Yeah, that’s it. So at least there’s a logic to not giving a pen there. If he hadn’t touched the ball it would have been 100% a pen (which is why Onana one should really have been a pen too)
Was it a penalty?
- Thread starter Ayush_reddevil
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik @Rood and Imran @Annihilate Now! start with the good news by celebrating Manchester United Women's emphatic FA Cup win over Spurs at Wembley and the future of manager Marc Skinner.
Then it's the bad news and the ever worsening form of our Men with losses to Arsenal and Palace.
Finally the main debate - ETH Out now or keep him until the end of the season - if not longer. Are you Team Nik or Team Imran?
But when José Sa flew out and slapped a Leeds player in the head it wasn't a penalty even though he didn't touch the ball because reasons, and to everyone's surprise nobody went apoplectic over it.
Found the Martinez incident. Full game available here, timestamp 1:13:45
https://www.manutd.com/en/videos/detail/full-90-video-of-aston-villa-v-man-utd-on-6-november
It's the same game by the way where Anthony Taylor placed the 15-yard wall for their opener.
Regardless of getting the ball or not, you can make a case for recklessness, carelessness or endangering the safety of an opponent. Running full steam at an opponent head on and hitting him in the head with your hand is much more dangerous than running backwards and turning into a player that's not running towards you at full speed himself and making body-to-body contact.
For what it's worth, I think it should've been a pen and I'd have been livid if we'd been denied one in the 97th minute a goal down. What irks me is the utterly disproportional reaction to a "normal" foul when much worse fouls have barely caused anyone to raise their eyebrows and just comment that "well goalkeepers seem to have bigger freedom to do things in their box".
I also think the Martinez one should have been a pen and was a more dangerous incident but I can see why it wasn’t given. Keepers have always had this weird carte blanche to wreck attacking players when they’re charging out to block a shot, especially if they get something on the ball. But when a keeper comes out and attempts to play the ball, misses it, and smashes someone it’s almost always a penalty.
It was a penalty but so were 100 others like this that weren't given. The whole kefuffle about it is silly. Bad decision, but a bad decision that happens often.
The overreaction is annoying. Theres at least 5-10 of these not given a season.
The overreaction is annoying. Theres at least 5-10 of these not given a season.
Partly agree with the final statement. It's one for the refereeing quirks thread but aerial challenges are rarely given whereas challenges on the ground are usually given. A goalkeeper that flies out to collect a cross and smashes a player in the head is rarely penalised, but a goalkeeper that slides out and trips an attacker is often penalised. I can't even remember how many times I've seen players catch flying goalkeepers' knees, bodies and hands while airborne without anyone batting an eyelid. And like I said, the incident with Sa against Leeds drew much less attention despite being more dangerous (more momentum from the goalkeeper, full contact with the head).
Remember this one?
Then again, referees have never seemed to understand that the head is an important part of the body considering the way they allow players to bicycle kick their opponents in the head without them being sent off for "endangering the safety of an opponent", which is a red card according to the rules.
Spot on.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Here's another goalkeeper clattering. It's 100% a foul anywhere else on the pitch. I feel penalities should be given for illegally denying a goal scoring chance and not "foul" unless it's with excessive force. No need to hand them a free goal when they were never scoring to begin with.
I think the bigger (and more sinister) result of this is the lack of decisions we'll get thrown our way for the rest of the season now. Same thing happened after the City game, after that we couldn't buy a penalty decision even though we had plenty of stonewall ones not given. Refs don't want to be seen "favouring" us even if it's the correct interpretation of the rules, otherwise they'll get roasted by the court of public opinion or even dropped for the next fixture.
Reality is it's a 50/50 decision, keepers get extra leeway in challenges after the ball has been played. As there's no definitive definition of what happens after each challenge by a Goalkeeper it will always be down to interpretation. Sa from last year, Vicario on sunday, Anthony from earlier in the game and Onana could all be given but none of them were, that's the consistency we want from refs.
Reality is it's a 50/50 decision, keepers get extra leeway in challenges after the ball has been played. As there's no definitive definition of what happens after each challenge by a Goalkeeper it will always be down to interpretation. Sa from last year, Vicario on sunday, Anthony from earlier in the game and Onana could all be given but none of them were, that's the consistency we want from refs.
For me it isn't a penalty. For me you can't be giving penalties when a keeper misses a ball he was going for in a 50/50 yet ends up colliding with and flattening an opponent.. The keeper literally has to show no intent to get the ball for a penalty or foul to be given for that in my view
Are we still discussing this? Of all the threads to keep getting bumped this is the most tedious.
Doesn't matter if one jumps up and the other out. This isn't basketball. You can't set picks. Foul on Wolves
No it wasn't and it wasn't given and it was pretty quick by VAR.. they saw what I saw 2 Wolves players coming together and Dawson had already headed the ball before Onana got there. The ABUs and ex pros and talkshite guys will only see a PEN..
They didn't see the goals we lost when DDG was impeded a few times a few seasons on ..
They didn't see the goals we lost when DDG was impeded a few times a few seasons on ..
Agree the guys got all the Answers when it's Man Utd..
Good job it was a night match.
I know it's late and it may have already been discussed but where is the outrage about this? 2:41 in this vid.
MOTD said the explanation for it not being given a pen is that it doesn't impact the chance. Well, the contact between Onana and Sasa didn't impact the chance either. I'm sick of the double standards.
MOTD said the explanation for it not being given a pen is that it doesn't impact the chance. Well, the contact between Onana and Sasa didn't impact the chance either. I'm sick of the double standards.
I don't remember a penalty ever being given for something like this. I thought it was just accepted that things like this are not penalties.
The outrage seems sudden and unnecessary.
Consistency-wise, it is not a penalty; the ref and VAR were correct in this aspect as it follows a precedent.
The outrage seems sudden and unnecessary.
Consistency-wise, it is not a penalty; the ref and VAR were correct in this aspect as it follows a precedent.
City just got a pen against Sheffield U for an incident near enough the same as us against Spurs.
This time the ref could not wait to point to the spot.
This time the ref could not wait to point to the spot.
That's the key though isn't it? They nearly always go with the onfield decision for handball
If the Newcastle season ticket holder who has never given United a penalty in his career, had given the handball v spurs then it wouldn't have been overturned
So we don't get a nailed on penalty against Spurs due to 'proximity', yet this one for City is perfectly acceptable? Being a United fan is very testing.
Honestly think the Romero one is far more clear cut than the one that just happened. Genuinely don't know what the Sheffield United player is supposed to do in a situation like that. The rule just needs to be simplified, it's become an over-complicated mess.
Is there enough distance for the defender to be able to react to the shot? Does the defender deliberately block the shot with his hand or move his hand towards the ball? Do we really need anything more than those conditions to determine hand balls that are deserving of a penalty being awarded?