For me it should of been, for the law, I guess it’s not.
Was it a penalty?
- Thread starter Ayush_reddevil
- Start date
It should’ve been a free kick to United for obstruction by the player who didn’t even touch the ball. Even if it wasn’t, I hope every oppo fan is raging inside and the BBC comments section implodes.
I used to be interested in reasoning, but nowadays everbody and their Mum hates us. Wherever you look, whatever you read, it’s fashionable to hate Utd. Even the Caf is full of apologetic Utd fans. “I’d be upset too, if it were the other way around”.
I used to be interested in reasoning, but nowadays everbody and their Mum hates us. Wherever you look, whatever you read, it’s fashionable to hate Utd. Even the Caf is full of apologetic Utd fans. “I’d be upset too, if it were the other way around”.
Meh, didn’t the contact happen after the Wolves player had touched the ball in which they had no control over it. Think that is why it wasn’t given, but then it could have been given I suppose for dangerous play. Think it’s just one of those that could have gone either way and both outcomes would probably be fare.
Goalkeepers do that all the time and never get Pens against them. We’ve had a keeper for ten years who wasn’t doing that, so the first time our new keeper does it, it a big song and dance is made about it
Meanwhile the referee has come out and said himself it was clearly a penalty.
I think it would have been a penalty if the attacker was pushed before he got the header. In this case, Onana was lucky that th attacker had already got the ball.
Nevertheless, a risky act in dying minutes while we hanging on to a slender lead. Unnecessary risk.
Nevertheless, a risky act in dying minutes while we hanging on to a slender lead. Unnecessary risk.
Not sure if you wipe someone out without ball anywhere else you get away with it
Was a silly mistake that easily could of went against us
Oh well.
I thought it was a penalty. I don’t have a problem with it either way - as long as referees and VAR are CONSISTENT with their approach.
The two things that saved Onana (in my opinion) were:
1) Player had already played the ball well before Onana clattered into him.
2) The two wolves players collided with each other as well. So technically he was ‘pushed’ into Onana’s path
Weak argument perhaps but that’s what I feel saved Onana from the VAR’s perspective. Aside from the pressure of giving a penalty decision against United in the last min of stoppage time at Old Trafford (it shouldn’t but it’s got to play on the official’s minds as well).
All in all, I’m absolutely delighted it wasn’t given and yes I’ll be screaming for a penalty next time some other team’s goalkeeper clatters into one of our players like that!
The two things that saved Onana (in my opinion) were:
1) Player had already played the ball well before Onana clattered into him.
2) The two wolves players collided with each other as well. So technically he was ‘pushed’ into Onana’s path
Weak argument perhaps but that’s what I feel saved Onana from the VAR’s perspective. Aside from the pressure of giving a penalty decision against United in the last min of stoppage time at Old Trafford (it shouldn’t but it’s got to play on the official’s minds as well).
All in all, I’m absolutely delighted it wasn’t given and yes I’ll be screaming for a penalty next time some other team’s goalkeeper clatters into one of our players like that!
Definate pen for me but not the first time you see a keeper get away with one of those
Onana knew he wasn't getting there and deliberately clattered him, he's a very lucky boy because that would've been a dreadful start to his career here
Onana knew he wasn't getting there and deliberately clattered him, he's a very lucky boy because that would've been a dreadful start to his career here
Problem with this is the impact it would have on the game... keepers would simply stop trying to claim high balls in fear of giving away stupid pens.
It's almost like an unwritten rule that the whole area is the keepers to defend and if you get in the way then tough luck.
Given the current rules and recent precedence, it wasn’t a penalty, but they should change the rules so that it will be next season. Can’t just clatter into people.
Agree with this, shouldn't need VAR either. Ref should see it clearly. Classic home team decision.
I'd say yes and easily so. Luckily it wasn't though
That's how it's always been with tackling inside the box, I don't see why keepers should be immune from the same risk/reward question. They already have the advantage of using their hands
Then so was the one on Antony, so they got two decisions wrong. At least they were consistent.
I don't expect an apology from the ABU fat feck though.
That's us not getting a penalty all season again 
That's simply not true. Afaik Simon Hooper hasn't said a word.
Nothing boils oppo fans piss more than us playing badly and winning, it triggers some kind of PTSD in them that they’ve been suppressing since childhood. It can only be corruption that allows us to win, it can’t be anything else.It should’ve been a free kick to United for obstruction by the player who didn’t even touch the ball. Even if it wasn’t, I hope every oppo fan is raging inside and the BBC comments section implodes.
I used to be interested in reasoning, but nowadays everbody and their Mum hates us. Wherever you look, whatever you read, it’s fashionable to hate Utd. Even the Caf is full of apologetic Utd fans. “I’d be upset too, if it were the other way around”.
Never understood apologetic United fans either. Especially when they watch united in isolation or care more about what opposition fans think of us than having their own opinions.
No, stop being apologistic.
Such a classic that a similar pen was not given to us earlier either. There is no bias in this, they made consistent decisions on both cases that happen fairly regularly every week.
I think it's a stonewall pen. He only looks at the ball without screening his surroundings. Subsequently he charges into two-three players, and when he does he also follows through. Incidentally, I think goalies get far too much leeway in these situations. Earlier in the game, Antony chipped the goalie, but he was, quite forcefully as well, tackled to the ground by Sa rushing into him after the ball was played. Did he disrupt Antony's final ball by so doing, absolutely. Did he foul him, absolutely. Are those ever given? Never in a million years. It's a bit similar with what Onana did. If it was a defender who headbutted the Wolves player in the duel, I also doubt there would have been a penalty. Of course, had it gone the other way, it is a free kick 10/10 times.
Yes it was clearly a penalty
Never a penalty.
shockingly, many posters seem to be gutted it wasn't.
shockingly, many posters seem to be gutted it wasn't.
The referee who reffed the game and saw the incident live, who was then asked to go to the screen and refused to do so, has since come out and said it was a penalty?Sure he has. Why don’t you post his quotes or a video of him saying that.
I think it was Jon Moss, which means it probably shouldn't be a penalty.
If no goalscoring opportunity was denied then it's just two players colliding in the box then isn't it? Which happens 10-15 times in the box every game at corners.
Where's the problem?
How the feck do you say that it is a stonewall, then explain why it is not a stonewall penalty.
Unless they change how they make decisions on these situations consistently, then this was a normal decision that is consistently applied in almost every game.
Because when a goalie punches someone in the head it should be a stonewall penalty. For some unexplicable reason, it is not.
I don't remember that. I remember one or two where the goalkeeper ended up punching the player in the face, but then it's been inconsistent.
Except he did not punch him in the head, the player he ran into was not even the player who headed the ball. It was not excessive force or a dangerous tackle, nor did he impede the player who headed the ball.
And again, if these decisions happen regularly, then maybe it is not a obvious pen.
Again, if there is going to be outrage, make sure to add that the Antony one was a stonewall as well, and I expect such threads to open every time a similar decision is given for some other team.
Sure it was. If the keeper misses the ball and cleans out the opponent player, it's always a pen.
I did mention that the Antony one was similar in principle as Sa clearly interfers with Antony's play and clips him afterwards, and I think that goalies get away with far too much (former goalie myself). Having punched someone in the face because I missed the ball, I know just how much force it goes into it and the damage it can do. With a clean punch it should be a red every day of the week.
Onana wasn't that bad, but as he said, he only watched the ball and was unaware of his surroundings. That is by no means good. He then proceeded to clash into a couple of players, and then he followed through - had he retracted his arms, I don't think anyone would argue it's a penalty. It's the force he uses and following through that's the biggest issue.
Definitely was for me too. We will get some and get denied some too through the season.
If we were one nil down and Jose Sa jumped like this on famous Weghorst, we would all have cried for a penalty.
The ball was already played but the jump was dangerous and not controlled.
Penalty every day.
37 days to go and we can hope for the title (joke)
The ball was already played but the jump was dangerous and not controlled.
Penalty every day.
37 days to go and we can hope for the title (joke)
It wasn't the ref, but don't let facts get in the way of your agenda.
Can't wait to see this one given as a pen against Alisson when he does this 10 times a season!
Last edited:
There will be "levelling up" at the Spurs game for sure.
Goalkeepers are over-protected, so no.
When keepers hit a player at around the time of contact with the ball they get away with it, last night Onana just seemed very late, but on replay the player he hit wasn't going to get the ball anyway and looked like he had only jumped to block Onana. So immediate reaction was he's late and it could be a pen. Now I am not so sure.