A-league grand final controversial penalty

[CapnBloodbeard]

Check out this video from the 2010 Hyundai A-League grand final. Berisha playing for Brisbane Roar in orange, Perth Glory in purple/white.

What do you think about this decision?

Out of interest, this won the grand final. Naturally it was highly controversial. This controversy was heightened by 3 issues:
1)This is the only footage showing any contact between the defender and the attacker's leg, and it wasn't shown in any of the replays. Every other footage makes it look like there was definitely no contact
2)The attacker is a notorious diver
3)After the match it was revealed that the referee's girlfriend works for Brisbane Roar.

 

[Russell Jones]

Based on the (incredibly slowed down) footage, it looks a clear penalty. I'm sure it was much harder to be certain in real time ... though an air shot like that is far more unusual than a dive and therefore far more likely to have an external cause.

Was the defender sent off for DOGSO as well?

 

[CapnBloodbeard]

The penalty was awarded (probably should have been clear), but the defender was not sent off.
There was a good few years when I can only presume the HAL officials had been presented with an edited copy of the LOTG which only had 5 red card offences, not 7 (actually 4, because we all know OFFINABUS isn't in the law book of a top-tier referee). Over a few years there were many clear DOGSO cases with no red card given (which leads me to ague the problem isn't the referee but the assessors and coaches). In one finals series my team had one each game!

I'm going to wait a few posts before I post my thoughts on this one.

 

[Monotone Whistle]

Looks like a fair decision on replay, but don't see the referee on the video so can't comment if he had a credible view to give it. Just because it was a penalty on replay, doesn't mean he should have given it if he had no clear view.

So, penalty - yes, has he seen it? - not sure.

 

[SM]

Super slow mo. Wish my eyes could do that during games. And from different angles. Would be handy!

Interesting clip. insanely marginal, minimal contact.

You could argue the attacker pushes the defender away resulting in the clip. free kick defence. Ooooooooo

My actual opinion - whatever the referee had done probably would have been fair enough!!! Tough one.

 

[CapnBloodbeard]

My thoughts - I think the contact is sufficient for a foul. Wasn't a big contact, but it was enough to put the player off. It knocked his foot across a little, knocking that into the ball which moved it out of the path of his kick, resulting in the air swing. The contact caused an event which caused an event which caused an event which caused him to fall over. Is that chain enough for a foul? I think so.
As I said before, the penalty was awarded but the clip shown at the time and in most highlights were indicating no contact. If anything, this is one of those rare arguments against a video referee, as the referee had a better view than every camera bar one. The referee saw the contact, but you couldn't see it from the other cameras.
If a foul is given, HAD to be DOGSO.
But I firmly believe that it should have been a foul the other way. On that - how could you possible argue the attacker didn't commit a foul first? the push prevented the defender challenging the ball. In fact, that's the only reason the defender made the lunge, because of being pushed!
Stiff arms aren't penalised enough, but these are just as bad as any other holding foul, if not worse - in terms of impact on play.
Annoyingly enough, the series of errors was further compounded by the fact that the attacker was offside to start with.