Has anyone seen a replay ?

100% penalty

I haven’t yet, but it looked blatant to me, from the Bob Lord.

Was 100% a penalty, another apology letter next week no doubt.

Looked nailed on from afar but we have seen Assignon throw himself down on the deck before.

Blatant.

Maybe it was a pen, but do you think this team could stop Newcastle scoring during 80 minutes-clutching at straws here

When you look at the assignon one and then the Gordon one, how the Gordon one is a pen but the assignon one isn’t. Can’t work it out. The whole ‘it’s not a clear and obvious error’ is rubbish. Had Taylor given the pen VAR wouldn’t of over turned it

It was a Pen. If that was Wilson...... it's defo given and we would have no complaints.

As it stands it didn't even appear to be VAR checked? It's available on twitter but the Newcastle lad gets an handful of his shirt and pushes Assignon to the floor. At the speed he is moving and in possession of the ball, how any other decision is beyond me.

123EasyasBFC wrote: ↑

Sat May 04, 2024 8:57 pm

When you look at the assignon one and then the Gordon one, how the Gordon one is a pen but the assignon one isn’t. Can’t work it out. The whole ‘it’s not a clear and obvious error’ is rubbish. Had Taylor given the pen VAR wouldn’t of over turned it

I had no arguments with the Gordon one. Brownhill was woeful and looked an obvious penalty.

It looked a penalty sat 150 yards away.

Another **** decision.

It’s a penalty, but will be filed under the PGMOL twilight zone that is “VAR wouldn’t have overturned it if given or not given”.

The “clear and obvious” definition has jumped the shark.

DCWat wrote: ↑

Sat May 04, 2024 9:01 pm

I had no arguments with the Gordon one. Brownhill was woeful and looked an obvious penalty.

I wasn’t arguing that Gordon’s wasn’t a penalty but if they can give that one then there’s no reason at all that ours isn’t a pen

It’s a clear penalty and a clear red card for making no attempt to play the football. Absolutely disgusting decision. And yes, perhaps against 10 men and with the ball on the penalty spot, we could have put in by a winning display.

jdrobbo wrote: ↑

Sat May 04, 2024 9:08 pm

It’s a clear penalty and a clear red card for making no attempt to play the football. Absolutely disgusting decision. And yes, perhaps against 10 men and with the ball on the penalty spot, we could have put in by a winning display.

This. I'm surprised more hasn't been made of this. I've seen it back and it's as clear a penalty as you can get and quite probably a red card but because we put in a pitiful performance thereafter it has been overlooked as if it wouldn't have mattered. It would have changed the game immeasurably at that point.
Then again maybe we have become numb to it now these non decisions against us. It has become commonplace to deny Burnley a clear penalty it seems. No great surprise.

Gordon is all that is wrong with football. I’ve only seen it once, personally I didn’t think it was a penalty but that’s just my opinion. My problem is he will fall over at any opportunity. I dislike that
UTC!

Has anyone got a video of it?

Only seen it live from JMU, but it looked 100% penalty and red card from my view. Didn't look to be any doubt in it as far as I could tell

mybloodisclaret wrote: ↑

Sat May 04, 2024 8:59 pm

It was a Pen. If that was Wilson...... it's defo given and we would have no complaints.

As it stands it didn't even appear to be VAR checked? It's available on twitter but the Newcastle lad gets an handful of his shirt and pushes Assignon to the floor. At the speed he is moving and in possession of the ball, how any other decision is beyond me.

It was definitely checked by VAR

https://twitter.com/AlwaysClaret/status ... sd5pA&s=19

Is it because he seems to be already going to ground? Still flattened though!

Roosterbooster wrote: ↑

Sat May 04, 2024 9:23 pm

Has anyone got a video of it?

Only seen it live from JMU, but it looked 100% penalty and red card from my view. Didn't look to be any doubt in it as far as I could tell

https://x.com/JacobHorsfall_/status/1786793906245443752

That's a bad decision. Rotten. Disgraceful.

And the VAR is even worse because they have all the tools to correct it, which is their entire purpose.

Disgraceful decision what is the point of VAR??

That being said we can't start so we'll then crumble when we concede, we're going to lose what experience is left in the summer I dread to think how this lot will get on in the championship

DCWat wrote: ↑

Sat May 04, 2024 9:01 pm

I had no arguments with the Gordon one. Brownhill was woeful and looked an obvious penalty.

Agenda driven nonsense.

Was watching SSN and Mike Dean said “it was not a penalty and the push was minimal and they are not given now”

It's consistent they could & should have had 1 perhaps the other week when will Hughes made contact with longstaff & he went sprawling but it was waved away. The contact needs to be deemed sufficient enough to send somebody to the ground.

City had 2 pens neither of which were as clear as Assignon non pen. There’s our season right there

It ticks me off. There was a similar incident in the Ipswich match and Goodman, the ex-pro, says “he went down to easily.”
If you are standing still and somebody pushes you in the back you will likely not go down.
If you are sprinting and somebody pushes you in the back it is 70/30 you will.
My other point is why do they push them in the back if they are not looking to put them off their shot or pass? It is cheating and in the area it should be a pen every time.
Same as the holding in the penalty area for dead balls. If the refs gave the pens it would stop.

Wow. Just seen the Haaland second penalty on MOTD. Can somebody tell me how that is any different to the Assignon one today? It's identical yet at City he gets sent to the screen. They really do open themselves up to the cries of big club bias with the glaring inconsistency.

Somethingfishy wrote: ↑

Sat May 04, 2024 9:16 pm

This. I'm surprised more hasn't been made of this. I've seen it back and it's as clear a penalty as you can get and quite probably a red card but because we put in a pitiful performance thereafter it has been overlooked as if it wouldn't have mattered. It would have changed the game immeasurably at that point.
Then again maybe we have become numb to it now these non decisions against us. It has become commonplace to deny Burnley a clear penalty it seems. No great surprise.

Agree entirely with this. At that point in the game it had been all Burnley. We were playing really well. Had that rightly been given, it’d have lifted the crowd and we’d have been in the ascendancy.

It’s hard to imagine it’d have changed the result but it definitely would’ve changed the first half and who knows thereafter.

It was a shocker of a decision like plenty of others throughout the season.

Somethingfishy wrote: ↑

Sat May 04, 2024 10:55 pm

Wow. Just seen the Haaland second penalty on MOTD. Can somebody tell me how that is any different to the Assignon one today? It's identical yet at City he gets sent to the screen. They really do open themselves up to the cries of big club bias with the glaring inconsistency.

Spot on.

“Mike Dean”………..

Match of Day didn’t consider it worthy of discussion!

Assignon: definitely a pen. Not given
Gordon: definitely a pen. Given
City 1: definitely a pen. Given
City 2: definitely a pen. Given by VAR

The whole 'contact' thing is just too subjective for me.
There was a penalty appeal for Newcastle in the first half which was var checked when Assignon nudged Wilson from a cross and it was deemed not enough contact for a penalty.

Guimares grabs Assignon's shirt and it's not enough contact.

Assignon pretty much barged into Issac from the penalty rebound and its not enough contact.

Then off the top of my head, the late one at Villa away was enough contact to give the pen.

How can it be fairly judged when the only two people in the ground that know the truth are the one who makes it and the one that receives it?

And while I'm on the subject, I also don't get the whole "not enough of an obvious error to overturn the onfield decision"
If everyone in the ground can see it then yes it fu**** is!!!

If we are going to talk about 'level of contact' can I remind everyone of Villa's when we went there this season.

VAR - absolute terrible. I don't believe it to incompetence all the time, surely it can't be?

mybloodisclaret wrote: ↑

Sun May 05, 2024 12:55 am

If we are going to talk about 'level of contact' can I remind everyone of Villa's when we went there this season.

VAR - absolute terrible. I don't believe it to incompetence all the time, surely it can't be?

Bournemouths disallowed goal for a foul on raya yet it wasn’t a foul on Trafford against Luton. They make it up as they go along

This I don’t understand about footballers. The Arsenal ‘penalty’? Havertz beats the keeper, if he carries on running, he puts the ball into an empty net. But no, he changes his movement, the keeper having missed him, so he drags his foot for a yard, an unnatural movement, just to contact the keeper. He contacts the keeper, not the other way round. How is that a penalty?

VAR getting it wrong again. Killing the beautiful game.

Penalty McPenalty all day long. VAR should have intervened. Not clear and obvious is barmy ehen the outcome is night and day!

Did he give pen? No - waved away.

Was it a penalty on replay? Yes clearly and obviously!

Is that a clear and obvious difference to the original decision? Yes. Opposite.

Is VAR just supporting the ref and prem needs? Yes.

I don't see the point of having VAR if it doesn't lead to more correct decisions. Much rather the on-field ref get decisions wrong than have wrong decisions backed up by a team that knows it could be a wrong decision but not do anything about it. Get rid of it for me.

First time seen this replay. If the ref doesn't see it VAR should. Simply unbelievable.

Definitely should have been given.

The thing that really bugged me yesterday was VAR spending some minutes trying to prove that Muric had moved off his line before the pen was taken.....when was the last time you saw that checked?
The premier league is a shitshow!

Taffy on the wing wrote: ↑

Sun May 05, 2024 5:02 pm

Definitely should have been given.

The thing that really bugged me yesterday was VAR spending some minutes trying to prove that Muric had moved off his line before the pen was taken.....when was the last time you saw that checked?
The premier league is a shitshow!

Weren't they checking whether Assignon had encroached, as he then prevented a Newcastle player from getting to the rebound?

Taffy on the wing wrote: ↑

Sun May 05, 2024 5:02 pm

Definitely should have been given.

The thing that really bugged me yesterday was VAR spending some minutes trying to prove that Muric had moved off his line before the pen was taken.....when was the last time you saw that checked?
The premier league is a shitshow!

The screen said something like Assignon encroachment with “no impact on overall outcome”

Jellybean wrote: ↑

Sat May 04, 2024 9:30 pm

https://twitter.com/AlwaysClaret/status ... sd5pA&s=19

Is it because he seems to be already going to ground? Still flattened though!

Having watched that I don't think he is going down.
He's slowing up and sorting his feet out because he has got in behind then gets a shove.

wilks_bfc wrote: ↑

Sun May 05, 2024 5:24 pm

The screen said something like Assignon encroachment with “no impact on overall outcome”

I didn't even realise they checked encroachment on VAR, and if they did do they do it for every penalty.
The offence is encroachment itself (cheating), not the effect it has.

DAVETHEVICAR wrote: ↑

Sat May 04, 2024 10:09 pm

Was watching SSN and Mike Dean said “it was not a penalty and the push was minimal and they are not given now”

When did 'minimal pushing' becom legalised?

I, for one, missed the introduction of this new rule. Perhaps it was announced when they told everybody the 6 second rule had been removed from the laws.

Rowls wrote: ↑

Sun May 05, 2024 5:31 pm

When did 'minimal pushing' becom legalised?

I, for one, missed the introduction of this new rule. Perhaps it was announced when they told everybody the 6 second rule had been removed from the laws.

"Interpretation"... can be however the ref sees it.
Let's face it, the PL is rubbish since it became a TV soap.

boatshed bill wrote: ↑

Sun May 05, 2024 5:26 pm

I didn't even realise they checked encroachment on VAR, and if they did do they do it for every penalty.
The offence is encroachment itself (cheating), not the effect it has.

When the check was happening the screen said “Possible encroachment” and as it was saved, I think everyone assumed it was for Muric leaving his line early (well those around us in the JMU did)

It wasn’t until the decision was made that it said it was checking against Assignon.

I’m guessing they would check for any encroachment of any saved penalty

wilks_bfc wrote: ↑

Sun May 05, 2024 6:03 pm

I’m guessing they would check for any encroachment of any saved penalty

I get that. But the offence is encroachment, not the circumstances in which it occurs.

boatshed bill wrote: ↑

Sun May 05, 2024 6:07 pm

I get that. But the offence is encroachment, not the circumstances in which it occurs.

This isn't the case. If a player encroaches they aren't penalised for it unless their encroachment had a material impact on the outcome. The same goes for goalkeepers coming off their line before a kick is taken. If the keeper leaves his line and the penalty taker hits the bar there is no offence.