Page 1 of 2
Should West Ham have had a penalty?
Posted: Mon Dec 13, 2021 3:49 pm
by thelifeofbrian
Im listening to these so called experts and Refs who are banging on about how West ham should have had a Penalty on Saturday when Dawson got kicked in the Burnley Penalty area- My opinion is that Dawson should have been booked for cheating, He clearly lifted his leg into the Burnley Player who was kicking the ball out and was therefore going to follow through. He was looking for that and was laughing after the incident as if he knew exactly what he was up to.... what do fellow Clarets think?
Re: Should West Ham have had a penalty?
Posted: Mon Dec 13, 2021 3:54 pm
by get stuck in tracy
Yes, thought the same myself, it was as much a foul on Mcneil as it was on Dawson,just a coming together, glad the officials got something right.
Re: Should West Ham have had a penalty?
Posted: Mon Dec 13, 2021 3:55 pm
by JarrowClaret
As much as I can see that Dawson doesn’t follow the ball and moves across McNeil clearly looking for the pen unfortunately McNeil obliges and throws his foot out!! For me it probably should have been a pen based on the rules but football is in an awful state of it is given
Re: Should West Ham have had a penalty?
Posted: Mon Dec 13, 2021 3:55 pm
by Devils_Advocate
1. Wasn't a penalty (but could have easily been given)
2. Wasn't cheating by Dawson (only the most biased Burnley fan would come to this conclusion)
3. Had it happened against us a lot on here would have been screaming for a penalty and you'd probably be calling the ref a cheat and not our player
4. Had it happened against us some on here would have accepted it wasn't a penalty but would have been certain the ref would have given it at the other end to West Ham
5. As the decision went our way it has not been a talking point at all and Im sure next time people are totting up in their heads about all the decisions that went against us they will not consider this and some of the other close calls that went our way this season when they conclude all the big decisions go against us
Re: Should West Ham have had a penalty?
Posted: Mon Dec 13, 2021 3:58 pm
by get stuck in tracy
Just in addition to that I know Barnes it not like he was but he would have known how to deal with Dawsons challenges.
Re: Should West Ham have had a penalty?
Posted: Mon Dec 13, 2021 4:00 pm
by Rowls
I think it was a penalty.
But I also think the shoulder barge on Ben Mee was a penalty too.
Re: Should West Ham have had a penalty?
Posted: Mon Dec 13, 2021 4:01 pm
by JarrowClaret
Devils_Advocate wrote: ↑Mon Dec 13, 2021 3:55 pm
1. Wasn't a penalty (but could have easily been given)
2. Wasn't cheating by Dawson (only the most biased Burnley fan would come to this conclusion)
3. Had it happened against us a lot on here would have been screaming for a penalty and you'd probably be calling the ref a cheat and not our player
4. Had it happened against us some on here would have accepted it wasn't a penalty but would have been certain the ref would have given it at the other end to West Ham
5. As the decision went our way it has not been a talking point at all and Im sure next time people are totting up in their heads about all the decisions that went against us they will not consider this and some of the other close calls that went our way this season when they conclude all the big decisions go against us
That is what a Football fan tends to do devils it’s that tribal thing
Re: Should West Ham have had a penalty?
Posted: Mon Dec 13, 2021 4:02 pm
by BabylonClaret
That looked like a shove in his back from where we sit. Certainly wasn't shoulder to ahoulder
Re: Should West Ham have had a penalty?
Posted: Mon Dec 13, 2021 4:03 pm
by gandhisflipflop
It was a penalty. Anyone who thinks otherwise must be wearing their claret specs
Re: Should West Ham have had a penalty?
Posted: Mon Dec 13, 2021 4:03 pm
by boatshed bill
I thought Dawson made no attempt to play the ball, it looked like obstruction to me.
Re: Should West Ham have had a penalty?
Posted: Mon Dec 13, 2021 4:06 pm
by Newcastleclaret93
Stonewall penalty. Take the claret tinted specs of haha.
Re: Should West Ham have had a penalty?
Posted: Mon Dec 13, 2021 4:09 pm
by Conroy92
Rowls wrote: ↑Mon Dec 13, 2021 4:00 pm
I think it was a penalty.
But I also think the shoulder barge on Ben Mee was a penalty too.
This! Also thought Fabianski was lucky when he punched gudders in the head.
Re: Should West Ham have had a penalty?
Posted: Mon Dec 13, 2021 4:10 pm
by gawthorpe_view
My initial thought when I saw it yesterday was a nailed on penalty.
MOTD 2 confirmed this for me this morning.
Re: Should West Ham have had a penalty?
Posted: Mon Dec 13, 2021 4:11 pm
by Tall Paul
gandhisflipflop wrote: ↑Mon Dec 13, 2021 4:03 pm
It was a penalty. Anyone who thinks otherwise must be wearing their claret specs
The referee and VAR were wearing claret specs?
Re: Should West Ham have had a penalty?
Posted: Mon Dec 13, 2021 4:11 pm
by Stanbill05
It was 70/30 a penalty for me. Looked stonewall at first look, but there is a good angle which makes it look like Dawson was searching for contact more than the ball (but he could argue he was trying to protect the ball). Fact is Dwight kicked him.
I don't think there would have been as many complaints as you imagine if it was given, but I agree we would have definitely wanted a penalty for that..
Re: Should West Ham have had a penalty?
Posted: Mon Dec 13, 2021 4:17 pm
by jojomk1
Tall Paul wrote: ↑Mon Dec 13, 2021 4:11 pm
The referee and VAR were wearing claret specs?
They certainly were - clear pen
As just about every other person questioned (other than Claret supporters) saw it as well
Having said that, we have been on the wrong end of more pen decisions than in our favour
Imagine if that had been our player fouled in similar circumstances
Re: Should West Ham have had a penalty?
Posted: Mon Dec 13, 2021 4:18 pm
by Spijed
The only point I'd like to raise is consistency.
Why did VAR look at that incident but not the one involving Tim Krul?
Re: Should West Ham have had a penalty?
Posted: Mon Dec 13, 2021 4:18 pm
by RalphCoatesComb
We got away with one there
Re: Should West Ham have had a penalty?
Posted: Mon Dec 13, 2021 4:22 pm
by boatshed bill
Spijed wrote: ↑Mon Dec 13, 2021 4:18 pm
The only point I'd like to raise is consistency.
Why did VAR look at that incident but not the one involving Tim Krul?
Because it's rubbish?
human error by one ref, checked by others equally prone to error.
Re: Should West Ham have had a penalty?
Posted: Mon Dec 13, 2021 4:25 pm
by SalisburyClaret
Dawson jumped into McNeil, made no attempt to play the ball. If McNeil wasn't there he would still be nowhere near the ball and should be booked for dangerous play.
No Claret-tinted anything, no shred of doubt at all.
Obviously, we were lucky with VAR seeing how decisions have been going this year.
Re: Should West Ham have had a penalty?
Posted: Mon Dec 13, 2021 4:27 pm
by Tall Paul
Spijed wrote: ↑Mon Dec 13, 2021 4:18 pm
The only point I'd like to raise is consistency.
Why did VAR look at that incident but not the one involving Tim Krul?
They will have looked at both.
Re: Should West Ham have had a penalty?
Posted: Mon Dec 13, 2021 4:29 pm
by Vegas Claret
The McNeil "foul" on Dawson was as intentional as Dawson booting Pope in the face. If we are talking about yellows and reds then Dawson could easily have gone for dangerous play. As it was the award of both would have been bullshit - let's have it right though, had it been Salah or Bruno Fernandez going down in another game it would have been a pen.
Re: Should West Ham have had a penalty?
Posted: Mon Dec 13, 2021 4:31 pm
by boatshed bill
Vegas Claret wrote: ↑Mon Dec 13, 2021 4:29 pm
The McNeil "foul" on Dawson was as intentional as Dawson booting Pope in the face. If we are talking about yellows and reds then Dawson could easily have gone for dangerous play. As it was the award of both would have been bullshit - let's have it right though, had it been Salah or Bruno Fernandez going down in another game it would have been a pen.
i'm surprised it wasn't given, and you are most likely right about Salah
Re: Should West Ham have had a penalty?
Posted: Mon Dec 13, 2021 4:39 pm
by elwaclaret
I thought they’d give a penalty from VAR for sure. I am glad that both referee and VAR surprisingly agreed with me: that Dawson dived between Dwight and the ball with no intention of challenging for the ball but only to draw the penalty. I was expecting a penalty but thinking if I was referee Dawson would have been booked for unsportsmanlike behaviour.
Re: Should West Ham have had a penalty?
Posted: Mon Dec 13, 2021 5:01 pm
by beeholeclaret
McNeil was just about to play the ball (not a wild slash) and Dawson hurled himself into McNeil and ensured that his leg made contact with McNeil has he brought his left leg forwards. I dont think McNeil saw him coming and he certainly didnt "foul" him. It was though a collision and it couldve been given either way. If it was Salah or Bernado Silva the ref would've immediately pointed to the spot and been backed up by VAR. Did any one else have a clear view of Vydra when he turned his man with back to goal and went down. I thought we might've had a penalty but it was all waived away. I was in JHU so didnt have a clear view (maybe someone in the JMU mightve seen it more clearly)?
Re: Should West Ham have had a penalty?
Posted: Mon Dec 13, 2021 5:17 pm
by Blyclaret
I thought it was a penalty in real time
And on replay it was a stone wall penalty.
Mc Neill took Dawsons legs completely …
Rash tackle by mcNeill
Re: Should West Ham have had a penalty?
Posted: Mon Dec 13, 2021 5:17 pm
by Ashingtonclaret46
beeholeclaret wrote: ↑Mon Dec 13, 2021 5:01 pm
McNeil was just about to play the ball (not a wild slash) and Dawson hurled himself into McNeil and ensured that his leg made contact with McNeil has he brought his left leg forwards. I dont think McNeil saw him coming and he certainly didnt "foul" him. It was though a collision and it couldve been given either way. If it was Salah or Bernado Silva the ref would've immediately pointed to the spot and been backed up by VAR. Did any one else have a clear view of Vydra when he turned his man with back to goal and went down. I thought we might've had a penalty but it was all waived away. I was in JHU so didnt have a clear view (maybe someone in the JMU mightve seen it more clearly)?
I thought that he just slipped ---typical of his luck recently.
Re: Should West Ham have had a penalty?
Posted: Mon Dec 13, 2021 5:19 pm
by Lowbankclaret
Wasn’t at the game.
But watched it on Ref watch this morning.
Have to say it looked a certain pen.
Re: Should West Ham have had a penalty?
Posted: Mon Dec 13, 2021 5:21 pm
by Newcastleclaret93
SalisburyClaret wrote: ↑Mon Dec 13, 2021 4:25 pm
Dawson jumped into McNeil, made no attempt to play the ball. If McNeil wasn't there he would still be nowhere near the ball and should be booked for dangerous play.
No Claret-tinted anything, no shred of doubt at all.
Obviously, we were lucky with VAR seeing how decisions have been going this year.
What nonsense. Just say I am blinded by my bias and be done with it.
McNeil went to clear the ball and kicked the player. That is a penalty every day of the week. Thankfully they are so inept they messed it up
Re: Should West Ham have had a penalty?
Posted: Mon Dec 13, 2021 5:23 pm
by KRBFC
Dawson stepped across Mcneil to shield the ball out for a corner. No idea how that is considered cheating?
It's probably a penalty, we were fortunate, I think Dawson not having control of the ball went against him and for us.
Re: Should West Ham have had a penalty?
Posted: Mon Dec 13, 2021 5:23 pm
by Stayingup
Dawson ought to have been booked esrlier for persistent fouling and then again for simulation.and sent off
Re: Should West Ham have had a penalty?
Posted: Mon Dec 13, 2021 5:25 pm
by Newcastleclaret93
Stayingup wrote: ↑Mon Dec 13, 2021 5:23 pm
Dawson ought to have been booked esrlier for persistent fouling and then again for simulation.and sent off
Hilarious
Re: Should West Ham have had a penalty?
Posted: Mon Dec 13, 2021 5:27 pm
by KRBFC
Spijed wrote: ↑Mon Dec 13, 2021 4:18 pm
The only point I'd like to raise is consistency.
Why did VAR look at that incident but not the one involving Tim Krul?
I don't know how this still confuses people but...
VAR look at everything, if the ball remains in play you just aren't told they're looking. The game was halted for VAR to check because the ball was out of play. Do you not remember the Bournemouth goal on the turf which was pulled back for a Burnley penalty for handball? VAR was checking while the game was continuing because the ball hadn't gone dead.
Re: Should West Ham have had a penalty?
Posted: Mon Dec 13, 2021 5:29 pm
by KRBFC
elwaclaret wrote: ↑Mon Dec 13, 2021 4:39 pm
I thought they’d give a penalty from VAR for sure. I am glad that both referee and VAR surprisingly agreed with me: that Dawson dived between Dwight and the ball with no intention of challenging for the ball but only to draw the penalty. I was expecting a penalty but thinking if I was referee Dawson would have been booked for unsportsmanlike behaviour.
That's exactly why you're not a referee then, Dawson didn't throw himself into Mcneil for a penalty, he got his body between Mcneil and ball to allow the ball to run out for another West Ham corner kick.
Re: Should West Ham have had a penalty?
Posted: Mon Dec 13, 2021 5:33 pm
by Stayingup
I ahould have added the foul on Ben Mee was nailed on!!!
Neither were given so its a moot point.
Re: Should West Ham have had a penalty?
Posted: Mon Dec 13, 2021 5:58 pm
by elwaclaret
KRBFC wrote: ↑Mon Dec 13, 2021 5:29 pm
That's exactly why you're not a referee then, Dawson didn't throw himself into Mcneil for a penalty, he got his body between Mcneil and ball to allow the ball to run out for another West Ham corner kick.
He was unbalanced he was going over before he was kicked, because that is all he wanted… as for your personal comment, you simply confirm you are a self opinionated numpty, pretty much as I already suspected. YOU are not the oracle you are a nob.
Re: Should West Ham have had a penalty?
Posted: Mon Dec 13, 2021 6:01 pm
by warksclaret
Could have gone either way-our luck was in, as it was at Wolves when if Traore had shot one inch lower we would have lost 1-0. Makes up for a lot of bad luck this season.They say luck evens out over a season
Re: Should West Ham have had a penalty?
Posted: Mon Dec 13, 2021 6:06 pm
by boatshed bill
KRBFC wrote: ↑Mon Dec 13, 2021 5:29 pm
That's exactly why you're not a referee then, Dawson didn't throw himself into Mcneil for a penalty, he got his body between Mcneil and ball to allow the ball to run out for another West Ham corner kick.
Obstruction then?
Re: Should West Ham have had a penalty?
Posted: Mon Dec 13, 2021 7:25 pm
by KRBFC
It's never given though, defenders these days get away with murder shielding the ball to run out of play for goal kicks.
Re: Should West Ham have had a penalty?
Posted: Mon Dec 13, 2021 7:30 pm
by boatshed bill
KRBFC wrote: ↑Mon Dec 13, 2021 7:25 pm
It's never given though, defenders these days get away with murder shielding the ball to run out of play for goal kicks.
Yes they do.
I don't like it. It is obstruction and should be given.
Re: Should West Ham have had a penalty?
Posted: Mon Dec 13, 2021 7:41 pm
by SalisburyClaret
Newcastleclaret93 wrote: ↑Mon Dec 13, 2021 5:21 pm
What nonsense. Just say I am blinded by my bias and be done with it.
McNeil went to clear the ball and kicked the player. That is a penalty every day of the week. Thankfully they are so inept they messed it up
When something is 100% obvious- then bias doesn’t matter either way
Re: Should West Ham have had a penalty?
Posted: Mon Dec 13, 2021 7:45 pm
by tiger76
Yes they should, but for once we were on the right end of a VAR decision thankfully,
Re: Should West Ham have had a penalty?
Posted: Mon Dec 13, 2021 8:33 pm
by boatshed bill
Didn't Dawson kick Nick Pope in the mouth?
Nothing for that either.
Re: Should West Ham have had a penalty?
Posted: Mon Dec 13, 2021 8:41 pm
by Jakubclaret
Yes without a shadow it goes against the belief that we are 1s always hard done by & never get any luck.
Re: Should West Ham have had a penalty?
Posted: Mon Dec 13, 2021 8:43 pm
by Rileybobs
I thought it was a penalty in real time and it looked even more clear when I watched it back yesterday evening. It’s one of those decisions which would almost certainly have stood had the ref pointed to the spot.
One of the only times I can remember us being on the ‘right’ side of a bad VAR call this season which was refreshing.
Re: Should West Ham have had a penalty?
Posted: Mon Dec 13, 2021 9:27 pm
by MT03ALG
thelifeofbrian wrote: ↑Mon Dec 13, 2021 3:49 pm
Im listening to these so called experts and Refs who are banging on about how West ham should have had a Penalty on Saturday when Dawson got kicked in the Burnley Penalty area- My opinion is that Dawson should have been booked for cheating, He clearly lifted his leg into the Burnley Player who was kicking the ball out and was therefore going to follow through. He was looking for that and was laughing after the incident as if he knew exactly what he was up to.... what do fellow Clarets think?
Agree 100%
Re: Should West Ham have had a penalty?
Posted: Mon Dec 13, 2021 10:05 pm
by Burnley Ace
If McNeil had come into contact with Dawson foot rather than his calf the Dawson would have got a red card - 2 feet off the floor, out of control and a studs first contact.
In essence the position would be don’t tackle, wait until the player goes to kick the ball and just put your leg in front of the ball.
Re: Should West Ham have had a penalty?
Posted: Mon Dec 13, 2021 10:28 pm
by Cirrus_Minor
When I saw it in real time, albeit from Longside upper tier, I thought Dawson was trying it on. But I watched the replays on one of concourse tv’s at halftime and I reckon we got away with one.
Re: Should West Ham have had a penalty?
Posted: Mon Dec 13, 2021 10:32 pm
by Wokingclaret
What is a penalty today. that is the problem. It used to be denying a goal scoring opportunity.
Why in the 70's and 80's did you see free kicks in the box? Now they were exciting or opposite
Re: Should West Ham have had a penalty?
Posted: Mon Dec 13, 2021 11:11 pm
by boatshed bill
Wokingclaret wrote: ↑Mon Dec 13, 2021 10:32 pm
What is a penalty today. that is the problem. It used to be denying a goal scoring opportunity.
Why in the 70's and 80's did you see free kicks in the box? Now they were exciting or opposite
Any Deliberate foul in the penalty area.
From memory: obstruction and or possibly ball to hand when no deliberate attempt was made to handle (however it's a long time since I played