Stoke got one for virtually nothing, even though there was a slight contact, I cannot believe what other officials let go unpunished in other games.
On Turf Moor, I have seen defenders basically wrestling our players to the ground this season . The incident in the cahill push was so insignificant against stoke, it didn.t even compare.
Refs are just doing what they want, there is no consistant standard. Terrible officiating in this division.

Same ref who allowed Swansea winner for a worse offence against us.awful,awful ref.

Agreed, very soft.

Its bad Electro Claret, I am genuinley shocked at what I've seen sometimes this season, especially the home games. Blatant fouls committed against us, and they are not deemed punishable in any shape or form. The Cahill one was a joke.

It use to be that you had to be brought down. Now it's "I felt contact, so went down". So annoying.

It is the referees duty to ensure the right result.

Hazard this time. Went down like he was shot.

Just listening to the buffoon Danny Mills arguing with a caller on Radio 5 that this was a clear penalty because there was "contact" by Bellerin on Hazard. Who the hell changed football's laws so that ANY contact with an attacking player in the box is a penalty ? Contact is part of the game and is inevitable. Defending becomes impossible if every merest brush with an opponent is classed as a foul. As ElectroClaret says Hazard went down as if he'd been kicked on the shin...he hadn't been.

The inevitable downside to the new rules now is that every semi-debatable decision is met with and outpouring of partisan demands for retrospective action.
One more thing for fans to feel aggrieved over

Maybe we need a panel to judge if the first panel has been deceived.

Tbf refs have just started giving penalties to those decisions people said for years "if that was outside the box it a freekick, so why not a penslty?"

Now everything gets given apart from the absolute stone wall penalties.

Stalbansclaret wrote:Just listening to the buffoon Danny Mills arguing with a caller on Radio 5 that this was a clear penalty because there was "contact" by Bellerin on Hazard. Who the hell changed football's laws so that ANY contact with an attacking player in the box is a penalty ? Contact is part of the game and is inevitable. Defending becomes impossible if every merest brush with an opponent is classed as a foul. As ElectroClaret says Hazard went down as if he'd been kicked on the shin...he hadn't been.

EThe problem is the only person who can state whether there was enough contact to cause the player to go down is the player himself. Therefore if there is contact then the ref has to give a penalty. If the rules were changed to say that a penalty can be given if IN THE OPINION OF THE REFEREE there was sufficient contact to cause the player to go down. There was no where near enough contact to cause Hazard to fall over but the ref had no option but to give the penalty.

corporal jones wrote:EThe problem is the only person who can state whether there was enough contact to cause the player to go down is the player himself. Therefore if there is contact then the ref has to give a penalty. If the rules were changed to say that a penalty can be given if IN THE OPINION OF THE REFEREE there was sufficient contact to cause the player to go down. There was no where near enough contact to cause Hazard to fall over but the ref had no option but to give the penalty.

Utter nonsense.
Don’t get swept up in this ridiculous trend towards players cheating, exaggerating, etc.
I think there should be a new rule: The referee must wave play on if he thinks the fouled player has exaggerated in any way, even if it’s a clear foul.
And the diving cheat can be sent off, banned for the rest of the season and be called fanny for ever more.

corporal jones wrote:EThe problem is the only person who can state whether there was enough contact to cause the player to go down is the player himself. Therefore if there is contact then the ref has to give a penalty. If the rules were changed to say that a penalty can be given if IN THE OPINION OF THE REFEREE there was sufficient contact to cause the player to go down. There was no where near enough contact to cause Hazard to fall over but the ref had no option but to give the penalty.

Is not the rule? Regardless of HOW the player goes down the referee give the penalty not the player.

At the end of the day it's pure game theory, the players are incentivised to lie, even subconsciously or with very minor exaggeration which in their head can easily be justified.

This new retrospective panel thing tries to create an incentive not to lie (risk of a ban) but the players know only in the most egregious & obvious cases will they be punished. But the intensive and potential reward (to win a goal) is far stronger than that risk of a ban.

Another problem I that the panel who sit on the review of these penalties, seem to adjudicate that any visible contact, and they always say foul.

RammyClaret61 wrote:Another problem I that the panel who sit on the review of these penalties, seem to adjudicate that any visible contact, and they always say foul.

Unless it’s Niasse at Everton. Clear contact with the Palace player putting his arm across him but then went down. I agreed with the panel in that he should receive a ban for simulation. The killer with the panel is they have no consistency on how much contact is enough.

Might sound harsh but sorry in my eyes any penalty or non penalty against arsenal has to be given. Harsh I know but screw um.