[Brighton] Was it a penalty?

[Biscuit]

Never a penalty. Not remotely. Ref had a shocker all game I thought. Whoever dived in front of Webster just before should have been booked for simulation.

 

[Algernon]

And the ref (or should it be umpire) and his "after review etc.etc"
Super cringe. In my opinion of course.
Yay, go USA, Soccerball.

 

[Simster]

And the ref (or should it be umpire) and his "after review etc.etc"
Super cringe. In my opinion of course.
Yay, go USA, Soccerball.

I'm not sure how football finally growing up a bit and letting the crowd know what's going on is "super cringe". The alternative is that it gets typed out and printed on the screen (which is more what we might expect), but that all takes time and people don't even like waiting for VAR to do it's job, so not sure that would go don particularly well.

My issue is that the explanation was so poor as to be pointless. "no foul was committed" doesn't really explain anything. I mean, we already deduced that much because the penalty decision was turned over. Nothing more than a truism.

 

[heathgate]

I thought the original on-field decision was correct.

From the replays, which I have watched a fair bit, it’s clear Mitoma completely misses both player and ball as he slides in….BUT his trailing arm which is behind him does hook the Forest player’s foot. This is quite clear. I’d say technically it’s still a foul. I’d really like to hear why the referee decided it wasn’t and what changed his mind.

In the same way that it can't be given as a handball if similar inadvertent contact is made whilst his arm is in a normal supporting position at ground level...

 

[Si Gull]

99/100 that has absolutely no bearing on the outcome.
Pundits love to totally ignore it or give it a mitigating "but there was still contact"
Referees don't seem to be able to spot it either.
The amount of dangled legs and abrupt slowing of pace to initiate contact is at epidemic levels.
It happens multiple times in every game now and it's just another cheat tactic. It needs calling out each time it happens.
It most always reaps the reward of a free kick to the "clever" cheater.
Luckily, not this time.

Totally agree. I'd like to see free kicks and penalties being given only when there's deliberate (I know, that's subjective) or significant (subjective again) impedance of a player.

How did we get to the point where a player's shirt sleeve inadvertently catches on another's studs, and it can even remotely be considered a foul?

It's a contact sport, and occasionally accidental contact happens that really doesn't need to be punished.

 

[PILTDOWN MAN]

I'm amazed that no one has questioned the utter wanker dive inside the 6 yard box 5 seconds prior to the penalty. That was far more obvious and should have been a freekick to us and the Forest player shot.

 

[Milano]

Not a pen. A dive. Sadly though Pedro would have done the exact same thing.

Teams tend to mirror their managers. In this case a snide, cheating, bully. He was exactly the same at Wolves. At Spurs he didn't have the required volume of "Yates" type players to impose himself.

He's a Portuguese Neil Warnock, I hope City smash them and they collapse in the league. I've got nothing against their fans though.

When you play teams like this you need a really strong ref, unfortunately we got that wet lettuce.

 

[Bodian]

There was another penalty appeal by Forest in the middle of our box a minute or so before the Mitoma incident which the ref waved away. Has anyone got any clips of that one?

5.36 on here - an absolutely blatant dive. No contact at all really.

I'm amazed that no one has questioned the utter wanker dive inside the 6 yard box 5 seconds prior to the penalty. That was far more obvious and should have been a freekick to us and the Forest player shot.

Indeed. Although maybe shooting him would have been just a tad harsh?

 

[Mellotron]

As others have said, it should've been moot as there was one of the clearest dives I have ever seen about 5 seconds prior.

But no, Mitoma's wasn't even close to a pen - no negative intent from Mitoma whatsoever, was clearly sliding to block the ball and the player managed to get himself tangled with Mitoma when Mitoma didn't go towards the player at all.

 

[trueblue]

I'm not sure how football finally growing up a bit and letting the crowd know what's going on is "super cringe". The alternative is that it gets typed out and printed on the screen (which is more what we might expect), but that all takes time and people don't even like waiting for VAR to do it's job, so not sure that would go don particularly well.

My issue is that the explanation was so poor as to be pointless. "no foul was committed" doesn't really explain anything. I mean, we already deduced that much because the penalty decision was turned over. Nothing more than a truism.

Could anyone hear him anyway? Not where I was sitting.

 

[mejonaNO12 aka riskit]

To me, that's a penalty.

The analysis of slow motion replays really does infuriate me. The slow motion should be used to determine if contact was made as that can be hard to see at the real speed. Once established, a referee/var should watch back incidents at real speed, now with the knowledge that contact was made.

Otherwise you get MAD statements like "the player clearly moved his foot towards Mitoma's arm". Yes, that's because you are watching it at 1/10th of the speed it happened. In real time, Mitoma slides in and accidentally scoops away the foot with his arm. It's a penalty. It's a complete accident but that's not a rule. Most players don't MEAN to commit fouls. Mitoma's action led to the player being fouled in the box, it's a pen for me Clive.

Of course I cheered when it was overturned, but it's a pen.

Anderson has the reactions of an olympic sprinter at the start gun if you think on 0.01 seconds he decided to put his foot in Mitoma's arm

In the image, Anderson has only JUST lifted his foot off the ball before Mitoma's arm catches his foot. To suggest Anderson "initiated contact" at the speed of Superman is hopeful at best.

Good ol' slow motion.

 

[LamieRobertson]

Clearly not

 

[beefypigeon]

As others have said, it should've been moot as there was one of the clearest dives I have ever seen about 5 seconds prior.

But no, Mitoma's wasn't even close to a pen - no negative intent from Mitoma whatsoever, was clearly sliding to block the ball and the player managed to get himself tangled with Mitoma when Mitoma didn't go towards the player at all.

I feel a similar way to this.

I don't think Andersen initiates the contact like some are suggesting. Mitoma does slide in, which leaves himself somewhat vulnerable. Still, the contact is made with his arm, which is in a natural position close to his body. He is not trying to win the ball or tackle the player with that part of his body - that's why the ref says 'no tackle made' or something similar. It's a coming together, a little unfortunate for Forest, but the right decision imo.

 

[dsr-burnley]

To me, that's a penalty.

The analysis of slow motion replays really does infuriate me. The slow motion should be used to determine if contact was made as that can be hard to see at the real speed. Once established, a referee/var should watch back incidents at real speed, now with the knowledge that contact was made.

Otherwise you get MAD statements like "the player clearly moved his foot towards Mitoma's arm". Yes, that's because you are watching it at 1/10th of the speed it happened. In real time, Mitoma slides in and accidentally scoops away the foot with his arm. It's a penalty. It's a complete accident but that's not a rule. Most players don't MEAN to commit fouls. Mitoma's action led to the player being fouled in the box, it's a pen for me Clive.

Of course I cheered when it was overturned, but it's a pen.

Anderson has the reactions of an olympic sprinter at the start gun if you think on 0.01 seconds he decided to put his foot in Mitoma's arm

In the image, Anderson has only JUST lifted his foot off the ball before Mitoma's arm catches his foot. To suggest Anderson "initiated contact" at the speed of Superman is hopeful at best.

Good ol' slow motion.

And that's what infuriates me. The idea that if you look closely, you can see that one man's foot just touches another man's hand and that means that the forward was forced to lose contact with the floor with both feet and lie there injured.

At the moment the default position of referees is that if they see a player fall down, they will blow the whistle unless they are certain it wasn't a foul. It should be the other way - if a player falls down, they should play on unless they are certain it was a foul. And they should always bear in mnd - which they don't seem to - that players will dive, cheat, or exaggerate contact (depending which term you like best).

I would make it that when a player obviously dives, then no free kick will be given even if it was probably a foul. That's the only way to stamp it out. And I would certainly get away from the idea that whether or not it's a foul depends on the reaction of the forward - a forward who takes a dive shouldn't be allowed to turn a non-foul into a foul. If a slight contact is enough for a penalty, then that slight contact is equally a penalty whether the man dives or not.

 

[oldboyroy]

From what I saw in slow motion it was never a pen but they do get given! Ally McCoist on this morning said it should've been a pen whereas Jeff Stelling said completely not a pen! Ally saying the momentum of Anderson means he couldn't have initiated contact but surely the momentum of Mitoma sliding in and his arms in natural position couldn't have deliberately fouled Anderson?

 

[Mellotron]

I feel a similar way to this.

I don't think Andersen initiates the contact like some are suggesting. Mitoma does slide in, which leaves himself somewhat vulnerable. Still, the contact is made with his arm, which is in a natural position close to his body. He is not trying to win the ball or tackle the player with that part of his body - that's why the ref says 'no tackle made' or something similar. It's a coming together, a little unfortunate for Forest, but the right decision imo.

This is exactly why intent IS key IMO. Players fall over all the time, things happen, particularly in the box with loads of bodies and limbs around.

The vast majority of the time, it isn't a foul.

Mitoma is just trying to stop the ball coming across, he isn't attempting to stop the player himself at all. It's unfortunate that the player gets tangled with him, but it's not fair to penalise Mitoma for that, given no intent. IMO.

 

[mothy]

I’ve watched it several times - seems as if the foot went to Mitoma to create contact if that makes sense. His leg changes direction or extends to ensure that he makes contact with Mitoma.

Not saying it not a penalty. Just that it wasn’t clear and obvious that Mitoma ‘took him out’

So wasn't a clear an obvious error by the ref - so var shouldn't have intervened?

 

[Commander]

I still think it's a penalty.

 

[lawros left foot]

5.36 on here - an absolutely blatant dive. No contact at all really.



Indeed. Although maybe shooting him would have been just a tad harsh?

Without robust punishment you’re never going to stamp this type of behaviour out.
You would only have to shoot the first 50 or so offenders before they got the message.
And, the added bonus is, you’d get no repeat offenders.

 

[mejonaNO12 aka riskit]

Ally saying the momentum of Anderson means he couldn't have initiated contact

He's correct in my opinion. It happened in a split second. It's a foul.