[Brighton] Was it a penalty?

[Stumpy Tim]

This reminds me of the Calvert-Lewin over-turned decision on the opening day. Mitoma slid in (like Dunk did at Everton) and Anderson put his foot on Mitoma (as DCL did to Dunk). The forward doesn't own the grass, so if the defender puts his foot on the grass & the forward steps on him, it's not a foul. It also isn't a dive.

 

[South Stand Bonfire]

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?

That dive was disgraceful. What is the point of having all these rules (Foul Throws, 10 yards at freekicks, 6 seconds for goalkeepers, retrospective yellow cards for trying to deceive the ref etc) if they are not going to use them?

 

[Bozza]

Keith Hackett has spoken...

“I think that’s a penalty. The player first of all slides in, he’s on the ground, therefore he’s out of control, he can’t change direction, it’s a challenge where he has taken a risk and part of his body has made contact with the Nottingham Forest player.

“I cannot see why VAR should have intervened on this one. Then, as usual, when a referee goes to the monitor, he’s going with doubt in his mind, it’s being brought to his attention.

“I would have liked Peter Bankes to have said ‘I’m happy here that the sliding challenge had a purpose.’

“It was a careless challenge – I don’t think it was reckless – but he was out of control, he’s made contact with the player, he’s put his body in front of the player, so for me I think that’s a penalty kick. His sliding challenge has brought the player down.

“There’s clear contact, it is that arm that’s made contact with the player so it’s hit his body.”

 

[dsr-burnley]

Keith Hackett has spoken...

“I think that’s a penalty. The player first of all slides in, he’s on the ground, therefore he’s out of control, he can’t change direction, it’s a challenge where he has taken a risk and part of his body has made contact with the Nottingham Forest player.

“I cannot see why VAR should have intervened on this one. Then, as usual, when a referee goes to the monitor, he’s going with doubt in his mind, it’s being brought to his attention.

“I would have liked Peter Bankes to have said ‘I’m happy here that the sliding challenge had a purpose.’

“It was a careless challenge – I don’t think it was reckless – but he was out of control, he’s made contact with the player, he’s put his body in front of the player, so for me I think that’s a penalty kick. His sliding challenge has brought the player down.

“There’s clear contact, it is that arm that’s made contact with the player so it’s hit his body.”

That's where refereeing is going wrong. The sliding challenge did not IMO bring the player down. He felt the contact and brought himself down - watch the replay, once the contact is made, neither of his feet made contact with the floor - whatever his right foot was doing, he fell on the floor because he deliberately pulled his left foot up.

If that is a penalty, then it must be a penalty every time that sort of contact is made - not just when the forward chooses to fall over.

 

[dsr-burnley]

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

And that's another of the problems with VAR. There was one (I think in a European game) last week - the forward backed into the defender and threw himself down, and the ref said penalty. The fourth official looked for 2 minutes before deciding it wasn't a clear error, so obviously he would have been inclined not to give it; the ref himself could have had a look and probably decided not to give it. We can easily have a position where ref and VAR man both think it's not a penalty but (because of the protocol) it's still given.

Instead of the VAR man trying to re-referee, why not take a quick look and decide it's not open-and-shut, and the proper ref can be looking at the screen within 10 seconds? After all, it's his decision to make.

 

[ROSM]

Keith Hackett has spoken...

“I think that’s a penalty. The player first of all slides in, he’s on the ground, therefore he’s out of control, he can’t change direction, it’s a challenge where he has taken a risk and part of his body has made contact with the Nottingham Forest player.

“I cannot see why VAR should have intervened on this one. Then, as usual, when a referee goes to the monitor, he’s going with doubt in his mind, it’s being brought to his attention.

“I would have liked Peter Bankes to have said ‘I’m happy here that the sliding challenge had a purpose.’

“It was a careless challenge – I don’t think it was reckless – but he was out of control, he’s made contact with the player, he’s put his body in front of the player, so for me I think that’s a penalty kick. His sliding challenge has brought the player down.

“There’s clear contact, it is that arm that’s made contact with the player so it’s hit his body.”

And there is a reverse Keith Hackett opinion available if Peter bankes had gone to the monitor and stuck by his decision

 

[mejonaNO12 aka riskit]

.The sliding challenge did not IMO bring the player down. He felt the contact and brought himself down - watch the replay, once the contact is made, neither of his feet made contact with the floor - whatever his right foot was doing, he fell on the floor because he deliberately pulled his left foot up..

His left foot never leaves the floor. See the pictures attached.

At which one of these 3 pictures do you believe he still had the ability to stand up?

Slow motion seems to make people forget basic human movement.

This all happened in a split second. It wasn't a genius piece of deception.

 

[Uh_huh_him]

Keith Hackett has spoken...

“I think that’s a penalty. The player first of all slides in, he’s on the ground, therefore he’s out of control, he can’t change direction, it’s a challenge where he has taken a risk and part of his body has made contact with the Nottingham Forest player.

“I cannot see why VAR should have intervened on this one. Then, as usual, when a referee goes to the monitor, he’s going with doubt in his mind, it’s being brought to his attention.

“I would have liked Peter Bankes to have said ‘I’m happy here that the sliding challenge had a purpose.’

“It was a careless challenge – I don’t think it was reckless – but he was out of control, he’s made contact with the player, he’s put his body in front of the player, so for me I think that’s a penalty kick. His sliding challenge has brought the player down.

“There’s clear contact, it is that arm that’s made contact with the player so it’s hit his body.”

I was in two minds about it until I saw this.
If Hackett thinks it was a penalty, then it defintely wasn't.

Thanks for posting.

 

[Algernon]

There's nothing, not even his years as a ref that makes me think we should take any notice of Keith Hackett's opinion.
If you can look back at all his expert analysis of all matters football over the years and agree with everything he said then I can understand why you might want to.
But I doubt if anyone can.
If you can't then It's only one more opinion, and one from someone who undoubtedly was often conned by players over the years.

 

[Uh_huh_him]

There's nothing, not even his years as a ref that makes me think we should take any notice of Keith Hackett's opinion.
If you can look back at all his expert analysis of all matters football over the years and agree with everything he said then I can understand why you might want to.
But I doubt if anyone can.
If you can't then It's only one more opinion, and one from someone who undoubtedly was often conned by players over the years.

And one who seems determined to take the opposite view of whatever decision was actually made.

 

[chickens]

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.

I was impressed with the way the quick-thinking Forest player abandoned his original intention to play the ball, and instead stuck his foot where Mitoma’s arm would collect it.

Glad it was reviewed and (correctly) not given imo.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

I am torn on how to vote in this poll.

I believe it perhaps should NOT have been given 'live' as the ref couldn't be certain there was contact that was the cause of the player going down, but also believe that once the ref HAD given it, the VAR had no conclusive reason to get involved.

Should it have been given? 50/50

Should it have stayed a penalty, once awarded? YES

 

[Is it PotG?]

No.

 

[One Love]

I've got two people I know, a ManU fan and a Arsenal fan I go to for objectivity and they both said no penalty.

They are usually harsh to us so that was good enough for me.