[Albion] Why didn't we get the penalty?

[B-right-on]

Thought it was a pen yesterday but looking at the extended highlights on the club site, it does look like he goes down after the ball runs away. His right foot is clipped but he takes another step on it and then falls after that. So possibly right imo in this new 'toughened' contact era.

As long as decisions are consistent that's all I care about.

 

[Perfidious Albion]

Maupay is not one to dive. I am sure his mind was on scoring , not winning a penalty. From the recording It seems Krul caught is foot as hewas running. At speed, it doesn't take much to make you fall .
Oh well, would we have scored from it ?

 

[Icy Gull]

Maybe I’m just a cynic but if that had been Salah at Anfield it would have been a penalty and a red card

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

He knows it’s getting away from him………..even if he was touched it did not contribute to the decision. A touch Does Not means it has to be a penalty

It got away from him because of the touch from Krul. If he rounds him with no interference at all he's getting to that ball and putting it away.

I agree he takes a step to see if he can get to it, realises he can't and goes down. It should be a penalty even if he stays on his feet, but we all know refs don't give those so he has to go down. But it's not a 'dive', there was contact that causes him to lose his stride and lose the scoring opportunity.

 

[Swansman]

Maupay is not one to dive. I am sure his mind was on scoring , not winning a penalty. From the recording It seems Krul caught is foot as hewas running. At speed, it doesn't take much to make you fall .
Oh well, would we have scored from it ?

No guarantees but Maupays penalty record is excellent so fair chance, yes. On the other hand Tim Krul is also good at saving penalties.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

I’m pretty convinced that was a penalty.

However, in the interests of balance, I also think that the late recovery tackle by Burn on Pukki, was pretty suspect, and very glad Pukki made nothing of it. Watch the replay from head on - Burn 100% clips his standing leg, before the ball.

So on balance. Whatever.

 

[Swansman]

I’m pretty convinced that was a penalty.

However, in the interests of balance, I also think that the late recovery tackle by Burn on Pukki, was pretty suspect, and very glad Pukki made nothing of it. Watch the replay from head on - Burn 100% clips his standing leg, before the ball.

So on balance. Whatever.

Yup thought it looked very suspect when I saw the replays yesterday... however, now when I'm watching it in ultra-slow-mo frame by frame I'm not actually sure there is any contact though another angle would be required to know for sure.

Pukkis reaction (which rendered him a yellow) to when Moder barely touched him a few minutes later while barely reacting at all to the Burn tackle also indicates it might have been a fair one.

 

[Southern Scouse]

Definitely a penalty. Just sometimes, even with VAR they get it wrong.
Sh*t happens.

 

[Garry Nelson's Left Foot]

It probably was. That said I quite like this new 'umpires call' use of VAR. It's much better than last year when any and everything was being given as a penalty even if it means we missed out this time.

 

[Swansman]

It probably was. That said I quite like this new 'umpires call' use of VAR. It's much better than last year when any and everything was being given as a penalty even if it means we missed out this time.

Agree, I also prefer it compared to how it was last season although it does the whole thing appear a bit redundant.

 

[Garage_Doors]

Jeff though it was a penalty

https://twitter.com/i/status/1449381672638615559

 

[Garry Nelson's Left Foot]

Agree, I also prefer it compared to how it was last season although it does the whole thing appear a bit redundant.

At the risk of knocking this thread out of its stride...

What came up in that English history exam you took a while back? I've been fascinated by that for weeks!

 

[Swansman]

At the risk of knocking this thread out of its stride...

What came up in that English history exam you took a while back? I've been fascinated by that for weeks!

It was just a small exam:

We were asked to describe the following in a few sentences:

1. The Celts
2. The Battle of Hastings
3. The 100 Years War
4. Richard III
5. The Puritans
6. The American Declaration of Independence
7. The Urbanization of Britain
8. The Easter Rising
9. Mary Queen of Scots

 

[Garry Nelson's Left Foot]

It was just a small exam:

We were asked to describe the following in a few sentences:

1. The Celts
2. The Battle of Hastings
3. The 100 Years War
4. Richard III
5. The Puritans
6. The American Declaration of Independence
7. The Urbanization of Britain
8. The Easter Rising
9. Mary Queen of Scots

I think a lot of born and bred English would struggle with that. I find it fascinating that it's part of an English language course. I guess it's a more interesting way of testing language skills than a standard grammar test.

 

[Mackenzie]

To me it looked like there was contact, but I’m not convinced it was much contact (semantics I know).

If that had been given against us I’d be annoyed, so can I be pissed that it wasn’t given for us?

We weren’t great today - but good to see Tariq back. Hopefully he’ll grow in confidence over the next few weeks.

It was a nailed on penalty whoever it was for,
VAR has made a mistake.

 

[jessiejames]

To me it looked like there was contact, but I’m not convinced it was much contact (semantics I know).

If that had been given against us I’d be annoyed, so can I be pissed that it wasn’t given for us?

We weren’t great today - but good to see Tariq back. Hopefully he’ll grow in confidence over the next few weeks.

This is what I don't understand with regards to contact, the lady commentator said not enough contact. How much contact us needed FFS?

If you touch a player and stop a goalscoring chance in the box it's a penalty end of. That touch takes place anywhere on the pitch it a foul, I bet that if that happens to any of the so called big teams they would have been given a penalty.

 

[jessiejames]

VAR has been our friend, normally in our penalty area, far more often than it has screwed us over in the last couple of seasons. Although I thought it was a pen, at least it wasn’t a crucial one and on the balance of play we deserved no more than a point. It was a quick decision too.

I bet Leicester fans were far more upset than most Albion fans yesterday at their two non goals in our game against them.

Win some, lose some, we are currently ahead in the winning imo

But the correct decision was made, first by the linesman and backed up by VAR.

 

[Icy Gull]

But the correct decision was made, first by the linesman and backed up by VAR.

Yeah but my point is that if the lino hadn’t flagged the goals would have stood in the current VAR climate. If the wanker homer of a ref had given a penalty yesterday it would not have been over ruled by VAR.

 

[jessiejames]

Once he realised he’d overrun it.

That is where the ref should have let play go on to see if he could get the ball after being caught, if not then given the penalty.

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

Reckon Krul's conned the VAR judges there with the whole impassioned-injustice thing and trying to haul Maupay to his feet. It worked tho, eh?