A&H

West Ham v Utd

Tealeaf

Lighting the darkest hour
Staff member
Pick the bones out of this one.

Ronaldo 3 x penalty appeals. Don’t think so on the first 2; the third was a probable.

Penalty against Shaw, definitely making himself bigger. No issues with that one.
 
The Referee Store
The third Ron pen was nailed on for me. Super straightforward. As was the handball.

How many more managers will be bring on players to take pens with the first touch after this?!?
 
No penalty on all 3 for Ronaldo in my opinion. Angle from behind Ronaldo on the third looked a blatant dive, the classic 2 feet together falling forward before you’ve even been touched move
 
The third one was the only possible one for me, but if you look at the angle from behind Ronaldo he was definitely already going down before there was any contact.
 
The third one was the only possible one for me, but if you look at the angle from behind Ronaldo he was definitely already going down before there was any contact.
I agree. But Zouma has dived in, nowhere near the ball, I think football expects a pen there - even if Ron is too quick of thought and deed for his own good.
 



The three penalty appeals for Ronaldo. IMO nothing doing for the first two, and the third one is a dive.

Handball by Shaw was blatant - I'm surprised it wasn't given in real time, but at least VAR correctly intervened.


Very surprised that this foul on Soucek wasn't given though. Seems to be a clear as day penalty to me.
 



The three penalty appeals for Ronaldo. IMO nothing doing for the first two, and the third one is a dive.

Handball by Shaw was blatant - I'm surprised it wasn't given in real time, but at least VAR correctly intervened.


Very surprised that this foul on Soucek wasn't given though. Seems to be a clear as day penalty to me.
AR did not help signalling for a corner. That's his credible area to get involved..
Agree it was blatant.

Think Ronaldo did himself a dis service. My thoughts were that the 3rd was a foul but likely not given due to the possibility he was looking to go down, he doesn't do that and the foul is clearer, the player makes a rash challenge, is late and ultimately would have tripped Ronaldo anyway. The contact is there and had it been given it would k
Not have been overturned either. But Ronaldo makes it not a C&O error by his action.
 
watching it now

first one, yc, anticipated contact. The two forward arms to cushion his predetermined fall is the key.
second one, nothing
third one, nothing.
 
Think Ronaldo did himself a dis service. My thoughts were that the 3rd was a foul but likely not given due to the possibility he was looking to go down, he doesn't do that and the foul is clearer, the player makes a rash challenge, is late and ultimately would have tripped Ronaldo anyway. The contact is there and had it been given it would k
Not have been overturned either. But Ronaldo makes it not a C&O error by his action.
Watching the third one again I don't believe that there is actually any contact whatsoever between attacker and defender. This isn't a situation where the attacker is having to take evasive action to avoid getting hurt - he's simply pretended to have been tripped to try and win a penalty.
 
Watching the third one again I don't believe that there is actually any contact whatsoever between attacker and defender. This isn't a situation where the attacker is having to take evasive action to avoid getting hurt - he's simply pretended to have been tripped to try and win a penalty.
The defender clearly comes across Ronaldos path, and they do make contact, but what I am saying is that if Ronaldo doesn't take the action he does he gets wiped out.
He isn't taking evasive action because he tries to win the penalty... My point is he has done himself a dis service by trying to win it as opposed to allowing nature to take its course which was zouma being a twonk and diving in like that.
It was a penalty in the making but Ronaldo tried a hard sell and lost the sale as a result.
 



The three penalty appeals for Ronaldo. IMO nothing doing for the first two, and the third one is a dive.

Handball by Shaw was blatant - I'm surprised it wasn't given in real time, but at least VAR correctly intervened.


Very surprised that this foul on Soucek wasn't given though. Seems to be a clear as day penalty to me.
I have cautioned for simulation for a similar incident to the third one on Ronaldo.
 
The defender clearly comes across Ronaldos path, and they do make contact, but what I am saying is that if Ronaldo doesn't take the action he does he gets wiped out.
Probably, but for me even if Atkinson had given it in real time, VAR should have intervened for simulation by Ronaldo.
 
Probably, but for me even if Atkinson had given it in real time, VAR should have intervened for simulation by Ronaldo.
I don't think they would. I think the VAR would look and say the defender has "tripped or attempted to trip". I just couldn't see them sending it down for simulation.
It wouldn't be clearly and obviously wrong because ultimately, the defender is committing an offence of carelessly attempting to trip opponent.
I think VAR shrugs at it and confirms on field decision. But we will never know as MA rightly said no to the pen.
 
I don't think they would. I think the VAR would look and say the defender has "tripped or attempted to trip". I just couldn't see them sending it down for simulation.
It wouldn't be clearly and obviously wrong because ultimately, the defender is committing an offence of carelessly attempting to trip opponent.
I think VAR shrugs at it and confirms on field decision. But we will never know as MA rightly said no to the pen.
To be picky I think that would be "carelessly tackling/challenging an opponent" otherwise you're saying that he intended to trip him, but I take your point ;) and I agree that in the PL that's probably what would happen, I'm only saying that to me (in an ideal world) it was simulation and should have been called so!
 
To be picky I think that would be "carelessly tackling/challenging an opponent" otherwise you're saying that he intended to trip him, but I take your point ;) and I agree that in the PL that's probably what would happen, I'm only saying that to me (in an ideal world) it was simulation and should have been called so!
I think you could argue both, it's. Semantics really. If he did make the Contact in the way he did you could argue he trips his opponent so a failed attempt is attempt to trip.

Anyway. One thing I am definitely not looking at is intent ;)
 
Back
Top