everton v arsenal

[Kent Ref]

Penalty or not?

Everton 1-1 Arsenal: I have seen it 15 times, it is never a penalty - Mikel Arteta

Iliman Ndiaye's equaliser for Everton in their Premier League draw against Arsenal was "not a penalty", says Gunners manager Mikel Arteta.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[one]

That's a poll question. Where's the poll?

 

[one]

Is a soft penalty still a penalty?

 

[santa sangria]

I think no. Live I was blase about it but watching it back I was surprised there wadn’t more hoo-ha on commentary.

Maybe foul outside the box. But there’s no holding that continues inside and no significant contact inside.

It is awful defending though. But a penalty is the wrong punishment. Back to the England U21s is a more fitting sanction IMHO.

 

[RustyRef]

I'm really struggling to see anything that would make it a penalty

 

[Gabriel]

IMHO, if anything it was a foul the other way. Play on is the best option by a country mile though.

 

[wazztie16]

Mutual holding for me. Play on.

 

[Kes]

I think the defender falls onto his leg which is why he goes down. Minimal contact but still contact. Not sure I'd be giving that in real time but ...

 

[RustyRef]

I think the defender falls onto his leg which is why he goes down. Minimal contact but still contact. Not sure I'd be giving that in real time but ...

I thought that initially, but it isn't really clear if there was any contact.

 

[GraemeS]

For me, there's enough for a foul outside the box. However the attacker works hard to stay on his feet and force his way into the box, at which point he happily goes down despite the fact the contact has now developed into mutual holding at most, maybe arguably an attacking foul.

Best result IMO would have been to go back to the original foul, give the FK and probay a caution for the tactical context, but no penalty.

 

[Kent Ref]

Having seen the vote how come VAR supported the decision?

 

[es1]

Having seen the vote how come VAR supported the decision?

Cos the whole system isn't fit for purpose

 

[RustyRef]

Having seen the vote how come VAR supported the decision?

Because of the somewhat ambiguous clear and obvious requirement. I've said on here previously that I think VAR should only be getting involved if you showed the decision to 10 referees and all 10 said it was wrong, i.e. a total clanger. I certainly think this decision was close that that, but we have two dissenters who think it was a penalty.

I also think that PGMOL SG1 referees are scared of their own shadows at the moment. Because of the previous high profile mistakes they are all terrified of being the next cab on the rank, and this is leading to lengthy checks and potential mistakes

 

[Kent Ref]

It would be good if some of the "yes" voters told us what they saw as a penalty.

It would be of great interest to me.

 

[The Gump]

For me, the only reason Harrison goes down is because he pulls down Lewis-Skelly towards the end of mutual holding, and when Lewis-Skelly falls he inadvertently contacts him. Either waving play on or defensive FK for me, probably the former as less contentious and more sellable as six of one, half dozen of the other.

I'm already looking forward to watching Saints in the Championship next year because of the absence of VAR.

 

[RefereeX]

For me, the only reason Harrison goes down is because he pulls down Lewis-Skelly towards the end of mutual holding, and when Lewis-Skelly falls he inadvertently contacts him. Either waving play on or defensive FK for me, probably the former as less contentious and more sellable as six of one, half dozen of the other.

I'm already looking forward to watching Saints in the Championship next year because of the absence of VAR.

Misread this sentence at the bottom and thought you were suggesting Southampton were relegated because of lack of VAR intervention
Understand what you mean now though!

 

[The Gump]

Misread this sentence at the bottom and thought you were suggesting Southampton were relegated because of lack of VAR intervention
Understand what you mean now though!

If only VAR could intervene every time that the defence gave the ball away then maybe!!!

 

[BCMilan]

For me, there's enough for a foul outside the box. However the attacker works hard to stay on his feet and force his way into the box, at which point he happily goes down despite the fact the contact has now developed into mutual holding at most, maybe arguably an attacking foul.

Best result IMO would have been to go back to the original foul, give the FK and probay a caution for the tactical context, but no penalty.

Aren't you then looking at potential DOGSO ?

 

[GraemeS]

Aren't you then looking at potential DOGSO ?

Considering it I suppose, but the direction is across the corner of the PA rather than driving directly towards goal. He'd have a free-ish shot, but from a tight angle and with pressure coming from covering defenders - I'd argue it doesn't quite reach the level of "obvious" GSO. But wouldn't argue with a ref who did go red either.

 

[BCMilan]

Considering it I suppose, but the direction is across the corner of the PA rather than driving directly towards goal. He'd have a free-ish shot, but from a tight angle and with pressure coming from covering defenders - I'd argue it doesn't quite reach the level of "obvious" GSO. But wouldn't argue with a ref who did go red either.

I'd say he had an obvious goalscoring opportunity. Saying that, I wonder why Lewis-Skelly didn't get a red for a DOGSO for the pen ?