everton v arsenal

[one]

For me it was a soft yes.

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.

Often when there is a "tug of war" between opponents, when one gets on top and gets away with the ball, the other throws their body at the other's feet to plead for a foul (pretend they have been pulled to the ground) and at he same time prevent the opponet from getting away. Though this was not a clear case of it, there was enough in it for me to consider it careless and vote yes.

 

[BCMilan]

TBH, if the attackers didn't dive so much (in general) they'd probably get given a lot more of those decisions

 

[RefereeX]

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 ?

Putting aside the fact that this is not an OGSO for me, it's also a 'challenge for the ball', meaning it would be cautionable only when a penalty is awarded. (As per the change from a couple of seasons back from only 'attempt to play the ball' to 'challenge for or attempt to play the ball' and the guidance that upper body challenges can be challenges for the ball)

 

[Ryanj91]

The fact that Harrison got straight back up and continued to chase down the ball tells you everything.

 

[one]

The fact that Harrison got straight back up and continued to chase down the ball tells you everything.

Well, this post tells me generally if players stay down referees usually gives them the panlty but if they get back up and chase the ball they usually won't

 

[Ryanj91]

Well, this post tells me generally if players stay down referees usually gives them the panlty but if they get back up and chase the ball they usually won't

Well yes because the player didn't think he got fouled, otherwise why get up?

If he was fouled, he would have done several rolls, screamed in 'agony' and held a body part for a prolonged period of time to ensure the referee knew he was definitely fouled and 'hurt'.

 

[BCMilan]

Well yes because the player didn't think he got fouled, otherwise why get up?

If he was fouled, he would have done several rolls, screamed in 'agony' and held a body part for a prolonged period of time to ensure the referee knew he was definitely fouled and 'hurt'.

...even when they're not fouled, they do several rolls, screaming in 'agony' and hold a body part for a prolonged period of time to ensure the referee knew they were definitely fouled and 'hurt'

 

[RustyRef]

Well yes because the player didn't think he got fouled, otherwise why get up?

If he was fouled, he would have done several rolls, screamed in 'agony' and held a body part for a prolonged period of time to ensure the referee knew he was definitely fouled and 'hurt'.

I would counter that by asking why he went down in the first place, still can't see any contact that would take him down. He might have realised that the defender had also fallen over so thought he had a 1 on 1, but he still went to ground far too easily.

 

[one]

Well yes because the player didn't think he got fouled, otherwise why get up?

If he was fouled, he would have done several rolls, screamed in 'agony' and held a body part for a prolonged period of time to ensure the referee knew he was definitely fouled and 'hurt'.

You thing there are no player who know they are NOT fouled but still go down and roll and scream.
Or there are no players who know they are fouled but still get up and chase the ball?

Point in case was players going down and doing several roles on any contact (or sometimes none) is a plague crated by us referees making decisions based on what a player does after being tackled/challenged. It is a fundamentally flawed process.