Did we deserve a penalty in that game?

M Bison

Full Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2015
Messages
5,278
Location
In the Wilderness
Supports
York City
The last one wasn’t even a question mark, absolute stone-wall, the other id debate if it was against us.

Did anyone think the AWB one could have gone against us?
 

Van Piorsing

Lost his light sabre
Joined
Feb 10, 2006
Messages
20,245
Location
Polska
I think he did that a long time ago, the fecker should be nowhere near our games.
That blatant foul on Pogba at the very beginning when he didin't even stop the game, was a sign this match will be sabotaged.

Aye he was always a c*nt, but this game he didn't even try to hide the bias. At this point even neutral fans would be suspecting something.
 

christinaa

Gossip Girl
Joined
Sep 19, 2012
Messages
7,690
I'll just say three words:

Atkinson hates us !!!
 

lysglimt

Full Member
Scout
Joined
Jun 1, 2008
Messages
12,470
The Wan Bissaka one is possible. The first Ronaldo one would be soft. The second is so fkn obvious.
Absolutely shit ref
The AWB wasn't looked at because it was offside - or so I have been told.
 

sullydnl

Ross Kemp's caf ID
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
25,924
Is that correct? They only ask the ref to review if they deem the player wasn't going down before contact? Would be a foul in the centre circle. That's how it really should be looked at
The change was supposed to be that the contact would have to be enough to actually result in the player going down the way they did, as opposed to last season where people were getting penalties after falling to the ground following minimal contact. They also specifically said they'd be looking to award more penalties where the player stays on their feet even though they're fouled.

In which case if they thought Ronaldo was going down before there was any contact to justify him going down then I'm wondering if that's enough for it not to be a penalty.
 

Ananke

Full Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2014
Messages
1,088
Location
Manchester
Awful refereeing. Literally got nothing from him.

How VAR didn’t come into play for some of those incidents is beyond comprehensive. I guess all I can think of is that there’s an agenda against Ronaldo…because it’s Ronaldo and he goes down easily…
 

Crimson King

Full Member
Joined
May 11, 2013
Messages
976
The last one wasn’t even a question mark, absolute stone-wall, the other id debate if it was against us.

Did anyone think the AWB one could have gone against us?
I'm not sure, Soucek is kind of behind him. It would have been harsh.

I think it might have been pulled back for offside anyway.
 

RORY65

Full Member
Joined
May 28, 2009
Messages
3,398
The last one wasn’t even a question mark, absolute stone-wall, the other id debate if it was against us.

Did anyone think the AWB one could have gone against us?
The AWB one I felt was like the first one for us, I wasn't so much surprised by the decision but more how quickly they seemed to be dismissed. I'm not sure if the West Ham player was offside, they moved on from it with very few replays. The one on Ronaldo in added time is by far the most obvious mistake.
 

Antisocial

Has a Sony home cinema
Joined
Jul 15, 2010
Messages
14,777
Even by the dismissal standards set by the referee in that match, the rejection of that final penalty appeal was a shocker :mad:
 

SER19

Full Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2008
Messages
9,863
The zouma one is as clear a penalty as is possible to have
 

sullydnl

Ross Kemp's caf ID
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
25,924
Not before the hand on the back he wasn't
The hand on the back definitely wasn't enough to make him fall the way he did though, so that wouldn't be enough for a penalty.

It would have to have been the leg contact. I'm finding it hard to tell if he was going going down before the leg contact or if that's just the way his stride looks.
 

Dominos

Full Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2009
Messages
5,413
Location
Manchester
That 2nd one on Ronaldo was the most absurd thing I've ever seen. Atkinson shouldn't ref at this level. Should have cost us the game.
 

Withnail

Full Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2019
Messages
13,430
Location
The Arena of the Unwell
The hand on the back definitely wasn't enough to make him fall the way he did though, so that wouldn't be enough for a penalty.

It would have to have been the leg contact. I'm finding it hard to tell if he was going going down before the leg contact or if that's just the way his stride looks.
Seems like you're looking for reasons not to give it.

You said the hand on the back wasn't enough for him to go down and then say you can't even tell if he was going down before the leg contact.

You see how this is illogical?
 

Annihilate Now!

...or later, I'm not fussy
Scout
Joined
Nov 4, 2010
Messages
42,217
Location
W.Yorks
I still can't get over that Zouma challenge... I mean it really doesn't get more stonewall then that.

The fact that Atkinson gave a corner is equally hilarious, what exactly did he think happened?!
 

harms

Shining Star of Paektu Mountain
Staff
Joined
Apr 8, 2014
Messages
23,699
Location
Moscow
What do people mention as a 2nd one if they count 3 overall? When Ronaldo fell down after being held by the arm/shoulder? I doubt that there’s even one poster here who thinks that it’s a penalty.
 

Sandikan

aka sex on the beach
Joined
Mar 14, 2011
Messages
40,923
The third one is the clearest penalty ive ever seen. Really poor officiating.
The problem is Ronaldo diving into challenges before any contact. Though the last challenge was dangerous, I can see the no contact no foul reasoning.


Except, he didn't. Ronaldo dived over the challenge.
Talk about seeing the same incident differently.

I agree with @Scholsey2004 , and am still baffled now. Like the commentators were.
Alan Smith was chuckling at the madness of it all.
 

stu_1992

Full Member
Joined
May 8, 2013
Messages
4,189
Location
Irish living in France
I think we should have had one penalty yes. The last penalty shout for me was a clear penalty and I don't understand why it's not given. The first 2 are iffy, but in an live with them not being awarded, especially the second of the two. But yes we certainly should have gotten the third. It felt like we didn't because it was Ronaldo and because the referee decided thr previous 2 incidents didn't warrant a penalty. Although why doesn't he get a yellow in that case?
 

StBruno

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Jan 23, 2021
Messages
18
Could be the CR7 factor , but I think it has more to do with last season’s media campaign that we were getting too many.
 

A-man

Full Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2017
Messages
5,079
I’m wondering if the VAR room has new directions to get rid of soft penalties. Walker got away with one similar yesterday because the opponent did not attempt enough to shoot. At least that’s what the pundits said.
 

Grande

Full Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2007
Messages
3,990
Location
The Land of Do-What-You-Will
I still can't get over that Zouma challenge... I mean it really doesn't get more stonewall then that.

The fact that Atkinson gave a corner is equally hilarious, what exactly did he think happened?!
He probly thought ‘the same thing that I awarded a freekick against Pogba for just now’, and then ‘but the new penalty rule … wasn’t that something like, don’t award a pen for something that merits a free kick? They change it all the time and all I know about football is that Ronaldo always dives and if a ref don’t know, he should just pretend to know and double down’
 

glazed

Eats diamonds to beat thermodynamics
Joined
Sep 30, 2012
Messages
4,224
Last one was pretty clear. Ref probably thinks Ronaldo dives too much
 

Sultan

Forum Bot
Staff
Joined
Sep 1, 2004
Messages
46,766
Location
Redcafe
We should have been awarded 3 penalties. Justice prevailed with the result.
 

The Boy

Full Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2014
Messages
2,462
Supports
Brighton and Hove Albion
Objective view from an oppo fan.

The first one could be argued both ways, the second one definitely wasn’t a pen, the third was a stonewall penalty and I can not believe it wasn’t given.
 

Summit

"do the dead, spread your seed and get out"
Joined
Nov 10, 2011
Messages
50,169
The change was supposed to be that the contact would have to be enough to actually result in the player going down the way they did, as opposed to last season where people were getting penalties after falling to the ground following minimal contact. They also specifically said they'd be looking to award more penalties where the player stays on their feet even though they're fouled.

In which case if they thought Ronaldo was going down before there was any contact to justify him going down then I'm wondering if that's enough for it not to be a penalty.
Madness. Again VAR setting themselves up for a season of controversy
 

sullydnl

Ross Kemp's caf ID
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
25,924
Seems like you're looking for reasons not to give it.

You said the hand on the back wasn't enough for him to go down and then say you can't even tell if he was going down before the leg contact.

You see how this is illogical?
Not really.

The contact is supposed to be enough for the player to go down in the way they did. I can clearly see the slap on the back and obviously that isn't going to make Ronaldo's legs go from under him like that, so it's irrelevant to the penalty call.

The only thing the penalty can be given for is the contact with the legs, because that's the only thing that happened that might have justified Ronaldo going down as he did. If he was just striding forward and Zouma tackled him, that's a penalty. However, if Ronaldo was already going to ground before there was any contact then obviously it becomes more difficult to argue the contact caused that reaction.

I'm just finding it hard to see whether he started going down before or after the contact with the legs.
 

Withnail

Full Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2019
Messages
13,430
Location
The Arena of the Unwell
Not really.

The contact is supposed to be enough for the player to go down in the way they did. I can clearly see the slap on the back and obviously that isn't going to make Ronaldo's legs go from under him like that, so it's irrelevant to the penalty call.

The only thing the penalty can be given for is the contact with the legs, because that's the only thing that happened that might have justified Ronaldo going down as he did. If he was just striding forward and Zouma tackled him, that's a penalty. However, if Ronaldo was already going to ground before there was any contact then obviously it becomes more difficult to argue the contact caused that reaction.

I'm just finding it hard to see whether he started going down before or after the contact with the legs.
My point is you're claiming the hand on the back didn't make him go down but you can't even tell if he started to go down before the tackle so clearly the hand on the back didn't make him go down but perhaps it knocked him off balance enough to cause whatever you think you're maybe seeing before he's tackled.

Either way, if you can't tell whether or not he was going down first then you give him the benefit of the doubt and it's a pen. It's fairly straightforward.
 

Ixion

Full Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2003
Messages
13,199

I almost couldn't celebrate the win as I was still angry about this
 

HailtotheKing

Full Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2018
Messages
508
Location
NYC
Last one was a definite pen. The other one was tough to call. I don’t think it was a pen but could easily have been given.
 

lex talionis

Full Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2017
Messages
4,328
Ronaldo was pulled a bit in the box at one point. I guess people mean that. It didn't look very likely, mind.
Oh, that one. You’d maybe call that a foul in midfield but not in the penalty box. Never a penner.

Just a hunch, but my hunch is that Atkinson did not take kindly to Ronnie’s whining on that one and led to his refusal to call the other two that were nailed on.
 

HailtotheKing

Full Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2018
Messages
508
Location
NYC
Last one was a definite pen. The other one was tough to call. I don’t think it was a pen but could easily have been given.
Wrote this before I saw that tweet. Do you think it’s because he was already going down? If you look, he drags his right foot along the ground before the leg comes in. Ie if the challenge hadn’t come in he’d have fallen on the ground. That’s the only reason I can see why it wasn’t given.