Should it have been a penalty?

[StensonRam]

Exactly this on both the last 2 posts, its a dangerous precedent to set awarding penalties on how you go over and not whether there was contact or not, its too subjective while contact isn't

[StensonRam]

Results went our way today, forest beating wolves and cardiff not being able to get anything at sheff wed, but if only we put away one of our chances the table would of looked just that rosier tonight, arghhhhh!

[ManxRam]

Wins for Villa, Boro, Sheff Utd and Fulham bunched it all up again though.

[MadAmster]

Perfectly correct. the ref had 2 different issues to address. The 2nd one is clear cut. Jerome embellished the issue and was rightly given a yellow card. With that I have no issue.

No, the penalty ot not? To give it, the referee has to see it and judge it in a split second. He has apparently told GR that he wasn't sure. That means he either didn't see it OR he didn't see it properly OR he judged the contact not to have been a foul. I have yet to see the video to see where he was and if his visibility was impaired by players. Again, just because there was contact doesn't necessarily mean that a foul was committed, it is, after all, a contact sport. People who have seen the slo mo replayes are saying it was 100% a penalty. That may be the case that it should have been BUT none of us know what the ref thinks he saw or didn't see. THAT makes all out machinations irrelevant.

Quite simply, if he didn't see it, he couldn't give it.

If he did see it and decided it wasn't a foul then he made a mistake. Not his first in the game...................

[MadAmster]

Seen the video now. There was nothing in his line of sight so I do not understand that he didn't see it. That must mean that he didn't think it was a penalty or wasn't certain it was and decided not to give it.

[StensonRam]

And that's the point, it appears he didn't give it because of the way he went down, that part should be irrelevant to the situation, the fact remains he was tripped so was a foul, it's up to CJ how he falls otherwise the FL need to advise refs on whats genuine and what isn't but it's too subjective and the can't otherwise they're setting a dangerous precedent

[Romanis]

Honestly going over this is pointless. This wasn't the first time it's happened and won't be the last
And don't think VAR is all so good that it'll correct all these kinds of mistakes.
Yes it might but there's 1 huge downside to VAR from what I've seen in matches in the K-League, A'League and Bundesliga.
A lot of time is spent on it that isn't recompensated by injury time at the end of the half.

It's well and good if the decision goes your way, but if you're on the receiving end, there might not be enough time for you to recover. Worse it can stymie your momentum.

[StensonRam]

Yeah but we are right aren't we!

[MadAmster]

You can’t ‘lose a penalty’ by exaggerating the fall, can you? It’s either a foul or it isn’t...that was but it wasn’t given. I don’t blame Jerome at all...thought he looked quick, hungry and powerful when he came on.

Unfortunately, today's players can thank the divers who have conned the ref so often in the past into making mistakes and giving penalties that weren't. This one has said he wasn't sure. IF we give him the benefit of the doubt then it all happened so quickly he felt unable to make the decision. He had a perfect view of it IMO (having now seen the video).

Having said that, it appears Mr England is a newbie, witness the large number of errors he made. Not Championship standard yet IMO.

A lot seem to be buying into the "there was contact" argument they have been fed by pros and pundits for years. Contact alone is insufficient to warrant a foul being given. It is the manner of any contact that makes it a foul or not. In this case it was or should have been in any case.

[ramAnag]

Unfortunately, today's players can thank the divers who have conned the ref so often in the past into making mistakes and giving penalties that weren't. This one has said he wasn't sure. IF we give him the benefit of the doubt then it all happened so quickly he felt unable to make the decision. He had a perfect view of it IMO (having now seen the video).

Having said that, it appears Mr England is a newbie, witness the large number of errors he made. Not Championship standard yet IMO.

A lot seem to be buying into the "there was contact" argument they have been fed by pros and pundits for years. Contact alone is insufficient to warrant a foul being given. It is the manner of any contact that makes it a foul or not. In this case it was or should have been in any case.

I don’t get your untypical intransigence on this one MA.
Jerome was blatantly tripped in the penalty area. Flint knew it, the commentator knew it, seemingly everyone, except the officials, knew it.
To say now that he didn’t see enough to give the penalty but did see enough to book the player is completely absurd. I don’t have a problem with refs making mistakes but he can’t have it both ways. He made an error and his explanation has simply compounded it.

It’s not just modern players or a new phenomenon either. You and I are of the same vintage, may have even played against each other. Players like Allan Clarke, Rodney Marsh and Francis Lee, to name but three, are significantly older but were amongst the ‘greatest’ divers of all time.

As for the helpfulness or otherwise of VAR...it has been used well in rugby for years. Sure, there are occasions when it takes too long and can be inconclusive but in this instance, the penalty would have been given, Flint would have been booked and Jerome wouldn’t...and that’s what should have happened.