as simple as whether you touched the ball or not, then initially the ref should have not given the penalty. It should have been for the VAR to point out where the ball has travelled and the degree of impact on the Arsenals players leg.
Click to expand...
I’d have liked to see Gallagher directly answer that point.

I assume that if Lamptey had got a full block on the ball, sending it back behind Jesus, then there would be wider consensus that it was not a foul, and not a penalty.

If that assumption is correct then, by implication, there is an amount of “ball contact” that means it’s a fair challenge and a small bit less would mean it’s a foul and penalty.
 


Sid and the Sharknados

Sid and the Sharknados

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Sep 4, 2022
4,106
Darlington
METALMICKY said:
Well I certainly thought that originally and I might add that I still thinks it's a penalty. However, albeit aided by ' blue and white ' specs bias and i can see the basis of the argument for it not being a penalty.

It's apparent that nobody is quite sure of the relevance of getting a touch on the ball in the decision making process for adjudging a foul. And if there is a relevance is it consistently applied?

If you watch Sky's Ref Watch today it goes not much further in clearing up the debate. Stephen Warnock clearly thinks it's not a penalty because of the touch on the ball. The Sky presenter then asks Dermot Gallagher if " there is a threshold of how much of the ball do you need to contact" to perhaps validate it being a fair tackle? To which the ex ref mentions the path of the ball and that the Arsenal player can still get to it.

After all that I still think it's a penalty. However, if we now conclude that this whole scenario is subjective and it's not as simple as whether you touched the ball or not, then initially the ref should have not given the penalty. It should have been for the VAR to point out where the ball has travelled and the degree of impact on the Arsenals players leg.
Click to expand...
It's always going to be subjective, even if Lamptey had scythed him down at the knee with a two footed jump kick there'd still be people who insist that it shouldn't be a foul because there was no intent or some nonsense like that.

Getting the ball doesn't make it a fair challenge. And no referee, video assisted or not, will ever be able to give a decision that is objectively correct because that's not how the rules are. The only way to make an entirely objective decision possible would be to make the sport entirely non contact (or make it a no holds barred bloodbath, which while amusing to contemplate probably isn't a good idea either).
 




M

METALMICKY

Well-known member
Jan 30, 2004
6,089
Sid and the Sharknados said:
It's always going to be subjective, even if Lamptey had scythed him down at the knee with a two footed jump kick there'd still be people who insist that it shouldn't be a foul because there was no intent or some nonsense like that.

Getting the ball doesn't make it a fair challenge. And no referee, video assisted or not, will ever be able to give a decision that is objectively correct because that's not how the rules are. The only way to make an entirely objective decision possible would be to make the sport entirely non contact (or make it a no holds barred bloodbath, which while amusing to contemplate probably isn't a good idea either).
Click to expand...
Absolutely. You've nailed it there. Simply getting a touch on the ball does not constitute a fair challenge and is the point a lot of our fans are missing.
 


Deadly Danson

Deadly Danson

Well-known member
Oct 22, 2003
4,010
Brighton
Bottom line seems to be - a touch on the ball is enough to prevent it being a penalty except when it isn't. Give the same scenario to two different refs in two different matches and you'll get two different decisions. The Doku decision is proof of that.
 


E

Eric Youngs Contact Lens

Well-known member
Dec 9, 2020
582
East Sussex
For those who suggest it was "irrelevant, they would have won anyway", that's a bit simplistic too. The context of the game shifts.. they have what they need, can take less risks, relax on the very high press against which we were having some degree of success and put in a dominant defensive showing when we have possession, with quick breaks to boot. A goal either way has a huge impact on how a game plays out. They were on top of course, but the game, has a different perspective for both teams if we went in 0-0.
This is a decision that could have gone either way, and Arsenal would have been APOPLECTIC had it been given at their end. In the context of the refereeing performance in the 1st half, I am not surprised this went against us, and am not convinced it would have been the same decision in reverse hence why I feel hard done by.
 




F

Farehamseagull

Solly March Fan Club
Nov 22, 2007
14,060
Sarisbury Green, Southampton
Eric Youngs Contact Lens said:
For those who suggest it was "irrelevant, they would have won anyway", that's a bit simplistic too. The context of the game shifts.. they have what they need, can take less risks, relax on the very high press against which we were having some degree of success and put in a dominant defensive showing when we have possession, with quick breaks to boot. A goal either way has a huge impact on how a game plays out. They were on top of course, but the game, has a different perspective for both teams if we went in 0-0.
This is a decision that could have gone either way, and Arsenal would have been APOPLECTIC had it been given at their end. In the context of the refereeing performance in the 1st half, I am not surprised this went against us, and am not convinced it would have been the same decision in reverse hence why I feel hard done by.
Click to expand...
All true. But they would have won anyway.
 


American Seagle

American Seagle

Well-known member
Jun 14, 2022
704
Sid and the Sharknados said:
It's always going to be subjective, even if Lamptey had scythed him down at the knee with a two footed jump kick there'd still be people who insist that it shouldn't be a foul because there was no intent or some nonsense like that.

Getting the ball doesn't make it a fair challenge. And no referee, video assisted or not, will ever be able to give a decision that is objectively correct because that's not how the rules are. The only way to make an entirely objective decision possible would be to make the sport entirely non contact (or make it a no holds barred bloodbath, which while amusing to contemplate probably isn't a good idea either).
Click to expand...
What you say is true. However, getting enough on the ball to change it's trajectory significantly and not being overly aggressive or endangering the opponent in the challenge should not really be a foul.
 


dazzer6666

dazzer6666

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Mar 27, 2013
52,546
Burgess Hill
Flounce said:
Wouldn’t have been given at 0-0 against THE Arsenal however angry it made you. The ref was biased..end of..imo

I wouldn’t have had a problem with it being given, if he hadn’t given every marginal decision to them prior to the penalty.

How did Ben White get away without a booking for such clear simulation? The twat started the contretemps with a shoulder into Pervis too.
Click to expand...
....ref didn't see it :shrug:
 














You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here