Penalty for Arsenal
-
- Posts: 2094
- Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2016 10:50 pm
- Been Liked: 430 times
- Has Liked: 4576 times
- Location: COTTON TREE
Penalty for Arsenal
John Brooks awards Arsenal a penalty. VAR agrees with him. What a surprise ?
Re: Penalty for Arsenal
It was a penalty though in my opinion. Lamptey gets the slightest touch on the ball but no way in control of the tackle.
Re: Penalty for Arsenal
Heard this on the radio where they was saying it was a shocker, I've now watched it and I'm not sure why they think it's so bad, it's a foul for me.
-
- Posts: 3964
- Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2017 4:00 pm
- Been Liked: 1240 times
- Has Liked: 491 times
Re: Penalty for Arsenal
Foul for me. However there is no consistency. When there’s a slight touch on the leg they tend to give it as VAR slows the thing down to show a touch. If the touch is on the ball we don’t do that then? They make it up as they go along.
Re: Penalty for Arsenal
Penalty..infact I can't believe I'm even typing this.
-
- Posts: 1228
- Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2016 9:55 pm
- Been Liked: 302 times
- Has Liked: 733 times
Re: Penalty for Arsenal
A clear penalty. No controversy here.
Re: Penalty for Arsenal
A new best seller by Nick Hornby ?
-
- Posts: 2315
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 7:55 pm
- Been Liked: 513 times
- Has Liked: 1072 times
Re: Penalty for Arsenal
We got away with one today. JRod's foul not getting much of a mention.
Re: Penalty for Arsenal
Was that the one near the end when he touched the man's sock so hard that the shin pad might almost have felt it?Darnhill Claret wrote: ↑Sun Apr 07, 2024 12:43 amWe got away with one today. JRod's foul not getting much of a mention.
-
- Posts: 3108
- Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2016 9:46 pm
- Been Liked: 1132 times
- Has Liked: 302 times
- Location: Melbourne, Australia.
Re: Penalty for Arsenal
Arsenal one is a penalty all day long.
-
- Posts: 16936
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:37 pm
- Been Liked: 6972 times
- Has Liked: 1487 times
- Location: Leeds
Re: Penalty for Arsenal
Sorry to divert but not worth a new thread… what was the fuss about Wolves’ goal being disallowed? They have a player stood in an offside position directly in front of the goalkeeper with the sole intention of impeding the goalkeeper’s line of sight and ability to attempt a save. Then complain when he’s judged to be interfering with play.
Can’t understand the reaction of their manager or the MOTD pundits. Even going so far as to say the goalkeeper could move to the side so he could have a better view of the ball. I don’t think that’s how it works. Just me?
Can’t understand the reaction of their manager or the MOTD pundits. Even going so far as to say the goalkeeper could move to the side so he could have a better view of the ball. I don’t think that’s how it works. Just me?