[Albion] Izquierdo Penalty

[Puppet Master]

It was never a penalty

 

[drew]

If he took out Izzy first, then it should have been a penalty. I haven't noticed that yet.

EDIT - I've got 3 angles here, and I think he gets the ball at least as early as colliding with Izzy.

Obviously as others have said, getting the ball doesn't instantly make it no foul, it still can be, but I don't think it should have been.

However, I'm completely sure the foul on Murray should have been a penalty.

Even if he did touch Izzy at the same time as the ball, from what I've seen, It was Izzy catching McArthur's with his foot that sent him down.

 

[Eric Youngs Contact Lense]

The angle that Friend had, along with the fact that it was a desperate, clumsy challenge following a U9s - level defending, the ball moved as though it was more likely to have come from Izzy's foot - all made it easy to give. I would have been adamant that it was not a penalty had it been us. I am hoping that VAR doesn't get used on these issues, because it will only ever be an opinion or interpretation that will leave one set of fans/players livid because they hold a different opinion. Only use VAR (Like goal-line technology) for things that can be proven almost 100% : offside, fouls inside or outside the box. Let the on-field ref deal with the interpretation of the action as they do now - asking VAR to confirm the "line calls"

 

[Audax]

I think I can understand why it was given. While the ball is touched first, it's not touched under control - he only reaches it because he's gone to ground and stretched out so far that he's lost control of the tackle and inevitably takes out Izzy in the process. If he'd got first touch while under control, then clear cut not a pen. As it is, without control, he's put it in the hands of the ref. 50-50 VAR decision for me, depending on how the ref is feeling, and given the angle the ref had that 50-50 becomes more of a 75 yes, 25 no under live conditions.

More to the point: how was the Murray incident not a pen? Makes me wonder if the incorrect corner was given because the ref knew just too late that he'd cocked up the original call on the incident. The way he deals with Duffy (from the highlights package posted in this thread), it kinda looks like the ref doesn't really want to give the red but knows he has to, and potentially knows it's because he didn't give the pen when Murray got shoved.

 

[nwgull]

I think I can understand why it was given. While the ball is touched first, it's not touched under control - he only reaches it because he's gone to ground and stretched out so far that he's lost control of the tackle and inevitably takes out Izzy in the process. If he'd got first touch while under control, then clear cut not a pen. As it is, without control, he's put it in the hands of the ref. 50-50 VAR decision for me, depending on how the ref is feeling, and given the angle the ref had that 50-50 becomes more of a 75 yes, 25 no under live conditions.

On this basis, nearly all slide tackles are fouls.

 

[Papa Lazarou]

He’s a bit quick at pointing to the spot is Kevin, the Man Utd pen for them was soft to.

In the game this season. Watch the highlights again - soft is putting it mildly. Duffy went past Fellani and somehow the Utd player then falls over - no contact at all!

 

[LlcoolJ]

This shows a few angles.

I've watched it loads of times...... and I don't give a toss! The value is in the absolute Keystone Cops defending by two of Palace's heroes. Piss funny!

 

[Spiros]

I think I can understand why it was given. While the ball is touched first, it's not touched under control - he only reaches it because he's gone to ground and stretched out so far that he's lost control of the tackle and inevitably takes out Izzy in the process. If he'd got first touch while under control, then clear cut not a pen. As it is, without control, he's put it in the hands of the ref. 50-50 VAR decision for me, depending on how the ref is feeling, and given the angle the ref had that 50-50 becomes more of a 75 yes, 25 no under live conditions.

More to the point: how was the Murray incident not a pen? Makes me wonder if the incorrect corner was given because the ref knew just too late that he'd cocked up the original call on the incident. The way he deals with Duffy (from the highlights package posted in this thread), it kinda looks like the ref doesn't really want to give the red but knows he has to, and potentially knows it's because he didn't give the pen when Murray got shoved.

The fact that the ref pointed for a corner and not the penalty would suggest that he thought Tomkins got the ball. Maybe if he had thought Tomkins hadn't got the ball he'd have pointed for a pen. Again seeing it on MOTD you can see why Friend thought it even if he was wrong. The ref only gets one look in real time, not endless replays from loads of different angles on slow-mo. Still don't know how he avoided sending off Zaha though. I thought the tackle on March warranted a red as it was an obvious deliberate attempt to injure the player - just as bad as Mounie's on Bissouma

 

[drew]

I think I can understand why it was given. While the ball is touched first, it's not touched under control - he only reaches it because he's gone to ground and stretched out so far that he's lost control of the tackle and inevitably takes out Izzy in the process. If he'd got first touch while under control, then clear cut not a pen. As it is, without control, he's put it in the hands of the ref. 50-50 VAR decision for me, depending on how the ref is feeling, and given the angle the ref had that 50-50 becomes more of a 75 yes, 25 no under live conditions.

More to the point: how was the Murray incident not a pen? Makes me wonder if the incorrect corner was given because the ref knew just too late that he'd cocked up the original call on the incident. The way he deals with Duffy (from the highlights package posted in this thread), it kinda looks like the ref doesn't really want to give the red but knows he has to, and potentially knows it's because he didn't give the pen when Murray got shoved.

I think you're trying to be too clever rather than it was a simple mistake. I would guess Friend thought it was Izzy that got to the ball first and then was taken out by McArthur. The Murray incident wasn't a pen because he made another mistake, as he did in awarding a corner.

 

[knekkebrød]

While the ball is touched first, it's not touched under control

I'm with Audax. Kind of. Despite the slight touch on the ball Izzy still had a chance to get a shot on goal, had he not been taken down. In my view it's not enough to make a slight touch on the ball, the tackle must rob the oponent of the ball. In my view McArthur doesn't.

Tried to find a definition in the laws of the game, but the rules are quite open. The above note is my attemt to make a decision within the 'spirit' ot the game

 

[Acker79]

I don't think that it's 100% not a penalty. With the angle he is challenging, McArthur can't get the ball without colliding with Izquierdo. For some referees that is enough for it to be considered a careless challenge (“Careless” means that the player has shown a lack of attention or consideration when making his challenge or that he acted without precaution). McArthur hasn't changed his approach to the ball even though it means he will collide with Izquierdo, showing a lack of consideration when making his challenge.

I know there is a gut alpha male reaction in some fans "if tackles like that aren't allowed any more football's dead. It's supposed to be a man's game!" and to be honest, I think it's the sort you'll always be aggrieved is given against you, and laugh about it being given for you (dependent on your opinion of the opposition). But I do think there is that small percentage of refs that will interpret that sort of challenge that way. It often isn't in the box, so it doesn't usually get such attention, but we do see them given, so I think people are showing far too much certainty about it not being one.

I also don't think it's all that different to the challenge on Murray that everyone seems to be more inclined to call a penalty. The only difference is that McArthur got the ball. The problem, as already mention in this thread, is 'getting the ball' isn't a thing that defines whether a challenge is a foul or not. Both cases involve the Palace player going through the Albion man to get to the ball, (though with no suggestion of excessive force or disregard of the dangers or consequences of the opponents that would push it to reckless).

 

[Sheebo]

Stonewall pen. As was Murray’s. Anyone saying different is a scum fan

 

[Saunders]

I don't think that it's 100% not a penalty. With the angle he is challenging, McArthur can't get the ball without colliding with Izquierdo. For some referees that is enough for it to be considered a careless challenge (“Careless” means that the player has shown a lack of attention or consideration when making his challenge or that he acted without precaution). McArthur hasn't changed his approach to the ball even though it means he will collide with Izquierdo, showing a lack of consideration when making his challenge.

I know there is a gut alpha male reaction in some fans "if tackles like that aren't allowed any more football's dead. It's supposed to be a man's game!" and to be honest, I think it's the sort you'll always be aggrieved is given against you, and laugh about it being given for you (dependent on your opinion of the opposition). But I do think there is that small percentage of refs that will interpret that sort of challenge that way. It often isn't in the box, so it doesn't usually get such attention, but we do see them given, so I think people are showing far too much certainty about it not being one.

I also don't think it's all that different to the challenge on Murray that everyone seems to be more inclined to call a penalty. The only difference is that McArthur got the ball. The problem, as already mention in this thread, is 'getting the ball' isn't a thing that defines whether a challenge is a foul or not. Both cases involve the Palace player going through the Albion man to get to the ball, (though with no suggestion of excessive force or disregard of the dangers or consequences of the opponents that would push it to reckless).

I would counter that with Izquierdo didn't attempt to play the ball he ran at an angle that would collide himself with McArthur who was trying to play the ball consideration goes both ways. As you say its not if they play the ball its the intention and its clear which of the two players is intending to play the ball and who is not. The referee only gave it because he had a poor view. Murrays was a pen though for the pull back on him.

 

[Acker79]

I would counter that with Izquierdo didn't attempt to play the ball he ran at an angle that would collide himself with McArthur who was trying to play the ball consideration goes both ways. As you say its not if they play the ball its the intention and its clear which of the two players is intending to play the ball and who is not. The referee only gave it because he had a poor view. Murrays was a pen though for the pull back on him.

But Izquierdo doesn't have to try to play the ball. He is between McArthur and the ball at the moment of the challenge (and was always going to be there from the directions they were running), it doesn't make it ok for McArthur to go through him just because he hasn't tried to play the ball. You can't run through a player trying to shepherd the ball out of play just because he's making no attempt at the ball.

 

[Da Man Clay]

Stonewall pen. As was Murray’s. Anyone saying different is a scum fan

I can just imagine the good grace you would have taken it with if you were given a pen against you for the first Sheebs!

 

[MrSnuggles]

The push on Murray looked like a pen from where we sat! There was no attempt to play the ball he just pushed him over. What's the point of having assistant referees if they don't give assistance to the referee!!? The lino either saw the foul or must have seen the last player to touch the ball was Murray. Palace fans are right, it shouldn't have been a corner.....it should have been a penalty!

 

[LlcoolJ]

Can we not all just agree that the build up to the penalty was one of the funniest things ever? How utterly shithouse, panicky and inept. From Palace's wonderkid..... I'm still laughing.

 

[drew]

I really don't understand why some are still trying to justify Friend's decision. It's comical.

 

[hoveboyslim]

The analysis of this is absolutely stunning (and one eyed). The ball bounced off the palace defenders, both Izquierdo and McArthur went for the ball and McArthur got there first. That is it. Nothing more to add.

 

[Sheebo]

I can just imagine the good grace you would have taken it with if you were given a pen against you for the first Sheebs!

I’d have Duffy’d the ref