[Albion] Was the penalty correctly awarded?

[kevo]

Of all the terrible officials we have to put up with, Jarred Gillett has to be the worst. As VAR ref, how can he give that as a penalty, but think this was NOT a pen for us v Villa last season?

 

[GT49er]

I think it probably was a penalty but not a clear and obvious error, confirmed by Pawson having to come to the screen and watch it several times

Yes, when I saw a clip of it earlier I thought 'penalty' - and voted as such on here. But now I think you (and the pundits on MOTD) have called it right. Yes, maybe a penalty (as in, "I've seen 'em given") but a marginal decision - essentially one which VAR should never have poked its nose in.

 

[clapham_gull]

How can you 'shield the ball to the keeper' by taking out the guys legs - thats just daft! If Milner wants to do that he HAS to stay on his feet.

Its one of the clearest penalties I've seen this season.

If that is one of the clearest penalties you have seen all season I'd get new glasses.

It's open to debate, but clearest penalty this season ? Behave.

 

[kevo]

How can you 'shield the ball to the keeper' by taking out the guys legs - thats just daft! Its one of the clearest penalties I've seen this season.

How can you 'shield the ball to the keeper' by taking out the guys legs - thats just daft! If Milner wants to do that he HAS to stay on his fe

If that is one of the clearest penalties you have seen all season I'd get new glasses.

It's open to debate, but clearest penalty this season ? Behave.

Plus the fact that both the pundits on MOTD2 thought it wasn't.

If you watch it in real time, there is nothing wrong with the challenge. Would NEVER have been given before the advent of VAR, but now everything is slowed down and micro-analysed.

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

Plus the fact that both the pundits on MOTD2 thought it wasn't.

If you watch it in real time, there is nothing wrong with the challenge. Would NEVER have been given before the advent of VAR, but now everything is slowed down and micro-analysed.

I can only think you can believe there is nothing wrong with the challenge if you think there is no contact between their feet. I believe there is substantial contact from Milner's feet onto Mudryk's feet, going across his body whilst falling out of control, and am left with the conclusion that its an unbalanced tripping foul that is a clear as day penalty. But if you believe their feet didn't touch, then its a VAR error, sure.

But whatever. All this focus on it is annoying and takes away from any actual discussion of the match itself which would be more interesting.

 

[Uh_huh_him]

If it is only 62:38 as I vote on a clearly biased forum, it was stonewall.

Massively biased forum??

It always astonishes me how often our posters are prepared to back the officials over our club in contentious decisions.
Commentator and MotD2 pundits disagreed with the decision.

So no. Not stonewall.

 

[Uh_huh_him]

you'd be calling a foul anywhere else on the pitch if thats against you, so yeah it's penalty.

You might be calling for a foul anywhere else on the pitch, but it would be totally arbitrary whether a foul would be given for it.

 

[Arkwright]

Yes it is a foul, however for me similar to the penalty at Forest the goalkeeper has already claimed the the ball and foul or not the attacker is not going to score.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

It isn’t given for a hand-off, nor for a barge. That is the coming together that Pawson saw, and chose not to give.

Watch it back again, and focus only on their feet. It’s a very clear foul

I have had another look at the motd analysis, and it’s quite subjective and whether one feels the coming together/trip/tangle/whatever was “careless, reckless or using excessive force”. At least that’s what I think it based on according to my understanding of the laws. As I say, I have seen them given.

This penalty is not only subjective on the “careless….” front, but also whether it was a clear and obvious error. Refereeing is quite a mess these days.

 

[trueblue]

It’s a ‘seen them given’ which, pre-VAR, meant you howled for it but pretty much accepted it was 50-50 if not given. Mudryk had lost control of the ball before the tangle of legs so a lot of refs would let it go, as Pawson did. As I said elsewhere, perhaps the on-field ref should be asked whether they had a clear view and, if so, that should be the end of it for subjective calls. I wouldn’t consider the late ‘penalty’ subjective as it was definitely ‘clear and obvious’. The type of thing that VAR was meant to be used for.

 

[Uh_huh_him]

The MotD commentator summed it up best.
Whether it was or wasn't a penalty, the insistence on letting VAR decide whether a subjective decision is or isn't a penalty, is "ruining the game".

 

[One Teddy Maybank]

It isn’t given for a hand-off, nor for a barge. That is the coming together that Pawson saw, and chose not to give.

Watch it back again, and focus only on their feet. It’s a very clear foul

Hadn’t seen it back, good spot, definite contact. Penalty right decision.

 

[Stephen Seagull]

Yes, it was a penalty. The one thing I hope for is that the consistency is carried on throughout all our games this season. Given the number of replays and cameras across the league it wouldn’t take someone long to compile video evidence of decisions that, after going to VAR end up with an even more contentious decision than the on field one.
We were beaten yesterday, but we played with spirit. We’re genuinely frustrated we came away from Stamford Bridge after a narrow defeat, put that into perspective when you think where both clubs were 25 years ago

 

[ROSM]

As a ref I wouldn't have given that on the pitch unless the asst ref who would have had a better view gave it. The legs are too difficult to see at full pace when running the diagonal. Its different from both pens at forest last week where the ref should have given them (and the one forest didnt get against everton)

Should VAR have intervened? It depends what var is trying to do. At times it seeks (claims) perfection and at other times it still wants us to accept its human frailties.

Given how awful the current var is (and is getting worse) i am puzzled whether it should have done given it wasnt in my view clear and obvious and given other pens we haven't had this year.

 

[Uh_huh_him]

As a ref I wouldn't have given that on the pitch unless the asst ref who would have had a better view gave it. The legs are too difficult to see at full pace when running the diagonal. Its different from both pens at forest last week where the ref should have given them (and the one forest didnt get against everton)

Should VAR have intervened? It depends what var is trying to do. At times it seeks (claims) perfection and at other times it still wants us to accept its human frailties.

Given how awful the current var is (and is getting worse) i am puzzled whether it should have done given it wasnt in my view clear and obvious and given other pens we haven't had this year.

Good insight thanks.

I agree.
PGMOL have said on a number of occasions that they wanted to set a "high bar" for overturning onfield decisions.
They have consistently overlooked their own guidelines.

There are too many penalties being given in the Premier league now.
43 so far from 140 matches- with a 93% success rate
6 in 14 from ours. - (2 for , 4 against) - 100% success rate.

In a low scoring sport, it gives such a big advantage.
The bar needs to be set much higher, than it is currently.

 

[Hotchilidog]

Not a penalty. MOTD 2 got it right. Milner didn’t take him out Mudryk was leaning in to try and get the ball back and there was a coming together. No way VAR should have intervened.

 

[Uh_huh_him]

Not a penalty. MOTD 2 got it right. Milner didn’t take him out Mudryk was leaning in to try and get the ball back and there was a coming together. No way VAR should have intervened.

I agree - but for me it's one of those that Cooper referred to last week. "If you're giving those , then you'll be giving penalties in every game".
It kind of is a penalty nowadays.
That action isn't given as a foul 8 times out of 10 outside the box, but inside the box the ratio is reversed.

 

[JBizzle]

At the time, I said "no penalty" but the fact that, in slipping, Milner catches Mudryk's right ankle with his right boot probably means that it was actually the correct call as was the our "penalty". They used a dreadful angle to check it, of course, but it clearly smacked Colwill in the face.

 

[Farehamseagull]

The MotD commentator summed it up best.
Whether it was or wasn't a penalty, the insistence on letting VAR decide whether a subjective decision is or isn't a penalty, is "ruining the game".

Well yes, this is the real point.

As I’ve said for years, VAR should never have been introduced as football is too subjective. Fouls, handball, even offside, people will always have different opinions on all of these things.

No matter how many rule tweaks they make - VAR will never work. Keep it for off the ball stuff and mistaken identity etc but that is it, it should have no other powers.

 

[Triggaaar]

I agree - but for me it's one of those that Cooper referred to last week. "If you're giving those , then you'll be giving penalties in every game".
It kind of is a penalty nowadays.

But 'it kind of is nowadays' is not a clear and obvious error that needs overturning. That's the issue here. If the ref had given it I'd have felt unlucky and that it was soft, but he didn't. Overturning his decision was just plain wrong.