If thats a penalty against Everton and the Saliba tackle against Utd is not then its time to give up and throw foitball in the bin.

And your thoughts on Jaidon Anthony getting wiped out in the box?

Not as clear cut. Not in possession of the ball. No football fan should want penalties for that.

corporal jones wrote: ↑

Tue Aug 19, 2025 8:47 pm

Not as clear cut. Not in possession of the ball. No football fan should want penalties for that.

Anywhere else on the pitch it’s a foul.Maybe we should instruct our defenders to barge people in the back off the ball because apparently it’s not a foul if they’re nowhere near the ball.

The inconsistencies are terrible.

I read earlier that Alison held the ball longer than 8 seconds a total of 4 times during Liverpools opener, but wasn’t penalised once. You have the Bournemouth player flicking the ball away and nothing given, and then Tarks punished last night.

I despise the PL and if we weren’t in this **** show of needing to be here to pay off our huge debts, I’d be much happier in the Championship.

Robbie_painter wrote: ↑

Tue Aug 19, 2025 8:53 pm

Anywhere else on the pitch it’s a foul.Maybe we should instruct our defenders to barge people in the back off the ball because apparently it’s not a foul if they’re nowhere near the ball.

It's a foul, it's as simple as that. If it were outside the box and a free kick was given nobody would bat an eyelid. Just because its in the box doesn't make it less of a foul.

Tarks made a move towards the ball and his face showed he knew it had hit his arm. Ref couldn't see it clearly, consulted his line assistant and gave the pen. No reason at all for VAR to overrule the decision. SHOULD be a penalty every time it happens.

Definitely a pen ,Tarks knew what he was doing ,as bfcmik said he definitely made a move towards the ball.

Robbie_painter wrote: ↑

Tue Aug 19, 2025 8:53 pm

Anywhere else on the pitch it’s a foul.Maybe we should instruct our defenders to barge people in the back off the ball because apparently it’s not a foul if they’re nowhere near the ball.

Exactly. If you're asking for the Anthony foul to not be a penalty, then this is precisely what you are asking for. It's completely illogical

bfcmik wrote: ↑

Tue Aug 19, 2025 8:58 pm

Tarks made a move towards the ball and his face showed he knew it had hit his arm. Ref couldn't see it clearly, consulted his line assistant and gave the pen. No reason at all for VAR to overrule the decision. SHOULD be a penalty every time it happens.

But isn't the definition re handball currently making your self bigger with position of arm and not being in a natural position in relation to body ? I wouldn't say these applied . Or are this so last season now and they haven't told us yet ( or making it up as they go along ..!)

I think the Tarkowski one is really interesting and I'm not sure I know what is right and wrong yet

It looks like he moves his arm towards the ball, but then moves his body towards it and pulls his arm behind his body. It definitely hits his arm, and he knows that. But when it strikes his arm, it is right next to him. Henry Winter made a good point, that according to current interpretation, it should not be handball as his arm is not in an unnatural position and isn't really making his body bigger at the point of impact. But that ignores the context of what happened before, and how it ended up hitting his arm in the first place

I honestly think you could argue either way. Do I want penalties for that? Not really, although if the initial arm movement was an intention to block the ball and he couldn't get it out of the way quickly enough, then yes. Do I think VAR could overturn it? No

TsarBomba wrote: ↑

Tue Aug 19, 2025 8:54 pm

The inconsistencies are terrible.

I read earlier that Alison held the ball longer than 8 seconds a total of 4 times during Liverpools opener, but wasn’t penalised once. You have the Bournemouth player flicking the ball away and nothing given, and then Tarks punished last night.

I despise the PL and if we weren’t in this **** show of needing to be here to pay off our huge debts, I’d be much happier in the Championship.

There's quite literally zero consistency. It's appalling how bad it is.

I wouldn't mind as much if it were just the ref's call in the moment – keeping the flow and feel of the game intact. Sometimes you just have to accept those decisions as 'one of those things.'

But instead, the game gets stopped while they try to apply objective standards to subjective situations (and vice versa), and then the media amplifies every controversial decision and dissects it to the nth degree, offering little to no substantial insights/analysis.

It's thoroughly exhausting.

corporal jones wrote: ↑

Tue Aug 19, 2025 8:47 pm

Not as clear cut. Not in possession of the ball. No football fan should want penalties for that.

No football fan should want penalties for the proper application of the law? Guess I'm not a proper football fan after all these years.

If that's the other way round and Esteve takes out Richarlison in the same circumstances Michael Oliver doesn't even hesitate to give a peno every single time. Kidding yourself on if you think anything else.

It was a penalty...

ClaretPete001 wrote: ↑

Tue Aug 19, 2025 10:49 pm

It was a penalty...

Dermot Gallagher on RefWatch Monday morning, SSN described it as a coming together.

ClaretPete001 wrote: ↑

Tue Aug 19, 2025 10:49 pm

It was a penalty...

But it really shouldn't have been

It really doesn’t make a difference if Tarkowski’s hands were by his side in a ‘natural position’ as he made a conscious effort to move his arms, along with the rest of his body towards the ball. Tarkowski’s failed attempt at blocking the ball with his chest prevented Leeds a shot on target.

I don’t imagine for one minute that the people saying it wasn’t a penalty would have the same view if Burnley were denied a penalty for the same incident. And I think a lot of the frustration comes from the fact that next time an almost identical scenario occurs it would be a toss of a coin as to whether a penalty was given or not such is the inconsistency in on-field decisions and the ‘clear and obvious error’ remit of the VAR.

Wokingclaret wrote: ↑

Tue Aug 19, 2025 11:04 pm

But it really shouldn't have been

I meant the one on Anthony.

ClaretPete001 wrote: ↑

Tue Aug 19, 2025 11:22 pm

I meant the one on Anthony.

Well, yes if last night's was given

Wokingclaret wrote: ↑

Tue Aug 19, 2025 11:25 pm

Well, yes if last night's was given

On the basis of what Neville said on Tarky "He knew what he as doing" so did the Spurs player

Rileybobs wrote: ↑

Tue Aug 19, 2025 11:13 pm

It really doesn’t make a difference if Tarkowski’s hands were by his side in a ‘natural position’ as he made a conscious effort to move his arms, along with the rest of his body towards the ball. Tarkowski’s failed attempt at blocking the ball with his chest prevented Leeds a shot on target.

I don’t imagine for one minute that the people saying it wasn’t a penalty would have the same view if Burnley were denied a penalty for the same incident. And I think a lot of the frustration comes from the fact that next time an almost identical scenario occurs it would be a toss of a coin as to whether a penalty was given or not such is the inconsistency in on-field decisions and the ‘clear and obvious error’ remit of the VAR.

Give we have arms attached to our bodies I'm not sure how he could do anything else.

But I agree ultimately inconsistency is the issue but in this case he did abut the only thing he could and made as much of an effort as possible to get his arms out of the way.

Rileybobs wrote: ↑

Tue Aug 19, 2025 11:13 pm

It really doesn’t make a difference if Tarkowski’s hands were by his side in a ‘natural position’ as he made a conscious effort to move his arms, along with the rest of his body towards the ball. Tarkowski’s failed attempt at blocking the ball with his chest prevented Leeds a shot on target.

I don’t imagine for one minute that the people saying it wasn’t a penalty would have the same view if Burnley were denied a penalty for the same incident. And I think a lot of the frustration comes from the fact that next time an almost identical scenario occurs it would be a toss of a coin as to whether a penalty was given or not such is the inconsistency in on-field decisions and the ‘clear and obvious error’ remit of the VAR.

Its a deflected shot. He hasn't used his arms to prevent this

A poor man's Devils Advocate

Wokingclaret wrote: ↑

Tue Aug 19, 2025 11:26 pm

On the basis of what Neville said on Tarky "He knew what he as doing" so did the Spurs player

Gary Neville is a terrible advocate for anything. An absolute charlatan

It was in the script to give DL a winning start a totally outrageous decision never a penalty

Football has always been a game of argument over refereeing decisions, the difference now is the extensive media exposure. We've moved on considerably from the past, probably to unacceptable levels in my opinion.
I suggest we get on with the rest of the season and maybe use bad refereeing decisions against us to create a bit more atmosphere on the Turf. It's certainly needed.

The Tarks one is a pen for me. I’ve read a few experts saying his arm is in a natural position. The opposite is true as he is trying to hide his arm behind his side which is actually unnatural. He leans towards it with his body ensuring the ball hits him. It all happens as an instinctive reaction off a deflection but has to be a pen because of intent, the unnatural position and the distance the ball has travelled.

My issue as always will be the next one and how it is applied similarly if it’s for a smaller team away from home.

ClaretPete001 wrote: ↑

Tue Aug 19, 2025 11:27 pm

Give we have arms attached to our bodies I'm not sure how he could do anything else.

But I agree ultimately inconsistency is the issue but in this case he did abut the only thing he could and made as much of an effort as possible to get his arms out of the way.

Well he could have not moved towards the ball to block it, it's quite simple. The ball wasn't hitting his arm until he moved towards it to block it. I'm surprised there's so many people that think it isn't a penalty.

Damo wrote: ↑

Wed Aug 20, 2025 12:36 am

Its a deflected shot. He hasn't used his arms to prevent this

A poor man's Devils Advocate

I've explained why it's a penalty and why you're wrong. No idea what the reference to Devil's Advocate is about, you just come across as a sad little twitter troll.

Hibsclaret wrote: ↑

Wed Aug 20, 2025 8:30 am

The Tarks one is a pen for me. I’ve read a few experts saying his arm is in a natural position. The opposite is true as he is trying to hide his arm behind his side which is actually unnatural. He leans towards it with his body ensuring the ball hits him. It all happens as an instinctive reaction off a deflection but has to be a pen because of intent, the unnatural position and the distance the ball has travelled.

My issue as always will be the next one and how it is applied similarly if it’s for a smaller team away from home.

His arm isn’t in a position that makes his body unnaturally bigger, which is the law.

“touches the ball with their hand/arm when it has made their body unnaturally bigger. A player is considered to have made their body unnaturally bigger when the position of their hand/arm is not a consequence of, or justifiable by, the player’s body movement for that specific situation.”

His arm is in an entirely justifiable position, given it was tight to his body and not outstretched. It’s absolutely not handball. The fact that the ref even told Tarkowski that having his arm by his side meant it wasn’t handball shows how wrong a decision it was.

The point about "arm in an unnatural position" is that when the ball hits a player and he can't do anything about it, it's a penalty only if his arm is out in an unnatural position where it shouldn't be. If Tarkowski had been stood there with no time to get out of the way, it wouldn't have been handball.

Tarkowski was different. He deliberately moved towards the ball in an attempt to block the shot legally, but didn't get far enough across and so he blocked it illegally. It's very like one that Joe Gallagher got sent off for against Telford in 1985 - he moved across the line to block the shot and his arm moved with him - handball.

Nope.

Damo wrote: ↑

Wed Aug 20, 2025 12:38 am

Gary Neville is a terrible advocate for anything. An absolute charlatan

Let's move forward to the Manchester United vs Liverpool game, where one of the players has a penalty given against them in identical fashion to the one Tarkowski was penalised for.

Hands up who thinks Neville and Carragher will have the same mindset as Monday night.

quoonbeatz wrote: ↑

Wed Aug 20, 2025 1:00 pm

His arm isn’t in a position that makes his body unnaturally bigger, which is the law.

“touches the ball with their hand/arm when it has made their body unnaturally bigger. A player is considered to have made their body unnaturally bigger when the position of their hand/arm is not a consequence of, or justifiable by, the player’s body movement for that specific situation.”

His arm is in an entirely justifiable position, given it was tight to his body and not outstretched. It’s absolutely not handball. The fact that the ref even told Tarkowski that having his arm by his side meant it wasn’t handball shows how wrong a decision it was.

Spot on.

quoonbeatz wrote: ↑

Wed Aug 20, 2025 1:00 pm

His arm isn’t in a position that makes his body unnaturally bigger, which is the law.

“touches the ball with their hand/arm when it has made their body unnaturally bigger. A player is considered to have made their body unnaturally bigger when the position of their hand/arm is not a consequence of, or justifiable by, the player’s body movement for that specific situation.”

His arm is in an entirely justifiable position, given it was tight to his body and not outstretched. It’s absolutely not handball. The fact that the ref even told Tarkowski that having his arm by his side meant it wasn’t handball shows how wrong a decision it was.

That is just about my take on the decision.

This is a law, so damn flawed, that they have men when defending in the box, with arms clamped behind their backs like they are on their way to the cells. A law that worked pretty well for over a hundred years and is now immeasurably worse for people tinkering and messing with it on what seems like an annual basis.

For me, it's one of those few decisions that is correct either way, it should be the referee making that decision though.

(The Tarkowski handball).

The Anthony incident should have been a penalty and a sending off.

TsarBomba wrote: ↑

Tue Aug 19, 2025 8:54 pm

The inconsistencies are terrible.

I read earlier that Alison held the ball longer than 8 seconds a total of 4 times during Liverpools opener, but wasn’t penalised once. You have the Bournemouth player flicking the ball away and nothing given, and then Tarks punished last night.

I despise the PL and if we weren’t in this **** show of needing to be here to pay off our huge debts, I’d be much happier in the Championship.

amen

equinox wrote: ↑

Wed Aug 20, 2025 5:46 pm

The Anthony incident should have been a penalty and a sending off.

Why a sending off?

corporal jones wrote: ↑

Tue Aug 19, 2025 8:47 pm

Not as clear cut. Not in possession of the ball. No football fan should want penalties for that.

I’d be interested to read the rule that says “if the fouled player does not have possession of the football, then an infringement of the rules has not taken place and a free kick/penalty will not be awarded”

bobinho wrote: ↑

Wed Aug 20, 2025 7:09 pm

I’d be interested to read the rule that says “if the fouled player does not have possession of the football, then an infringement of the rules has not taken place and a free kick/penalty will not be awarded”

Precisely this.

From what VAR official said ~ (Anthony) wasn't going to get to it / not in posession of the football, they're basically inferring that it's ok to run and push players over no matter where on the pitch.

It's nothing to do with whether he has the ball or not.

CoolClaret wrote: ↑

Wed Aug 20, 2025 7:32 pm

Precisely this.

From what VAR official said ~ (Anthony) wasn't going to get to it / not in posession of the football, they're basically inferring that it's ok to run and push players over no matter where on the pitch.

It's nothing to do with whether he has the ball or not.

How could they be 100% sure the ball wasn't going to hit the corner flag?

CoolClaret wrote: ↑

Wed Aug 20, 2025 7:32 pm

Precisely this.

From what VAR official said ~ (Anthony) wasn't going to get to it / not in posession of the football, they're basically inferring that it's ok to run and push players over no matter where on the pitch.

It's nothing to do with whether he has the ball or not.

Not for the first time, VAR are making decisions based on pub chat, and not applying the laws of the game

As long as the ball is in play, then it is completely irrelevant where the ball is

boatshed bill wrote: ↑

Wed Aug 20, 2025 9:14 pm

How could they be 100% sure the ball wasn't going to hit the corner flag?

... don't give them any idea BB!

CoolClaret wrote: ↑

Wed Aug 20, 2025 10:42 pm

... don't give them any idea BB!

While the ball is in play anything is possible. That was a nailed on penalty.
I'm reminded of VK's PL season when I firmly believe we were harshly treated.

For me the thing that p****s me off the most with officiating at the top level is the vast lack of consistency from one game to the next! It’s ridiculous really, and inevitably leaves supporters wondering if their team is being unfairly treated whilst the big boys often seem to get away with it.

Review the burnley non penalty. Nothing in the laws that mentions elsewhere on the pitch. Its a clear push in the box .it's irrelevant where the ball is. For instance. If say spurs had just taken a corner the ball in play and their gk at the other end rushes up to a burnley player and punches him it's a free kick from where the incident took place . So the fact that anthony is not in a position to collect the ball when he's pushed is not the issue. Its whether a foul occurred and a push in someone's back is a foul

Rileybobs wrote: ↑

Wed Aug 20, 2025 8:56 am

I've explained why it's a penalty and why you're wrong. No idea what the reference to Devil's Advocate is about, you just come across as a sad little twitter troll.

A poor man's DA was actually a compliment. Didn't realise you were being serious sorry

TsarBomba wrote: ↑

Tue Aug 19, 2025 8:54 pm

I despise the PL and if we weren’t in this **** show of needing to be here to pay off our huge debts, I’d be much happier in the Championship.

I can never understand anyone who says they would rather stay in the championship. To do that you are hoping your team never finish in the top two for automatic promotion or the top six for a playoff spot. So what’s the point? Mid table mediocrity or a relegation battle every season. Would anyone really be happy with that?