With all the excitement of last night it’s just dawned on me that we were awarded a penalty! A penalty! I was wondering at the start of extra time whether or not we’d be allowed to take penalties if it came to a shootout but we actually got one during the game. When was the last time and who scored. I don’t remember one last season.

dermotdermot wrote:With all the excitement of last night it’s just dawned on me that we were awarded a penalty! A penalty! I was wondering at the start of extra time whether or not we’d be allowed to take penalties if it came to a shootout but we actually got one during the game. When was the last time and who scored. I don’t remember one last season.

Wood Vs Leeds

Chris Wood v Leeds in League Cup last season, but we had NO penalties in the Prem.

We get them against smaller teams. We’re just not allowed them in the Premier League.

But other clubs are allowed them against us.

Like the absurd one at Pittodrie.
The Italian bloke last night hadn't read the script....

Ironically it was the first time the referee pulled back play for advantage

I was wondering what would have happened if VAR was available at last night’s game. As we know, Barnes scored but the goal was called back in favour of a penalty decision. If the referee had overturned the decision to award a penalty due to VAR evidence, would Barnes’s goal have stood?

exilecanada wrote:I was wondering what would have happened if VAR was available at last night’s game. As we know, Barnes scored but the goal was called back in favour of a penalty decision. If the referee had overturned the decision to award a penalty due to VAR evidence, would Barnes’s goal have stood?

No. Once the whistle has been blown, the ball is dead.

We finally got a penalty and it was a poor decision.

It certainly hit his arm but it didn't look intentional. And we also scored mere moments after the incident - all the penalty did for us was deny us any certainty of a goal.

It would be nice just to get a clear cut penalty that was thoroughly merited.

If you look at the stat ‘minutes spent in the oppositions box’ you will find the reason that has mainly contributed to our lack of pens.

both penalties bad decisions

Rowls wrote:We finally got a penalty and it was a poor decision.

It certainly hit his arm but it didn't look intentional. And we also scored mere moments after the incident - all the penalty did for us was deny us any certainty of a goal.

It would be nice just to get a clear cut penalty that was thoroughly merited.

Hi Rowls, nothing wrong with the penalty decision as far as I could see.

The ref had clearly blown for infringement before the ball was put in the net, so there was no advantage to be played.

And, if I'm a defender and my arms are out in front of me, even if they are bent at the elbow, I'm still going to give away a pen if my arms block the ball. As clear cut as it needs to be.

And, as I posted immediatetly after the game, Ash Barnes took "a neat penalty." And, btw, I commented at the time that it was our first pen for a long time - though I forgot v Leeds and went back to April 2017.

Paul Waine wrote: I'm still going to give away a pen if my arms block the ball

Only if it's deliberate - according to the rules of the game

Ours was never a pen. I'd have been fuming if that was given against us.

exilecanada wrote:I was wondering what would have happened if VAR was available at last night’s game. As we know, Barnes scored but the goal was called back in favour of a penalty decision. If the referee had overturned the decision to award a penalty due to VAR evidence, would Barnes’s goal have stood?

Wasn't it Vokes who 'scored'?

Paul Waine wrote:Hi Rowls, nothing wrong with the penalty decision as far as I could see.
The ref had clearly blown for infringement before the ball was put in the net, so there was no advantage to be played.
And, if I'm a defender and my arms are out in front of me, even if they are bent at the elbow, I'm still going to give away a pen if my arms block the ball. As clear cut as it needs to be.
And, as I posted immediatetly after the game, Ash Barnes took "a neat penalty." And, btw, I commented at the time that it was our first pen for a long time - though I forgot v Leeds and went back to April 2017.

Not a penalty IMO. The rules of the game as I know them are quite clear - there has to be intent.

At that distance, the ball is going to strike some hands. I don't think it should have been given.

Granted, once he'd blown he then had to give it but I think that

A) It should not have been awarded
B) Even if the ref thought it was a penalty he could have exercised a little caution in how quickly he was going to blow before deciding on the award.

I'm nit-picking but it IS important. If Barnes had missed and Aberdeen gone up the other end and scored we'd be out of Europe.

Rowls wrote:Not a penalty IMO. The rules of the game as I know them are quite clear - there has to be intent.

At that distance, the ball is going to strike some hands. I don't think it should have been given.

Granted, once he'd blown he then had to give it but I think that

A) It should not have been awarded
B) Even if the ref thought it was a penalty he could have exercised a little caution in how quickly he was going to blow before deciding on the award.

I'm nit-picking but it IS important. If Barnes had missed and Aberdeen gone up the other end and scored we'd be out of Europe.

The "intent" in the laws includes the idea that the arms were intentionally put into a position where it is likely that they will block the ball. You could argue in this case whether the arms were in this unnatural position or whether they were where you would expect a man's arms to be; that would be a valid argument, which I wouldn't as it happens agree with, but it's a valid case. But to argue that it can't be handball because it's too close? That's not how the laws work.

Remember Heston's star save at Old Trafford in the 0-0 season before last? Would you say he deliberately stopped the ball with his hands, or not? I would say yes, and similarly if a defender had done that I would say penalty. That's the law that the ref gave this penalty under. We all agree that the arm blocked the ball, and the only issue was whether his arm should have been there in the first place, or whether the defender should have tucked it out of the way.

Rowls wrote:Not a penalty IMO. The rules of the game as I know them are quite clear - there has to be intent.

At that distance, the ball is going to strike some hands. I don't think it should have been given.

Granted, once he'd blown he then had to give it but I think that

A) It should not have been awarded
B) Even if the ref thought it was a penalty he could have exercised a little caution in how quickly he was going to blow before deciding on the award.

I'm nit-picking but it IS important. If Barnes had missed and Aberdeen gone up the other end and scored we'd be out of Europe.

Hi Rowls, if I was the ref I'd have awarded the pen: arms/elbows stuck out in front of the body is all the indication of intent that is required. I don't get this idea that if I'm a defender and I just happened to have my arms, naturally, where they might block the route of the ball towards the "danger area" but I'd didn't intend to handle the ball.....so it can't be a pen.

Agree, if Aberdeen had got a 2nd goal we would not be going to Istanbul, but that applies to all the game, not just the award of the penalty. What if the Aberdeen forward had got a touch on the pass that went right across the centre of the Burnley goal?

No worries.

UTC