[Albion] Three penalties denied

[One Love]

It always seems that some Italian has wronged him.
Whether it's a player or a coach or an entire team.
Ask Mourinho with his Roma in the Europa League final.
I have a lot of respect for the English and their culture... but this man here doesn't seem worthy of the value of the people you are and represent.

I must watch that game again because watching it live I thought the officials got all the big decisions right.

And I'm not a fan of Anthony Taylor. Even more so after last Saturday.

 

[Reddleman]

Normally I would be absolutely fuming about a not given penalty but I simply don’t think these were:

1. Estupinan could have been given but it was essentially shoulder to shoulder and the fact Estupinan threw himself like Supermanwith arms and legs outstretched really didn’t help us. It was 50/50.

2. The handball wasn’t a penalty. The rules clearly say an arm being used for support on the ground isn’t a penalty and that was the case here.

3. Debatable, not a howler and was never going to be overturned.

We don’t want to get ourselves into this mindset of every game being a conspiracy. The Spurs game yes, Saturdays game definitely not in my opinion.

 

[Garry Nelson's Left Foot]

I was screaming for all three.

Pervis went down in a way that made it look like a massive dive. AS someone else has said if he'd reacted naturally to it I think we might have got it.

I can see why Taylor didn't give the Mitoma one. From his point of view it looks like the defender gets a toe on the ball and Mitoma kicks the defenders leg.

The hand ball. If Dunk's is a handball agaisnt Luton I don't understand how this one isn't.

It seemed like all the 50-50's went against us and a number of 60-40s also. Not sure if that is true but it felt like it at the time but maybe that was just frustration at being mugged so convincingly.

 

[banjo]

Knowing our luck in front of goal with Areola (spelling?) playing a blinder he would have saved all three penalties if they’d been awarded. We lost 3-1, we made fundamental defensive errors for all the West Ham goals, we played well for the last 15 minutes. We had a huge reality check - no bad thing. We move on.

 

[schmunk]

Pervis went down in a way that made it look like a massive dive. AS someone else has said if he'd reacted naturally to it I think we might have got it.

Agreed - at the game I thought he'd made a meal of very little contact, but watching it back I think there was a very real penalty shout.

 

[Johnny RoastBeef]

The rules clearly say an arm being used for support on the ground isn’t a penalty and that was the case here.

They don't, the wording of that law has changed. It no longer says that. The law now says, it's a penalty if:

a player is considered to have made their body unnaturally bigger when the position of their hand/arm is not a consequence
of, or justifiable by, the player’s body movement for that specific situation. By
having their hand/arm in such a position, the player takes a risk of their
hand/arm being hit by the ball and being penalised.

So as it stands it is now more ambiguous, and at the referees discretion.

Anthony Taylor clearly indicated that he thought the hand was in a natural position as it was supporting the player as he went to ground.

Just a shame David Coote wasn't refereeing this match.

 

[One Love]

There was something in Taylor's reaction to our first penalty claim that made me think we weren't going to get anything given to us that game.

We'll have to see how he refs us next time we get him.

 

[Seagull58]

Normally I would be absolutely fuming about a not given penalty but I simply don’t think these were:

1. Estupinan could have been given but it was essentially shoulder to shoulder and the fact Estupinan threw himself like Supermanwith arms and legs outstretched really didn’t help us. It was 50/50.

2. The handball wasn’t a penalty. The rules clearly say an arm being used for support on the ground isn’t a penalty and that was the case here.

3. Debatable, not a howler and was never going to be overturned.

We don’t want to get ourselves into this mindset of every game being a conspiracy. The Spurs game yes, Saturdays game definitely not in my opinion.

The Estupinian one was NOT shoulder to shoulder. The barge made contact behind the shoulder in the back, which is why he fell forward and not sideways. Taylor is an incompetent/corrupt referee though.

 

[Eeyore]

We are one of a handful of clubs that just aren't given penalties that other clubs are.

Plenty will claim that all fans think that way.
That may be true, to a certain extent, but there just aren't as many occasions where I think we got away with one there.

If the same scenario happens against us, the ref is far more likely to point to the spot.

Not true.

Last season stats showed that only Manchester City, Brentford, West Ham and Fulham were awarded more penalties than us.

All these claims have no evidence.

I thought the Pervis shove should have been a penalty. The handball not (although it may not have been overturned by VAR) Mitoma definitely not a penalty.

Fans of all clubs think they are hard done by- especially Arsenal last year. Brentford game anyone ?

 

[el punal]

View attachment 165638

Football - bloody hell!

 

[Uh_huh_him]

Not true.

Last season stats showed that only Manchester City, Brentford, West Ham and Fulham were awarded more penalties than us.

All these claims have no evidence.

I thought the Pervis shove should have been a penalty. The handball not (although it may not have been overturned by VAR) Mitoma definitely not a penalty.

Fans of all clubs think they are hard done by- especially Arsenal last year. Brentford game anyone ?

No evidence?
Remind me how many PGMOL apologies did we receive last season?
I seem to recall 2 for penalties one given against one not given for ( in a game where 2 other penalties were not given/checked)

We were also nearly top for penalties conceded - 6 for, 8 against.
This is despite having one of the top possession /touches in the box stats in the division.
My point remains, we are frequently not given penalties that other teams are.

 

[Uh_huh_him]

And I don't blame VAR for these not being given. It's totally on Antony Taylor for "missing" these

I've mentioned it before, but even the highly regarded Michael Oliver was determined to not give us penalties against Brentford last season.

He "missed" the handball for the penalty that was eventually given by VAR, and then saw but waved away, the handball a few minutes later.
Solly was incensed that the second one wasn't given. Defender's arm sticking out which blocked his cross.

No idea why any defenders choose to put their hands behind their backs ,when defending crosses, if that one wasn't given.

 

[shingle]

Watching face on from the NS the Pervis one IMO was a stonewall penalty. Made no attempt to play the ball just smashed into him

 

[Uh_huh_him]

Normally I would be absolutely fuming about a not given penalty but I simply don’t think these were:

1. Estupinan could have been given but it was essentially shoulder to shoulder and the fact Estupinan threw himself like Supermanwith arms and legs outstretched really didn’t help us. It was 50/50.

2. The handball wasn’t a penalty. The rules clearly say an arm being used for support on the ground isn’t a penalty and that was the case here.

3. Debatable, not a howler and was never going to be overturned.

We don’t want to get ourselves into this mindset of every game being a conspiracy. The Spurs game yes, Saturdays game definitely not in my opinion.

I think all 3 would not have been overturned if the ref gives them and that is the crux of my issue.
Last season refs gave more penalties against us (8) than for us (6).

Although we were one of the top recipients of pens last season, refs waved away a lot more.
Including 2 official PGMOL apologies (Spurs/Villa) and numerous others which were considered bad misses by the ref .(Leicester/Spurs/Brentford)

If VAR hadn't been in place the situation would have been worse.
3 of our penalties were awarded after a VAR review overturning the onfield decision.
Only 1 of the penalties awarded against us was from VAR overturning the ref.

In short, refs are more likely to give pens against us, than for us.
If we were a backs to the wall defensive team, then that would make more sense.

 

[m20gull]

They don't, the wording of that law has changed. It no longer says that. The law now says, it's a penalty if:

a player is considered to have made their body unnaturally bigger when the position of their hand/arm is not a consequence
of, or justifiable by, the player’s body movement for that specific situation. By
having their hand/arm in such a position, the player takes a risk of their
hand/arm being hit by the ball and being penalised.

So as it stands it is now more ambiguous, and at the referees discretion.

Anthony Taylor clearly indicated that he thought the hand was in a natural position as it was supporting the player as he went to ground.

Just a shame David Coote wasn't refereeing this match.

The FAQs don't seem to have been updated. The final one is:

An attacker (Team A) attempts to pass the ball. A defender (Team B) makes a slide tackle to block the pass. The ball touches the right arm which is clearly extended away from the body and is not supporting the body. What is the correct decision?

I would infer from this that a supporting arm does not give rise to a handball offence, but presumably only if it's not in an unnatural position!

 

[m20gull]

They don't, the wording of that law has changed. It no longer says that. The law now says, it's a penalty if:

a player is considered to have made their body unnaturally bigger when the position of their hand/arm is not a consequence
of, or justifiable by, the player’s body movement for that specific situation. By
having their hand/arm in such a position, the player takes a risk of their
hand/arm being hit by the ball and being penalised.

So as it stands it is now more ambiguous, and at the referees discretion.

Anthony Taylor clearly indicated that he thought the hand was in a natural position as it was supporting the player as he went to ground.

Just a shame David Coote wasn't refereeing this match.

The other word that is missing, but is often used in discussions is "proximity". I don't see why having your arm in an unnatural position but close to a player is OK. You could go in close and spread your arms like a goalkeeper and say "proximity" means it's not handball

 

[Uh_huh_him]

The other word that is missing, but is often used in discussions is "proximity". I don't see why having your arm in an unnatural position but close to a player is OK. You could go in close and spread your arms like a goalkeeper and say "proximity" means it's not handball

I think the "proximity" argument is predominantly used by Shearer, in cases where the result is impactful to Newcastle.

 

[Withdean11]

I don't think any of them are penalties.

Consistency is the issue, as we have seen them all given, but for me they are not penalties. I think several of you would be complaining if any of them were awarded against us.

Watching it back, we would've won that game quite comfortable if it wasn't for two players. Webster and Areola.

 

[The Fits]

Pervis one was definitely a pen.
Shoulder to shoulder is totally different to taking a player out with your shoulder.

 

[Uh_huh_him]

I don't think any of them are penalties.

Consistency is the issue, as we have seen them all given, but for me they are not penalties. I think several of you would be complaining if any of them were awarded against us.

Watching it back, we would've won that game quite comfortable if it wasn't for two players. Webster and Areola.

I would be a bit peeved if any of them were given against us, but i don't think I would claim they weren't penalties.
A trip, a shove and a handball.
All of them are squarely in the "seen them given" range.