[Albion] Was it a penalty?

[Flounce]

Yes.

You'd be APOPLECTIC if that were not given, for us.

Wouldn’t have been given at 0-0 against THE Arsenal however angry it made you. The ref was biased..end of..imo

I wouldn’t have had a problem with it being given, if he hadn’t given every marginal decision to them prior to the penalty.

How did Ben White get away without a booking for such clear simulation? The twat started the contretemps with a shoulder into Pervis too.

 

[Sid and the Sharknados]

Whatever the people who think it's not a foul are on, I'd like to try some of it.

 

[METALMICKY]

Whatever the people who think it's not a foul are on, I'd like to try some of it.

Well I certainly thought that originally and I might add that I still thinks it's a penalty. However, albeit aided by ' blue and white ' specs bias and i can see the basis of the argument for it not being a penalty.

It's apparent that nobody is quite sure of the relevance of getting a touch on the ball in the decision making process for adjudging a foul. And if there is a relevance is it consistently applied?

If you watch Sky's Ref Watch today it goes not much further in clearing up the debate. Stephen Warnock clearly thinks it's not a penalty because of the touch on the ball. The Sky presenter then asks Dermot Gallagher if " there is a threshold of how much of the ball do you need to contact" to perhaps validate it being a fair tackle? To which the ex ref mentions the path of the ball and that the Arsenal player can still get to it.

After all that I still think it's a penalty. However, if we now conclude that this whole scenario is subjective and it's not as simple as whether you touched the ball or not, then initially the ref should have not given the penalty. It should have been for the VAR to point out where the ball has travelled and the degree of impact on the Arsenals players leg.

 

[Bozza]

Well I certainly thought that originally and I might add that I still thinks it's a penalty. However, albeit aided by ' blue and white ' specs bias and i can see the basis of the argument for it not being a penalty.

It's apparent that nobody is quite sure of the relevance of getting a touch on the ball in the decision making process for adjudging a foul. And if there is a relevance is it consistently applied?

If you watch Sky's Ref Watch today it goes not much further in clearing up the debate. Stephen Warnock clearly thinks it's not a penalty because of the touch on the ball. The Sky presenter then asks Dermot Gallagher if " there is a threshold of how much of the ball do you need to contact" to perhaps validate it being a fair tackle? To which the ex ref mentions the path of the ball and that the Arsenal player can still get to it.

After all that I still think it's a penalty. However, if we now conclude that this whole scenario is subjective and it's not as simple as whether you touched the ball or not, then initially the ref should have not given the penalty. It should have been for the VAR to point out where the ball has travelled and the degree of impact on the Arsenals players leg.

I’d have liked to see Gallagher directly answer that point.

I assume that if Lamptey had got a full block on the ball, sending it back behind Jesus, then there would be wider consensus that it was not a foul, and not a penalty.

If that assumption is correct then, by implication, there is an amount of “ball contact” that means it’s a fair challenge and a small bit less would mean it’s a foul and penalty.

 

[Sid and the Sharknados]

Well I certainly thought that originally and I might add that I still thinks it's a penalty. However, albeit aided by ' blue and white ' specs bias and i can see the basis of the argument for it not being a penalty.

It's apparent that nobody is quite sure of the relevance of getting a touch on the ball in the decision making process for adjudging a foul. And if there is a relevance is it consistently applied?

If you watch Sky's Ref Watch today it goes not much further in clearing up the debate. Stephen Warnock clearly thinks it's not a penalty because of the touch on the ball. The Sky presenter then asks Dermot Gallagher if " there is a threshold of how much of the ball do you need to contact" to perhaps validate it being a fair tackle? To which the ex ref mentions the path of the ball and that the Arsenal player can still get to it.

After all that I still think it's a penalty. However, if we now conclude that this whole scenario is subjective and it's not as simple as whether you touched the ball or not, then initially the ref should have not given the penalty. It should have been for the VAR to point out where the ball has travelled and the degree of impact on the Arsenals players leg.

It's always going to be subjective, even if Lamptey had scythed him down at the knee with a two footed jump kick there'd still be people who insist that it shouldn't be a foul because there was no intent or some nonsense like that.

Getting the ball doesn't make it a fair challenge. And no referee, video assisted or not, will ever be able to give a decision that is objectively correct because that's not how the rules are. The only way to make an entirely objective decision possible would be to make the sport entirely non contact (or make it a no holds barred bloodbath, which while amusing to contemplate probably isn't a good idea either).

 

[METALMICKY]

It's always going to be subjective, even if Lamptey had scythed him down at the knee with a two footed jump kick there'd still be people who insist that it shouldn't be a foul because there was no intent or some nonsense like that.

Getting the ball doesn't make it a fair challenge. And no referee, video assisted or not, will ever be able to give a decision that is objectively correct because that's not how the rules are. The only way to make an entirely objective decision possible would be to make the sport entirely non contact (or make it a no holds barred bloodbath, which while amusing to contemplate probably isn't a good idea either).

Absolutely. You've nailed it there. Simply getting a touch on the ball does not constitute a fair challenge and is the point a lot of our fans are missing.

 

[Deadly Danson]

Bottom line seems to be - a touch on the ball is enough to prevent it being a penalty except when it isn't. Give the same scenario to two different refs in two different matches and you'll get two different decisions. The Doku decision is proof of that.

 

[Eric Youngs Contact Lens]

For those who suggest it was "irrelevant, they would have won anyway", that's a bit simplistic too. The context of the game shifts.. they have what they need, can take less risks, relax on the very high press against which we were having some degree of success and put in a dominant defensive showing when we have possession, with quick breaks to boot. A goal either way has a huge impact on how a game plays out. They were on top of course, but the game, has a different perspective for both teams if we went in 0-0.
This is a decision that could have gone either way, and Arsenal would have been APOPLECTIC had it been given at their end. In the context of the refereeing performance in the 1st half, I am not surprised this went against us, and am not convinced it would have been the same decision in reverse hence why I feel hard done by.

 

[Sarisbury Seagull]

For those who suggest it was "irrelevant, they would have won anyway", that's a bit simplistic too. The context of the game shifts.. they have what they need, can take less risks, relax on the very high press against which we were having some degree of success and put in a dominant defensive showing when we have possession, with quick breaks to boot. A goal either way has a huge impact on how a game plays out. They were on top of course, but the game, has a different perspective for both teams if we went in 0-0.
This is a decision that could have gone either way, and Arsenal would have been APOPLECTIC had it been given at their end. In the context of the refereeing performance in the 1st half, I am not surprised this went against us, and am not convinced it would have been the same decision in reverse hence why I feel hard done by.

All true. But they would have won anyway.

 

[American Seagle]

It's always going to be subjective, even if Lamptey had scythed him down at the knee with a two footed jump kick there'd still be people who insist that it shouldn't be a foul because there was no intent or some nonsense like that.

Getting the ball doesn't make it a fair challenge. And no referee, video assisted or not, will ever be able to give a decision that is objectively correct because that's not how the rules are. The only way to make an entirely objective decision possible would be to make the sport entirely non contact (or make it a no holds barred bloodbath, which while amusing to contemplate probably isn't a good idea either).

What you say is true. However, getting enough on the ball to change it's trajectory significantly and not being overly aggressive or endangering the opponent in the challenge should not really be a foul.

 

[dazzer6666]

Wouldn’t have been given at 0-0 against THE Arsenal however angry it made you. The ref was biased..end of..imo

I wouldn’t have had a problem with it being given, if he hadn’t given every marginal decision to them prior to the penalty.

How did Ben White get away without a booking for such clear simulation? The twat started the contretemps with a shoulder into Pervis too.

....ref didn't see it

 

[Flounce]

....ref didn't see it

Of course he didn’t, he was Wenger like all game

 

[Blues Guitarist]

Absolutely. You've nailed it there. Simply getting a touch on the ball does not constitute a fair challenge and is the point a lot of our fans are missing.

Lamprey played the ball. Jesus ran into him. What did Lamptey do wrong?

 

[KZNSeagull]

Jesus has been kicked so hard into the air that he has had time to do a reverse inward twist with pike. 9.8. Must therefore be a penalty.

 

[Springal]

Lamprey played the ball. Jesus ran into him. What did Lamptey do wrong?