Just to be clear:either the VAR was wrong to send it down, or the R was wrong to not give the PK, as both are applying exact the same standard. That said, I think it’s a PK. But is it a C&O error not to give a PK? That’s a harder question.Just want to understand the rationale if there was one. FWIW there was a VAR review but the ref stuck with his call. Fair play to him for backing himself.
Hmm how about players have a right to their position on the field, the defender is essentially static and the attacker runs into him.
At least there’s an interpretation.
Am I the only one seeing no theatrics there?
I think the momentum in the run and the way the legs tangle causes the 'jump/spin'Yes. If you get kicked, you go down, not up
No amount of momentum will cause that kind of reaction. If you are running and someone or something trips you your natural action is to protect your fall, not jump up in the air.I think the momentum in the run and the way the legs tangle causes the 'jump/spin'
I'm just not seeing itNo amount of momentum will cause that kind of reaction. If you are running and someone or something trips you your natural action is to protect your fall, not jump up in the air.
My first thought on watching was normal football contact, I'm not sure I'd be giving this in a game and I think I could sell it by saying its a collision and normal contact, and I'm not giving a penalty if I'm only 75% convinced an offence has occurred.I'm giving the penalty here. However, to play devils avocado....
Referees say stuff like "shoulder to shoulder" all the time - if I'm looking for a reason not to give this, I think you could make a case this is just normal footballing contact which the attacker has clearly then massively exaggerated. Arguably if he'd just fallen over rather than adding a double front flip it probably would have looked even more like a penalty.