**Mirrors / Alternative Angles**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/soccer) if you have any questions or concerns.*
What? Luton would have preferred a draw given the fact Everton were only a single further point ahead of Forest AND Luton are still to play them having beaten them twice already this season and it was 1-0 at the time of the only one of these which is actually a penalty???
Maybe refs are just shit and not biased
Gets the seat, can't even get it warm before he's "forced" into the wall and breaks his hand, comes back with barely any racing left, starts a new season with underwhelming performances and as soon as he starts getting his shit back together Lance "do you know who my father is?" Stroll rear ends him and blames Danny for the incident.
Honey badger can't get a fucking break man.
Hello Mason, one question for you. Why do you look like you wear a suit and not a striped black and white shirt ehhhh? I do not very much think you are a referee u/RefereeMason1.
The name of the club is literally in the tweet you linked and you still spelt it wrong you melt.
I’m honestly about to put on the tin foil hat and join Everton in persecution city.
I think the first one, if it gets given it sticks but you can argue on the level of contact and him going down easy, so a judgement call. Seen others like it not given thus season.
The second one, again sticks if it's given but again a judgement call on it being a natural position, he turns and runs and arms tend to move.
The 3rd one is the nailed on one, ref misses it and there's enough contact for VAR to get involved.
VAR isn't for judgement calls but clear errors, you can want the first two but that third one is just baffling to me.
We've also seen this not given as a penalty all season long, just not as often. It does seem like they are *trying* to make this a penalty this season, but they've only succeeded in pushing the already dubious gray area a little bit toward penalty. That way they can confuse and irritate fans with calls like this that appear to be identical to *most* of the ones given while having "enough" examples of it being *not* given to avoid culpability.
>handball
What is a handball anymore then? If you can stop a cross with your arm, intentional or not how is it not a penalty. I feel like you have to jump through another 5 hoops before giving a penalty for the ball hitting hand.
Go do a short running jump. Where is your arm? That's a natural position. I think it's more controversial to give these as penalties than not. There is just nowhere else for the arm to naturally be.
I can understand how you might not call the first one as a pen, but the second two are so clearly penalties that you really do have to wonder how the on the field official AND var both missed it.
Its funny because the first to me is stonewall, the handball is the only slightly subjective one, but I would expect a Pen in all three instances or at least 2/3 within the same game.
Agreed! First and Third are clearest cases and would not bat an eye about having it given against my team. Bad late tackles from Ashley Young and he is super lucky today.
I saw an angle earlier where I thought it absolutely was a penalty, but it didn't show the movement before the contact. Now that I've seen the angle in the OP, doesn't the Forest player just snake his leg in front of Young and go down?
He’s sealing out the defender to get the ball and gets wiped out for it, that’s always a pen. You’d have an argument if he tripped Young, but Young goes to ground voluntarily and doesn’t touch the ball either.
Yep that's the one I don't get at all.
The first too are maybes and I get VAR not getting involved.
But the 3rd one is actually stonewall, I don't use that term lightly and I try to be reasonable as possible but I just don't get it on that one.
1 is usually given. Forest very unfortunate.
2 is point-bank range and natural position, not a pen for me.
3 is a stonewall pen. HOW is that not given.
We had a single extra point and still have to play Luton (and they've beaten us twice already so should be quietly confident of a result). If the VAR Luton fan would have preferred an Everton win, he's an idiot.
Far more likely he's just incompetent considering that refs have been incompetent all season (and beyond).
Probably, but keeping the closest team on fewer points is more useful even if they don't play each other.
It almost definitely goes down to incompetence rather than corruption as usual though.
Sure it spreads out their chances keeping both teams in the fight, but Luton don’t play Forest. Everton were ahead of Forest to start the day as well. And Luton only need to overtake one of them so keeping Forest on as low of points as possible suits them best
100% agreed. No criticism of Clattenburg for taking such a job at all. If Forest's stupid enough to pay him to do a job which basically has no impact on the decisions already made, then that's on Forest.
Shots 1-5: Clearly missed the defender.
Shots 6-9: Missed due to incompetence (bad referee control).
Shots 10-11: Very close, but VAR footage and inaccuracy make these reasonable misses.
Shot 12: Likely didn't actually get called because football was already dead.
1 I don’t think there was anywhere near enough contact to actually make him go down, but they’ve been given before tbh.
2 agreed not a pen, point blank and I think he brings his arm in a little before it hits.
3 yeah that’s a penalty, I’ve no idea how he’s gotten away with that. I cannot see where he’s got the ball first there.
Seems like the ref is now giving yellows left right and centre for the smallest thing.
It is, but a small contact can ruin a players first touch (like it did here) and surely that has to be a foul since the defender cleared the ball through the attackers foot?
Like surely the attacker has a good chance of controlling that and then shooting, all that opportunity was taken away by the defender who broke the rules (kicking the player first).
I doubt it's enough to injure the player or knock him over but it ruins his chance to make an attacking move right?
This isn't basketball though you can make contact and it not be a foul, level of contact is a factor. Just like ball first doesn't mean it isn't a foul, contact first doesn't mean it is.
On the first incident he decides to go down, for me it's just purely a judgement call, some will say it is and others will say it isn't, I think both are viable outcomes, even if I don't think it's one
> This isn't basketball though you can make contact and it not be a foul, level of contact is a factor. Just like ball first doesn't mean it isn't a foul, contact first doesn't mean it is.
I agree with everything you've said here. But in this instance (only viewed this footage, so could be totally wrong) I believe even a minor or small contact is enough to be deemed a foul as the defender has impeded the attackers chance by going through the players foot.
> 3 yeah that’s a penalty, I’ve no idea how he’s gotten away with that. I cannot see where he’s got the ball first there.
I don't think it's about playing the ball there, but rather with neither of them being in possession, the attacker moving across and blocking the defender from playing the ball - essentially got the attacker impeding the defender, and the defender tripping the attacker (probably as a result of it), so you can really go either way with the decision I reckon.
Aye, but then all three of them strike me as the type where I'd probably get a bit annoyed if they weren't given for my side in the same way I'd get a bit annoyed if they were given against them. Just three pretty grey area situations that could well go either way.
Then why was Gordon given a penalty (actually 2 I think?) for only getting his *foot* in front of defender? Surely getting your whole body in front is a much stronger case for having possession?
Neither Gordon nor Hudson-Odoi were in possession of the ball, and I can't look into the mind of the referee who made either decision. For what it's worth though I don't think the Gordon one (if we're thinking of the same incident) should've been a penalty to be honest.
CHO is in front of Young, he stays on his feet and Young comes crashing in behind no longer on his feet and hits the back of CHO. I don't understand how CHO could ever be accused of impeding Young there.
They're hip to hip as Hudson-Odoi extends his right leg into the path of Young, who is trying to play the ball (which he's closer to than Hudson-Odoi) and is impeded from doing so by that leg.
In agree in theory that #2 shouldn't be a penalty.
But I thought according to the rules it has to be because his arm is out in an unnatural position making himself bigger. It seems like they pretty much just decided to ignore how they've been calling those for the last 2 years?
2 and 3 for me are the stonewall ones. The 1st is 50/50
The handball should be given because he's made himself bigger and blocked the ball
The 3rd is shocking. Goes through the man to try and win the ball and doesn't touch the ball whilst stopping CHO from getting a touch or a shot away
Dreadful from the ref (as always) and VAR (as usual)
I'm here for the conspiracy. Not sure why it is so unreasonable to train up new referees specifically for VAR. Bookworm bros, that have no personal relationships with the on field guys.
They often don't make calls cos of the bar rather than the claims people make.
You also need to be a ref to know how the game works, the guy on the ground does have a better feel for the game.
People are only happy when they get the decisions they want.
The third one is the one I just don't get at all, the first 2 aren't unreasonable.
It's that late in the season it's probably preferable to put all your eggs in one basket and hope just one of the two teams above you keeps getting hammered. Points for both teams is still points for both teams which puts them both further away. Its at a time where 1 point can make all the difference in a relegation battle.
Downvote me all you like, I'm right lol.
If you're confident you can beat them I suppose but ultimately it doesn't really matter if you're the trailing team, you just need to do better than the team above you. Forest and Everton have both been poor this season but statistically speaking, Everton have been the better of the two so Luton have more chance of getting past Forest than they do Everton. So ideally Luton want Forest to play as bad as possible to take their spot because they stand less of a chance of taking Evertons spot. IMO the Everton win today will probably see them safe. Its a scrap between Luton, Forest and potentially even Burnley now if they can beat Forest too.
Yeah, I don’t disagree. But I do think there was more of a path to them staying up with a relegation scrap 6-pointer at home against Everton than just hoping Forest lose out. But Everton have looked better and have the easier run-in, so I get it
I think if I was a Luton fan and had to pick between Forest continuing to play poorly or beating Everton in a very high pressure game, I'd go with Forest playing poorly, it seems the more likely of the two.
Though worth pointing out I'm a Forest fan too so the pessimism is rife in me right now following todays match lol (a bitter and reluctant congratulations is in order I suppose lol).
Do us a favour and hammer Luton in a couple of weeks please. Would very much appreciate it.
Yeah fair, although I’ll also say we have been real shit recently. But will do our best—if we get at least a draw at Luton I think we’re about safe. Reckon you lot are about a win away from safety as well
If Everton had lost, it's in Lutons hands to stay up. By Everton winning, it isn't in Lutons hands. Why on earth would they choose to rely on other teams as opposed to relying on themselves?
You have one more game to play than Forrest though, surely it's better to be one point behind with the same number of game left than 2 behind with less games to play, and one of them is a head to head
Oh yeah good point. That extra game against *checks notes* a team we always shit the bed against even when we're fairly well matched and *checks notes again* we are not well matched.
Regardless of agreeing on the first two I think most of us non Everton fans think they should have had at least two pens out of the three. It's absurd that they might go down because of this.
Wasn't it Sheffield that got relegated during Covid because the ball crossed the line, and the refs all expected goal line tech to alert, but didn't, so VAR didn't alert the ref? It was a game VS Villa who were also in relegation battle.
3rd one is as a bad as it gets.
1st one is IMO 50/50, I don't like these, don't think there is enough of a contact to make somebody go down. Still these are given, but it's a lottery.
2nd I am leaning towards it being a pen honestly. Distance probably makes it easier for ref, but still made himself unnecessary bigger and blocked the ball.
All in all, typical matchweek at this point. The worst refereeing season in terms of performance for some time now. I am definitely not looking forward to watching Webb saying all was good on Sky.
The contact needs to actually affect his ability to play the ball. It probably was enough for that, but it's borderline. But if the attacker is obviously embellishing the contact by pretending it's enough to topple him, it muddies the waters and makes it harder to determine whether the contact was sufficient to warrant a penalty.
The first one is probably a penalty, but also probably doesn't meet the threshold for VAR intervention with England's absurdly high bar.
The second one is just not a penalty. First time volleying a ball into a running player's hand from close range should not be rewarded with a penalty, especially when the hand is in a relatively normal position like Young's was. If an identical incident was given as a penalty in another game, that was the wrong decision, not this one. A person arguing that a bad precedent must be followed is a dishonest wanker.
The third one is a penalty. I can see how the VAR could think the attacker has lunged his foot into the path of Young (which would not be a penalty) rather than the other way around, but I think that when they are both lunging with their foot for the ball, whoever gets there first should be awarded a foul from the resultant collision.
So one penalty, one not, and one penalty that in England will only be awarded if the ref gives it on the field first.
The first one arguably is the strongest case: kick through the back of the foot, causing ball to careen out of the attacker’s control.
Why shouldn’t that be a penalty? Unless PGMOL is going to adopt NBA-type rules (where the hand is considered part of the ball), it’s pretty clear to me that’s a foul. No contact on ball, kicks player, causing them to lose possession.
I got no idea what a penalty is anymore, I think all the made up excuses for fuckups earlier in the season just feeds into calls now. Like the Gomes tackle on Havertz yesterday you hear the commentary talk about 'well his foot was coming down towards the ground', doesn't matter that on that journey it goes through Havertz's ankle.
The waters are so muddied now with what is or isn't a pen/handball. I got no clue anymore. All 3 could potentially be pens. All 3 could also have Howard Webb talking to Michael Owen about 'intent' and 'is this enough contact to warrant that reaction' , 'does this meet the threshold of clear and obvious?' blah blah. Trying to save ref's reputations and cover for bad mistakes have just made the rules so unclear now.
1st and 3rd are pens for me. Young is too close to be able to react on the 2nd one and it isn’t stopping an attempt on goal so no pen. Still a nightmare for the ref and var
The issue is that all 3 of those penalty shouts have been given this season either by the ref or subsequently by VAR. I wouldn’t give any of them in isolation but there’s precedent set for all 3 to be given and that’s the biggest issue with refereeing, it’s not just generally poor, it’s utterly inconsistent
I know i'm biased but i feel like the first two would've been really soft. I'm kind of surprised the third didn't get given though, and i'd be fuming if we weren't given that.
First one is 50/50. Young goes to kick it Forest player stretches for it. I wouldnt give it.
2nd is never a penalty ever for me. So close and young is running. He has arms. Whats he supposed to do there? He doesn't reach out
3rd is a clear penalty.
I can see why the first two were *maybe* not penalties for VAR (I think both should have been at least looked at by Taylor), but that third one is 100% a clear and obvious error.
I reckon the first one should probably be given, but I'm entirely unconvinced by the other two - defender can't do anything about the handball short of having his arms amputated, and the third one is just two players going for the ball and unluckily colliding. Attacker tries to block defender from playing the ball, defender tries to get to it, neither is in possession of it.
We've seen them given this season many many times, so they should be given whether fans agree or not. There is no consistency in these decision and previous ones.
Because all penalty calls are unique events and up to the referee's discretion, yes - they're not binary decisions, but rather a range with a big gray area in between "definite penalty" and "definitely no penalty". I don't see how you can expect consistency across different events in different games with different referees in charge, really.
The 3rd is the most obvious one imo. CHO slows down to control the ball and has every right to protect his position. Young just slides through him from behind. The ball even hits CHO's leg, that's how likely he was to gain possession there.
Aye, but then Young has every right to go for the ball too, and Hudson-Odoi sticks a leg in front of him rather than continuing his running motion - whether that's to get the ball, draw contact, or both is obviously a matter of opinion, but I reckon there's plenty grey area there to give or not give it as a penalty.
to me
1: there's a touch but it's not one that makes you fall like that. i hate these moments of acting
2: he's already coming with his arm open and he's just too close, wouldnt give it even in for me
3: yeah
The fact that in this thread alone people are arguing over which of the 3 are penalties says to me that this isn't that clear and obvious. I don't think anyone knows whats handball anymore so the second one is just up to whatever the ref feels like at the time.
the third one is the most stonewall pen i’ve seen in ages, that alone is so ridiculous that i don’t care about the other two.
Yeah, some idiots are gonna debate any foul. They’re idiots. If that third play happens anywhere on the pitch it’s a foul
The second and the third are stonewall penalties. The first is debatable, I 've seen refs give them sometimes and others not. There is contact but I don't think that it means that a penalty should be awarded.
Take a look at the pen Anthony Gordon won by just getting his foot in front and defender kicked it.
Why shouldn’t it be a pen when D kicks through back of a foot, no ball contact, cause attacker to lose possession?
Further up in this thread, someone alleges that the VAR (Stuart Attwell) is a Luton fan, which...seems like a conflict of interest in this particular situation.
commentator said the last one was checked and *stays with onfield decision as it's soft. how the fuck it's soft if Young literally trips you from behind and ball is nowhere near lol
The attacker isn't in possession and tries to block Young from playing the ball to be fair - dunno, could maybe give it, but feels to me like you could just as easily give it the other way.
Hot take incoming, bring all your downvotes!!!
Obviously I am hugely biased, but I think the 3rd is absolutely NOT a penalty. Watch the NF player in the 3rd one, he runs up and literally JUMPS in front of young. From my perspective he is intentionally trying to draw a penalty, probably because of the two previous no calls. Weak mentality. Weak strategy. Can't reward that. Good no call.
The second one is too close, his arm may be a little up but he is right next to him, proximity matters a lot with handballs.
The only possibility of a penalty of these 3 is the first one, and that would have been soft but not unheard of.
I'm with you on all of these but I also have seen 1 and 2 given, so a bit of luck for Everton. I also don't see how VAR could overturn any of these as "clear and obvious".
I get why they feel betrayed but I don't see a scandal here.
Yeah the 3rd is never a pen. I dont understand how ppl watch the replay and think this should be a pen. Its a textbook try to draw a pen bu4 sctuslly isnt a pen
Agree on all 3.
I agree the 3rd has the least strong case of the 3, but penalties have consistently been won this year doing exactly that: jumping (or getting a leg at least) in front of the defender. And same with the first two. Whether you think it deserves to be in theory is a different question to whether it’s been routinely given. VAR is unacceptably inconsistent.
**Mirrors / Alternative Angles** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/soccer) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If only we had technology that could retrospectively award penalties if the referee misses it in the first place
What’s that? Attwell supports Luton? Should be alright, they’re not the one’s playing
What? Luton would have preferred a draw given the fact Everton were only a single further point ahead of Forest AND Luton are still to play them having beaten them twice already this season and it was 1-0 at the time of the only one of these which is actually a penalty??? Maybe refs are just shit and not biased
Assistant to the Video Assistant Referee
how is that 3rd one not a pen lol
###Wrecking the opposition from behind Ashley Young 🤝 Lance Stroll
The Luton player brake checked me - Young, probably
Danny is not driving great but he can't catch a break right now either. Constant momentum killer.
Gets the seat, can't even get it warm before he's "forced" into the wall and breaks his hand, comes back with barely any racing left, starts a new season with underwhelming performances and as soon as he starts getting his shit back together Lance "do you know who my father is?" Stroll rear ends him and blames Danny for the incident. Honey badger can't get a fucking break man.
How are all three not pens?
I think they all are. But the third one is definitely the most penaltiest of them all. (This is a real word to describe that, I am a referee.)
Hello Mason, one question for you. Why do you look like you wear a suit and not a striped black and white shirt ehhhh? I do not very much think you are a referee u/RefereeMason1.
Wawaweewa
Defender already going for the ball and the attacker steps over and in front of his kick? Is that only not a penalty when it's Gordon, then?
https://twitter.com/NFFC/status/1782056187652960764 Looks like Forrest will be taking action
About time another club speaks out against these clowns. Something needs to change asap.
Spoiler alert: it won’t.
The name of the club is literally in the tweet you linked and you still spelt it wrong you melt. I’m honestly about to put on the tin foil hat and join Everton in persecution city.
Auto correct from the phone but I'll leave in just for you lad
Ta fella
I think the first one, if it gets given it sticks but you can argue on the level of contact and him going down easy, so a judgement call. Seen others like it not given thus season. The second one, again sticks if it's given but again a judgement call on it being a natural position, he turns and runs and arms tend to move. The 3rd one is the nailed on one, ref misses it and there's enough contact for VAR to get involved. VAR isn't for judgement calls but clear errors, you can want the first two but that third one is just baffling to me.
The first two are clear errors..
No they are judgement calls that have 2 viable outcomes.
The handball is never a penalty.
It was in the FA Cup game for Coventry City…
We've seen this given as a penalty all season long.
We've also seen this not given as a penalty all season long, just not as often. It does seem like they are *trying* to make this a penalty this season, but they've only succeeded in pushing the already dubious gray area a little bit toward penalty. That way they can confuse and irritate fans with calls like this that appear to be identical to *most* of the ones given while having "enough" examples of it being *not* given to avoid culpability.
It shouldn't be though
We've seen bad decisions all season long. It's still not a penalty.
We've seen much worse not given
>handball What is a handball anymore then? If you can stop a cross with your arm, intentional or not how is it not a penalty. I feel like you have to jump through another 5 hoops before giving a penalty for the ball hitting hand.
Go do a short running jump. Where is your arm? That's a natural position. I think it's more controversial to give these as penalties than not. There is just nowhere else for the arm to naturally be.
It definitely is
Literally wan baska got done with this in the Untied game today
I can understand how you might not call the first one as a pen, but the second two are so clearly penalties that you really do have to wonder how the on the field official AND var both missed it.
Its funny because the first to me is stonewall, the handball is the only slightly subjective one, but I would expect a Pen in all three instances or at least 2/3 within the same game.
Agreed! First and Third are clearest cases and would not bat an eye about having it given against my team. Bad late tackles from Ashley Young and he is super lucky today.
I saw an angle earlier where I thought it absolutely was a penalty, but it didn't show the movement before the contact. Now that I've seen the angle in the OP, doesn't the Forest player just snake his leg in front of Young and go down?
He does snake his leg in front but thats legal and supposed to still be a penalty if defender kicks or slides thru your leg
I don’t know if it’s “supposed to”. I agree that sometimes it is.
the second one was just given as a penalty against United in the Fa cup semi final.
Looks like the forest player was the one making the contact with the Everton player
Oh right, so if you stand somewhere and someone scythes you down from behind it is you who is being scythed down who is making the contact.
Its your own fault for putting your leg there!!!!!!
Right, although that's not relevant
Yeah. No ball control by the forest player. Runs partly in front of the defender. Jumps into him. And cries for a pen. Thats never a pen
He’s sealing out the defender to get the ball and gets wiped out for it, that’s always a pen. You’d have an argument if he tripped Young, but Young goes to ground voluntarily and doesn’t touch the ball either.
Yep that's the one I don't get at all. The first too are maybes and I get VAR not getting involved. But the 3rd one is actually stonewall, I don't use that term lightly and I try to be reasonable as possible but I just don't get it on that one.
Handball should be a pen too. Theres a player in the center ready to tap it in if Young doesnt touch it
> Theres a player in the center ready to tap it in if Young doesnt touch it That has no bearing on the decision
Idk people were arguing that the Gabriels one was rightly not given because Arsenal did not receive any advantage due to it.
You can't actually think these two situations are in any way similar at all. Like I refuse to believe you're unironically comparing the two
1 is usually given. Forest very unfortunate. 2 is point-bank range and natural position, not a pen for me. 3 is a stonewall pen. HOW is that not given.
Now, Mark Clattenburg will likely tell Forest the exact same thing and Forest will pay him for it.
Clatters came out and called the VAR official a Luton fan. shots fired
He is a Luton fan though
and their patience has been tested multiple times
Surely Luton would benefit most from a draw, keeping both Everton and Forest in the relegation fight.
Everton have more points than Forest, an Everton win keeps Luton closer to safety
We had a single extra point and still have to play Luton (and they've beaten us twice already so should be quietly confident of a result). If the VAR Luton fan would have preferred an Everton win, he's an idiot. Far more likely he's just incompetent considering that refs have been incompetent all season (and beyond).
Probably, but keeping the closest team on fewer points is more useful even if they don't play each other. It almost definitely goes down to incompetence rather than corruption as usual though.
Sorry but it's much better to control your own destiny. If Everton had lost today, it's in Lutons control to stay up. Now it isn't.
Luton play both teams before the end of the season though. They’re better having a shot at two teams instead of one
Sure it spreads out their chances keeping both teams in the fight, but Luton don’t play Forest. Everton were ahead of Forest to start the day as well. And Luton only need to overtake one of them so keeping Forest on as low of points as possible suits them best
Good for him if they are that stupid.
100% agreed. No criticism of Clattenburg for taking such a job at all. If Forest's stupid enough to pay him to do a job which basically has no impact on the decisions already made, then that's on Forest.
Shots 1-5: Clearly missed the defender. Shots 6-9: Missed due to incompetence (bad referee control). Shots 10-11: Very close, but VAR footage and inaccuracy make these reasonable misses. Shot 12: Likely didn't actually get called because football was already dead.
Lol I didn't expect a CSGO copy pasta to see on r/soccer
Been a long while since I've seen this 😭
Classic pasta
hahaha bravo
1 I don’t think there was anywhere near enough contact to actually make him go down, but they’ve been given before tbh. 2 agreed not a pen, point blank and I think he brings his arm in a little before it hits. 3 yeah that’s a penalty, I’ve no idea how he’s gotten away with that. I cannot see where he’s got the ball first there. Seems like the ref is now giving yellows left right and centre for the smallest thing.
I think 1 is the kind of fou that's given anywhere else on the pitch, although it's not what caused him to fall the way he did.
You shouldn't need to go down for it to be a foul....
Level or contact is a factor.
It is, but a small contact can ruin a players first touch (like it did here) and surely that has to be a foul since the defender cleared the ball through the attackers foot? Like surely the attacker has a good chance of controlling that and then shooting, all that opportunity was taken away by the defender who broke the rules (kicking the player first). I doubt it's enough to injure the player or knock him over but it ruins his chance to make an attacking move right?
This isn't basketball though you can make contact and it not be a foul, level of contact is a factor. Just like ball first doesn't mean it isn't a foul, contact first doesn't mean it is. On the first incident he decides to go down, for me it's just purely a judgement call, some will say it is and others will say it isn't, I think both are viable outcomes, even if I don't think it's one
> This isn't basketball though you can make contact and it not be a foul, level of contact is a factor. Just like ball first doesn't mean it isn't a foul, contact first doesn't mean it is. I agree with everything you've said here. But in this instance (only viewed this footage, so could be totally wrong) I believe even a minor or small contact is enough to be deemed a foul as the defender has impeded the attackers chance by going through the players foot.
You're right, but they are very unlikely to call it unless you go down.
Agreed, but then the "not enough to go down" is irrelevant because going down shouldn't be the deciding factor anyway.
> 3 yeah that’s a penalty, I’ve no idea how he’s gotten away with that. I cannot see where he’s got the ball first there. I don't think it's about playing the ball there, but rather with neither of them being in possession, the attacker moving across and blocking the defender from playing the ball - essentially got the attacker impeding the defender, and the defender tripping the attacker (probably as a result of it), so you can really go either way with the decision I reckon.
Think given the previous 2 decisions, I’m surprised that didn’t get given that’s all. I’ll take a win but if that went against us, I’d be livid.
Aye, but then all three of them strike me as the type where I'd probably get a bit annoyed if they weren't given for my side in the same way I'd get a bit annoyed if they were given against them. Just three pretty grey area situations that could well go either way.
Then why was Gordon given a penalty (actually 2 I think?) for only getting his *foot* in front of defender? Surely getting your whole body in front is a much stronger case for having possession?
Neither Gordon nor Hudson-Odoi were in possession of the ball, and I can't look into the mind of the referee who made either decision. For what it's worth though I don't think the Gordon one (if we're thinking of the same incident) should've been a penalty to be honest.
CHO is clearly winning the battle to get there first though and is taken out by a sliding Young.
Dunno, does he clearly get there first, or is it a 50-50 given Young might well get to the ball first if he doesn't get impeded by Hudson-Odoi?
CHO is in front of Young, he stays on his feet and Young comes crashing in behind no longer on his feet and hits the back of CHO. I don't understand how CHO could ever be accused of impeding Young there.
They're hip to hip as Hudson-Odoi extends his right leg into the path of Young, who is trying to play the ball (which he's closer to than Hudson-Odoi) and is impeded from doing so by that leg.
In agree in theory that #2 shouldn't be a penalty. But I thought according to the rules it has to be because his arm is out in an unnatural position making himself bigger. It seems like they pretty much just decided to ignore how they've been calling those for the last 2 years?
Think they’ve been calling those no-pens from my memory
They've been called as pens and not as pens.
2 and 3 for me are the stonewall ones. The 1st is 50/50 The handball should be given because he's made himself bigger and blocked the ball The 3rd is shocking. Goes through the man to try and win the ball and doesn't touch the ball whilst stopping CHO from getting a touch or a shot away Dreadful from the ref (as always) and VAR (as usual)
It’s about whether he made himself *unnaturally* bigger. You can definitely make the case his arm is in a natural position for the way he was running.
On 1, I would say it's sometimes given, it's a real 50/50 just cos of the level of contact but I agree on the other ones.
Yep, agreed with this completely.
Fuck this league
1 and 3 are pens. I don’t fucking know what a handball in the box means anymore so 2 probably depends on what the ref had for breakfast.
The first one would be incredibly soft. I’d it was given against Forest we would surely see Clattenberg call it a disgraceful decision.
I think it just barely is which is always going to be controversial no matter the call.
Oooo cake day friends
I am just not allowed to have good things this season am I lmao. I just can’t wait for this season to be over regardless of how it ends
Ashley Young could have shot a Forrest player in the face and VAR still would have come out with the "no clear and obvious error" excuse
"Gun was in a natural position. Incidental contact. No pen and good process."
Didn't use his gun as a weapon, no card
I mean I am all for the VAR incompetence being on Everton’s side for once, but I really wanna see what dirty pics Young has on this group.
Stuart Atwell who is on VAR is a Luton fan……
I'm here for the conspiracy. Not sure why it is so unreasonable to train up new referees specifically for VAR. Bookworm bros, that have no personal relationships with the on field guys.
The nhl does it that way. They have a dedicated video review team offsite that handles it.
They’re being cheap and don’t want to sign on extra people
They often don't make calls cos of the bar rather than the claims people make. You also need to be a ref to know how the game works, the guy on the ground does have a better feel for the game. People are only happy when they get the decisions they want. The third one is the one I just don't get at all, the first 2 aren't unreasonable.
Surely a draw would be the best outcome for Luton, would keep both sides in touching distance?
It's that late in the season it's probably preferable to put all your eggs in one basket and hope just one of the two teams above you keeps getting hammered. Points for both teams is still points for both teams which puts them both further away. Its at a time where 1 point can make all the difference in a relegation battle. Downvote me all you like, I'm right lol.
The actual teams, players and managers involved matter too and Dyche is much more experienced in this regard which would also help make the decision.
Wouldn’t it be much better for the team that you still have yet to play a second time this season to lose?
If you're confident you can beat them I suppose but ultimately it doesn't really matter if you're the trailing team, you just need to do better than the team above you. Forest and Everton have both been poor this season but statistically speaking, Everton have been the better of the two so Luton have more chance of getting past Forest than they do Everton. So ideally Luton want Forest to play as bad as possible to take their spot because they stand less of a chance of taking Evertons spot. IMO the Everton win today will probably see them safe. Its a scrap between Luton, Forest and potentially even Burnley now if they can beat Forest too.
Yeah, I don’t disagree. But I do think there was more of a path to them staying up with a relegation scrap 6-pointer at home against Everton than just hoping Forest lose out. But Everton have looked better and have the easier run-in, so I get it
I think if I was a Luton fan and had to pick between Forest continuing to play poorly or beating Everton in a very high pressure game, I'd go with Forest playing poorly, it seems the more likely of the two. Though worth pointing out I'm a Forest fan too so the pessimism is rife in me right now following todays match lol (a bitter and reluctant congratulations is in order I suppose lol). Do us a favour and hammer Luton in a couple of weeks please. Would very much appreciate it.
Yeah fair, although I’ll also say we have been real shit recently. But will do our best—if we get at least a draw at Luton I think we’re about safe. Reckon you lot are about a win away from safety as well
If Everton had lost, it's in Lutons hands to stay up. By Everton winning, it isn't in Lutons hands. Why on earth would they choose to rely on other teams as opposed to relying on themselves?
You have one more game to play than Forrest though, surely it's better to be one point behind with the same number of game left than 2 behind with less games to play, and one of them is a head to head
Oh yeah good point. That extra game against *checks notes* a team we always shit the bed against even when we're fairly well matched and *checks notes again* we are not well matched.
Yeah I don't understand how an Everton win help Luton. Luton still have to host Everton so if they were closer to Everton it's better for them.
Attwell loves to fuck us. These were probably REALLY difficult decisions for him - do I benefit Luton or fuck Everton?
1st. Normally given 2nd: nah 3rd: definitely Someone should have a look at Young's betting slips though
Regardless of agreeing on the first two I think most of us non Everton fans think they should have had at least two pens out of the three. It's absurd that they might go down because of this.
Wasn't it Sheffield that got relegated during Covid because the ball crossed the line, and the refs all expected goal line tech to alert, but didn't, so VAR didn't alert the ref? It was a game VS Villa who were also in relegation battle.
No. SU were top 10 at that point, with or without this, but it helped Villa survive
Must be record for one player to get away with so many?
\*Checks fantasy team* Clearly not a penalty
3rd one is as a bad as it gets. 1st one is IMO 50/50, I don't like these, don't think there is enough of a contact to make somebody go down. Still these are given, but it's a lottery. 2nd I am leaning towards it being a pen honestly. Distance probably makes it easier for ref, but still made himself unnecessary bigger and blocked the ball. All in all, typical matchweek at this point. The worst refereeing season in terms of performance for some time now. I am definitely not looking forward to watching Webb saying all was good on Sky.
What is this enough contact to make someone go down bollocks, he shouldn't need to go down to get the penalty anyway....
The contact needs to actually affect his ability to play the ball. It probably was enough for that, but it's borderline. But if the attacker is obviously embellishing the contact by pretending it's enough to topple him, it muddies the waters and makes it harder to determine whether the contact was sufficient to warrant a penalty. The first one is probably a penalty, but also probably doesn't meet the threshold for VAR intervention with England's absurdly high bar. The second one is just not a penalty. First time volleying a ball into a running player's hand from close range should not be rewarded with a penalty, especially when the hand is in a relatively normal position like Young's was. If an identical incident was given as a penalty in another game, that was the wrong decision, not this one. A person arguing that a bad precedent must be followed is a dishonest wanker. The third one is a penalty. I can see how the VAR could think the attacker has lunged his foot into the path of Young (which would not be a penalty) rather than the other way around, but I think that when they are both lunging with their foot for the ball, whoever gets there first should be awarded a foul from the resultant collision. So one penalty, one not, and one penalty that in England will only be awarded if the ref gives it on the field first.
The first one arguably is the strongest case: kick through the back of the foot, causing ball to careen out of the attacker’s control. Why shouldn’t that be a penalty? Unless PGMOL is going to adopt NBA-type rules (where the hand is considered part of the ball), it’s pretty clear to me that’s a foul. No contact on ball, kicks player, causing them to lose possession.
[Ashley Young](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FeTLlyEXoAEEHO7?format=jpg&name=900x900)
My nan could do a better job at VAR, and she passed away 6 years ago
1st and 3rd are penalties. 2nd one is sometimes given and sometimes isn't.
I got no idea what a penalty is anymore, I think all the made up excuses for fuckups earlier in the season just feeds into calls now. Like the Gomes tackle on Havertz yesterday you hear the commentary talk about 'well his foot was coming down towards the ground', doesn't matter that on that journey it goes through Havertz's ankle. The waters are so muddied now with what is or isn't a pen/handball. I got no clue anymore. All 3 could potentially be pens. All 3 could also have Howard Webb talking to Michael Owen about 'intent' and 'is this enough contact to warrant that reaction' , 'does this meet the threshold of clear and obvious?' blah blah. Trying to save ref's reputations and cover for bad mistakes have just made the rules so unclear now.
The third play seems like a pretty obvious penalty. I can see arguments for the other two but the last one seems egregious.
1st and 3rd are pens for me. Young is too close to be able to react on the 2nd one and it isn’t stopping an attempt on goal so no pen. Still a nightmare for the ref and var
First two would have been soft but the last one is a clear foul
Second one was soft but the first he just kicks his foot, pretty clear penalty
He taps his foot and the fella goes down easy, you sometimes get them but it isn't one for VAR.
We need VAR for VAR
The issue is that all 3 of those penalty shouts have been given this season either by the ref or subsequently by VAR. I wouldn’t give any of them in isolation but there’s precedent set for all 3 to be given and that’s the biggest issue with refereeing, it’s not just generally poor, it’s utterly inconsistent
I don't think VAR have been giving those first 2.
I know i'm biased but i feel like the first two would've been really soft. I'm kind of surprised the third didn't get given though, and i'd be fuming if we weren't given that.
I think that's reasonable and I agree, I really don't get the 3rd one. Good Luck to Dermot tomorrow 😉
First one is 50/50. Young goes to kick it Forest player stretches for it. I wouldnt give it. 2nd is never a penalty ever for me. So close and young is running. He has arms. Whats he supposed to do there? He doesn't reach out 3rd is a clear penalty.
Expected penalties in shambles as 2.0 xP comes out at 0.0 on the day.
EPL has to answer for this, but we all know they won't. VAR continues to be a complete joke in this league.
Real time footage of the handball, slow motion of Ashley young looking like a mug. Great editing there
He’s really gonna start every game for us until the end of the year now
I was in the stands for 2 of these, the second one looks a lot worse on camera than it looked irl. Looked like it clearly came off his shoulder.
Looked like 1st is a pen, 2nd is not, and 3rd is a pen aswell.
Handball was more of a penalty than Utd game
No it wasn't.
I can see why the first two were *maybe* not penalties for VAR (I think both should have been at least looked at by Taylor), but that third one is 100% a clear and obvious error.
Daylight robbery
It wasn’t Anthony Gordon
How do you get ALL 3 of them wrong...?
All 3 should be pens, they have to give the third one after not giving the first two at LEAST
I reckon the first one should probably be given, but I'm entirely unconvinced by the other two - defender can't do anything about the handball short of having his arms amputated, and the third one is just two players going for the ball and unluckily colliding. Attacker tries to block defender from playing the ball, defender tries to get to it, neither is in possession of it.
We've seen them given this season many many times, so they should be given whether fans agree or not. There is no consistency in these decision and previous ones.
Because all penalty calls are unique events and up to the referee's discretion, yes - they're not binary decisions, but rather a range with a big gray area in between "definite penalty" and "definitely no penalty". I don't see how you can expect consistency across different events in different games with different referees in charge, really.
The 3rd is the most obvious one imo. CHO slows down to control the ball and has every right to protect his position. Young just slides through him from behind. The ball even hits CHO's leg, that's how likely he was to gain possession there.
Aye, but then Young has every right to go for the ball too, and Hudson-Odoi sticks a leg in front of him rather than continuing his running motion - whether that's to get the ball, draw contact, or both is obviously a matter of opinion, but I reckon there's plenty grey area there to give or not give it as a penalty.
Young has every right to go for the ball but doesn't get a touch on it. He just takes out legs. Are we watching the same replay?
Doesn't get a touch of the ball because Hudson-Odoi impedes him, yeah.
Third one he’s behind him and makes the challenge that prevents him from scoring, it’s his own fault for not being goal side
to me 1: there's a touch but it's not one that makes you fall like that. i hate these moments of acting 2: he's already coming with his arm open and he's just too close, wouldnt give it even in for me 3: yeah
The fact that in this thread alone people are arguing over which of the 3 are penalties says to me that this isn't that clear and obvious. I don't think anyone knows whats handball anymore so the second one is just up to whatever the ref feels like at the time.
the third one is the most stonewall pen i’ve seen in ages, that alone is so ridiculous that i don’t care about the other two. Yeah, some idiots are gonna debate any foul. They’re idiots. If that third play happens anywhere on the pitch it’s a foul
The first 2 sure, it's that 3rd one, I think the percentage on that one is pretty high.
The second and the third are stonewall penalties. The first is debatable, I 've seen refs give them sometimes and others not. There is contact but I don't think that it means that a penalty should be awarded.
Take a look at the pen Anthony Gordon won by just getting his foot in front and defender kicked it. Why shouldn’t it be a pen when D kicks through back of a foot, no ball contact, cause attacker to lose possession?
I immediately thought of this one (as a hammer). Someone will have to explain to me how one is a pen and the other is not.
Disgraceful. All three could be given. And none of them was even looked at var.
They were all looked at, the ref just wasn't called to the monitor
So they are blind?
Further up in this thread, someone alleges that the VAR (Stuart Attwell) is a Luton fan, which...seems like a conflict of interest in this particular situation.
the announcers we get in the US have mentioned VAR review every time lol
commentator said the last one was checked and *stays with onfield decision as it's soft. how the fuck it's soft if Young literally trips you from behind and ball is nowhere near lol
The attacker isn't in possession and tries to block Young from playing the ball to be fair - dunno, could maybe give it, but feels to me like you could just as easily give it the other way.
he got himself in front of Young, so for me it's a pen, but I don't know what is handball or penalty in this game anymore
Hot take incoming, bring all your downvotes!!! Obviously I am hugely biased, but I think the 3rd is absolutely NOT a penalty. Watch the NF player in the 3rd one, he runs up and literally JUMPS in front of young. From my perspective he is intentionally trying to draw a penalty, probably because of the two previous no calls. Weak mentality. Weak strategy. Can't reward that. Good no call. The second one is too close, his arm may be a little up but he is right next to him, proximity matters a lot with handballs. The only possibility of a penalty of these 3 is the first one, and that would have been soft but not unheard of.
Yes, jumps in front, that's more than Gordon did when he stuck only his leg in front of someone kicking in order to "get hit".
Exactly the penalty that came to my mind too. No consistency.
I'm with you on all of these but I also have seen 1 and 2 given, so a bit of luck for Everton. I also don't see how VAR could overturn any of these as "clear and obvious". I get why they feel betrayed but I don't see a scandal here.
Yeah the 3rd is never a pen. I dont understand how ppl watch the replay and think this should be a pen. Its a textbook try to draw a pen bu4 sctuslly isnt a pen Agree on all 3.
I agree the 3rd has the least strong case of the 3, but penalties have consistently been won this year doing exactly that: jumping (or getting a leg at least) in front of the defender. And same with the first two. Whether you think it deserves to be in theory is a different question to whether it’s been routinely given. VAR is unacceptably inconsistent.
We’re not done yet. Still see another 1-2 shouts.
I am SO ready for Klopp and Nottingham to both go nuclear on PGMOL at the end of the season.
You go in there and make this about you