I only saw highlights so I didn't see the Maguire incident. If he pulled a shirt in the box then yes it would have been a penalty. I fecking hate shirt pulling.
Pogba gets a red card — Fernandes a penalty
- Thread starter Sad Chris
- Start date
Weird OP. The two had nothing alike. Regarding the penalty decision, I just posted this in another thread:
Imo if the Villa player didn't close in and made contact with Bruno's legs, which made Bruno fell then Bruno would had a fantastic shooting chance after the 360 turn.
How could you blame the player who just want a room for landing? Human don't have any wings to choose his landing position. It's the player on the ground that should be blamed, because he can avoid the collision in split seconds.
Imagine if Bruno didn't land properly on the ground, his ankle will be broken. It was happened to Bernd Leno vs Maupay 2 weeks ago. Most of pundit said it's just a normal contact, Maupay was going for the ball, bla.. bla.. bla.. but the fact is Maupay was the only reason Leno had a bad landing then suffer a knee injury.
A curveball to the conversation. In contrast, this was not a penalty. Basically, sometimes if a defender stops the attacker without getting the ball it's a penalty, sometimes it's not. I don't know anymore than that.
I'm more concerned with why this wasn't a penalty? It's the clearest incident in the game yet it wasn't even reviewed or anything. It's like it never even happened. Yet the talk is about how this penalty we got, we didn't deserve despite it clearly being very debatable.
Imo the first one was not a penalty because Williams was not in possesion of or was likely to get the ball. It's rather a 50/50 and most ref won't give a penalty.
The second one I can't watch due to copyright reasons. But I guess it's the one with Rashford. If yes, totally agreed why the feck it was not a penalty.
How can you say he was not likely to get the ball, when in fact he got it? Doesn't make sense. If he didn't touch the ball we wouldn't even discuss it, but he got to the ball and the defender didn't while sticking his leg out, tripping the player who actually touched the ball in the 50/50. I'll never get your point. I mean, if it's a 50/50 then the defender isn't any more in control of the ball than the other player. Sticking your leg out doesn't change that does it, unless you get the ball which he didn't.
Yes it was the one with Rashford. He gets taken out, simple as that I don't understand how or why nothing happened. No way that hadn't been reviewed if it was Pogba taking out Grealish when they were pushing for a goal. It's beyond ridiculous how many bad decisions we have gotten against us this season. Yet, the last few games where we've done well I can tell some are trying to create the narrative that refs are on our side. fecks sake.
I don't get it either. It was unintentional by both players and a strange looking collision, but Fernandes had possession of the ball and the defender collided with him impeding his progress. The Pl coming out and saying it was a mistake and the commentators bleating on about it all game, seems a bit much. I'd be interested in understanding why it isn't a penalty, merely because fernandes' foot lands on the defenders? That means defenders are allowed to halt progress of attackers in such a manner? Doesn't make sense to me. The defender was tackling Fernandes and the latters foot landed on his, that's still a penalty because it's still a tackle by the defender that put Fernandes off balance.
Let's look back at the situation in details.
After Williams first touch which was too long, the ball was effectively in control by the Wolves player. The Wolves player then did a fake feint to trick Williams into thinking he'd run with the ball to the goal line. But he fecked up as Williams didn't buy it so both went for the ball. It became a 50/50. Williams did touch the ball with the tip of his feet. Problem is he fell right after that without basically any contact from the Wolves player. If there was any, it was Williams going from behind to hit the leg of the Wolves player. In a 50/50 situation like that, most ref won't give the pen. Pen usually is given once the ref or var is absolutely sure about their decision.
What irks me the most about their comments is taking a foul isn't a part of the game. Flair players does this, Messi, Neymar, Mbappe, Suarez, they all had their moments like this.
Two incidents are not even close.
I dont think it was a pen, too soft. If it was given against us, I would have been disappointed.
I dont think it was a pen, too soft. If it was given against us, I would have been disappointed.
Yes it's irritating af as the commentator of my channel went as far as calling it a dive. A dive is when the attacking player fall like a shooting star without any contact from the opposing defender. If there's any it's not a dive. It called experience. Especially with flair players like you've mentioned.
Of course I had to watch the game muted after that. Clueless cnut.
Depends on the angle. It looks like Williams is behind the defender and goes through his legs, but at the other angle you can see that Williams in fact goes to play the ball, while the defender only tries to obstruct his movement by sticking his leg out. If the intention is to get the ball, and you touch it you have succeeded. If the intention is to shield the ball, and another player gets it, you haven't succeeded. If the action of trying to shield it actually takes out the player touching the ball, you made a mistake by impeding his attempt to play the ball.
When there's a high ball and one player clearly plays the ball trying to head it while the other player goes underneath them and undercuts the jumping player, who is the foul against? The guy who undercut the jumping player.
Bruno played the ball, won the ball, played it or made a football move with said ball, but was denied to continue or progress with the ball because the opposing player impeded him. Bruno landing on the player was not intentional and contact wasn't going to be avoided. Whoever won the ball first was going to get the benefit of the doubt and that is what happened. Moss didnt even make much thought of it and the VAR ref didnt see a clear and obvious mistake by Moss nor did Moss overturn his original decision.
If the defender knicked the ball and stepped on Bruno's foot on his follow through motion and then fell down, that's a foul on Bruno.
When a player sticks his leg out to block a pass, but doesn't get the ball and the player passing the ball has his follow foot or leg hit the other player, who is called for the foul? Not the player initiating contact via follow through but the player trying to block the pass.
Bruno played the ball, won the ball, played it or made a football move with said ball, but was denied to continue or progress with the ball because the opposing player impeded him. Bruno landing on the player was not intentional and contact wasn't going to be avoided. Whoever won the ball first was going to get the benefit of the doubt and that is what happened. Moss didnt even make much thought of it and the VAR ref didnt see a clear and obvious mistake by Moss nor did Moss overturn his original decision.
If the defender knicked the ball and stepped on Bruno's foot on his follow through motion and then fell down, that's a foul on Bruno.
When a player sticks his leg out to block a pass, but doesn't get the ball and the player passing the ball has his follow foot or leg hit the other player, who is called for the foul? Not the player initiating contact via follow through but the player trying to block the pass.
It'd be a penalty only if Williams was in control of the ball. But it was a 50/50, William was not in control of the ball and there is no rule against defender sticking his legs out to shield the ball in such situation. The most important thing here is Williams was not in control of the ball.
Let's imagine if it was Williams who sticked out his leg to shield the ball and the Wolves defender went from behind hitting Williams leg then the ball. Who'd be at fault now ?
ball
Yes that's a foul, if the defenders illegal challenge still impedes you from making progress.
Attackers footing ? Wtf are you on about.
The defender on the pitch fernandes is in the air. Theres no such thing.
Dude, if that's outside the area you'd agree with me. It's no different to Rashford or any other quick player getting a foot on the ball in a 50/50 vs a slow defender, in that from the moment you reach the ball and have it in front of you to run at, you've won the 50/50. If the defender is standstill or late to the party and still goes in with his leg without getting the ball, the player running at speed will always be awarded the foul. Simply from winning the 50/50 by getting the ball.
Not even close.
Both unintentional.
Pogba's play is more dangerous, front boot and more harming - Red.
Bruno's play (roulette?) is less, behind him and more accidental - None, few refs may with VAR give at most yellow.
Read the thread.
Without going into the debate about the penalty - the Bruno and Pogba-situations are completely different. Pogba is running straight forward and stamps on Bellerins leg. Bruno has his back to the Villa-defender and couldn't possibly see where he put is leg - so those 2 are completely different.
I havent rewatched the Pogba incident so I wont comment on that. However the Bruno penalty, Bruno has control of the ball and the defender is clumsy. There is no intent from Bruno to catch the defender in a dangerous way and there's slight contact from Bruno ater he drags the ball back and his first leg lands. But it was done with the intention of moving the ball away from the defender and didnt land dangerously. For me its a definite penalty and also an example of the attacker doing something purposefully to try and trick and win the penalty.
Bruno's turn was designed to win the pen. When a player in possession suddenly spins like that in the box and you have already committed to a challenge, as a defender, it is out of your hands because there will most definitely be contact, and you wouldn't be able to pull out quick enough.
It was a soft pen and I was expecting it to be overturned when the replays were being shown, but you could see why it was given.
It was a soft pen and I was expecting it to be overturned when the replays were being shown, but you could see why it was given.
Clear penalty.
The best way to view last nights penalty decision is the universe evened itself out from that bullshit penalty decision last week where Bailly shouldered the ball.
Hahaha what even is this
I'll take it but there's no way this was a legit penalty.
I didn't think it was a penalty and I could see it interpreted as a foul by Fernandes, but that's where it ends for me. I've seen it descrived as a lunge or leg-breaker by Fernandes elsewhere and that it should've been a yellow or red. Just absurd. It's like you can't have a normal conversation about it, where is the middle ground? It's a coming together, Bruno's momentum was always going to take him there.
Refs are getting emotionally sensitive at players screaming without stands. Everytime a player screams I see the whistle being blown. Lots of penalties being awarded in behind closed doors football
From Rule 12 of the FA laws - a direct free kick is awarded if a player "impedes an opponent with contact" - the defender caused the collision by moving into Bruno's space (which is why his studs caught his shin - thank fully without causing injury).
For me, it was a penalty, though a harsh lesson for the young defender, whose crime was to be a little clumsy.
Your point about the slo mo replay is a good one, they often give a different impression to real time.
I've given my head several wobbles and I have no idea how or why the OP thinks these incidents are in any way comparable.
Probably for the VAR thread but: For VAR to work the ref needs to be watching the replay while consulting with the VAR, like in rugby, and if the clubs won't install big screens then they should be forced to.
Probably for the VAR thread but: For VAR to work the ref needs to be watching the replay while consulting with the VAR, like in rugby, and if the clubs won't install big screens then they should be forced to.
It was never a penalty. Me and both of my friends (all United fans) were on whatsapp watching the game and all three of us instantly said, wow that was soft. Then on the reply it was clear it wasn't. The officials have announced today that the penalty decision was incorrect and that it shouldn't have been given.
The fact you are asking this question means that people are waking up. I saw someone ask last week why certain players get fouls called for them and others don't, same idea. Now back to this, Paul's red at arsenal still pains me whenever I see the replay because it is one of those injustices you can't change. Funny thing the clubs fans berated him for it, even though Bellerin puts his foot across Paul's path at the last minute in an unorthodox manner(Bellerin basically did a split) and rolls around like a girl so that the referee feels for him and Paul is red carded. If Bellerin tried to tackle in normal manner there would have not even been a foul. No one at United even defended him though which is one of things that also puzzled me.
Fernandes on the other hand got a penalty for us and scored but never in a million years was it a penalty. The Villa player probably has seen Fernandes dive a couple times already and decided to smartely stop short far away from him, yet Fernandes ends up on top of the same said player. It should be a foul to Villa but regardless what will come out of this is that refs will now be far less likely to give penalties involving Fernandes. Latin players and Grealish really are making the referee's job harder.
I asked myself the same questions.
I think you give him too much credit there. That defender was terrible all game, his positioning was suspect and the fact he went for a tackle in that 50/50 just shows it was not good defending. If he in fact tried to stop short to avoid Bruno he wouldn't have gone to ground so close to the ball, neither would he had to follow through with the leg that Bruno didn't land on. If you watch it in slow mo you're probably focusing your eyes on Bruno's foot ignoring the natural speed of his movement and force of the defender coming into the collision.
"Latin players and Grealish"
Well maybe Roy Keane or Ole is fecking clueless as well.
It's a 50/50 decision. Let's leave it at that.
It's not stupidly obvious that it wasn't a penalty, we certainly has a case on why it is penalty.
Was it soft? Yeah it was. Still a penalty for me.
Konsa didn't pull out of the challenge. He anticipated that Bruno was going to continue along the same trajectory they were originally on. Had Bruno not stopped the ball and pirouetted, he might well have made the tackle. As it turned out, he was tackling ghosts and ends up disrupting Bruno's skill. As such, one can see why Moss gave the penalty.