Should it have been a penalty?

[MadAmster]

Anybody who thinks that wasn't a definite penalty is either blind or biased Even Aiden Flint said he got away with it The refs job is to decide if it was a foul which it most definitely was Its totally irrelevant how the player falls For the ref to say he wasn't sure is just a cop out Has anybody ever seen a penalty given other than handball when a player has stayed on his feet

.... and that is what I dislike. I grew up when football was a sport and sporting behaviour was the norm. A player stayed on his feet whenever possible. Please can we go back to that?

[StensonRam]

If we'd of had VAR a quick look would have confirmed there was contact, its totally irrelevant what happened after that surely, are we now saying theres a certain way to fall and falling in a way the ref deems the wrong way and won't be a penalty irrespective of whether there was genuine contact. The VAR would of confirmed he made a meal of the falling aspect but it would of shown he didn't fall/dive without any contact, contact was made so it should of been a penalty

[mistaram]

MadaAmster yes I agree I played in that era but we are not in that era now I hate diving especially when no contact has been made You admitted 100% it was a penalty So if Jerome had stayed on his feet he would have got it what world do you live in You admit when he stayed on his feet it was a penalty Nobody in to days game will ever get anything for staying on their feet all will be doing is making the refs decision for them In this instance its to easy to say he wasn't sure he had an uninterrupted veiw no excuse for a diabolical decision

[Rob_the_Ram]

[QUOTE=MadAmster;38768641].... and that is what I dislike. I grew up when football was a sport and sporting behaviour was the norm. A player stayed on his feet whenever possible. Please can we go back to that?[/QUOTE

I don’t know the rule book definition of a foul? Anyone know it?

This rubbish about enough contact to bring the player down. Why do they have to go down?
But how many tackles where the player does all he can to stay on his feet when a foul has been committed result in free kick in the box.

Compare that to the slightest of shirt pull which is an obvious act and almost certainly, if seen, results in a foul.
Yet how many shirt pull cause the player to fall??

To me, reviewing that incident with VAR should have resulted in a penalty - if only VAR was in use.
However in the Chelsea game, very similar happened to Willian (legs taken by defender) in box and Willian was booked for diving.
There was VAR in that games and yet the refs decision stands.
Pundits and professionals within the camps were amazed.

I think the only reason I am more vocal about the Jerome incident IS the introduction within the game ( even if not in this match ) of VAR. Refs sometimes need help but some refs like the chump yesterday, have a mentality of act first before bringing together all the help at there disposal, with or without VAR.

If the ref didn’t see clear contact (understandable), he could have nipped over to the Lino for a quick what did you see question.
But no, the decision was immediate. Whistle blown and yellow card produced. No consultation with anyone part of officiating at the game.

To me what should happen in things like this is the Lino should be asked, after the game, what he saw. If he didn’t see the “foul” either, these poor decisions should rank in standard the refs and Lino’s are officiating at anyway. Yesterday, on both sides, the Ref just plainly got things wrong. At what point is can he actually do the job well enough in the first place decided?

[Andy_Faber]

If we'd of had VAR a quick look would have confirmed there was contact, its totally irrelevant what happened after that surely, are we now saying theres a certain way to fall and falling in a way the ref deems the wrong way and won't be a penalty irrespective of whether there was genuine contact. The VAR would of confirmed he made a meal of the falling aspect but it would of shown he didn't fall/dive without any contact, contact was made so it should of been a penalty

Correct, per the rules as repeated drilled into me by a bitter fan and local league official in a cafe on The Strand where I'd gone earlier for some peace and quiet! Apparently there were two seperate incidents - the foul or non-foul, which the World can now see the ref got wrong, and the dive or non-dive, which he got right (Opportunity for an Oscar there), APPARENTLY as it is a seperate incident the ref could have given a pen and STILL booked him for 'simulation'.

A lesson from history - remember the non-pen against Burnley a few years back? Martin was (genuinely) felled in the area at 0-0, the ref got it wrong, and sent him off for diving? And we gave a goal away soon after, and lost. That was a turning point in that season, lets hope this one isn't.

[ramAnag]

Correct, per the rules as repeated drilled into me by a bitter fan and local league official in a cafe on The Strand where I'd gone earlier for some peace and quiet! Apparently there were two seperate incidents - the foul or non-foul, which the World can now see the ref got wrong, and the dive or non-dive, which he got right (Opportunity for an Oscar there), APPARENTLY as it is a seperate incident the ref could have given a pen and STILL booked him for 'simulation'.

A lesson from history - remember the non-pen against Burnley a few years back? Martin was (genuinely) felled in the area at 0-0, the ref got it wrong, and sent him off for diving? And we gave a goal away soon after, and lost. That was a turning point in that season, lets hope this one isn't.

As Stenson says, ‘he didn’t fall/dive without any contact, contact was made so it should have been a penalty’. That’s all there is to it.
Beyond that, maybe we have to consider context. Without wishing to criticise Martin, even the most ardent supporter will concede that he is a ‘diver’. He takes some stick but he is a ‘cheat’ in that respect and will sometimes, because of his reputation, reap what he sows.
I don’t think Jerome has the same reputation and, again to put it into context, the ref had missed so much last night that perhaps CJ felt the need to ‘spell it out to him’. The booking should be rescinded imo but doubtless it won’t be.

[AdiSalisbury]

Should have been a penalty, no doubt. But the dying swan act, IMO, convinced the referee otherwise. They say players win penalties, in this instance, Jerome lost us one.

Bad luck, hopefully will learn from the experience. Still a good point, and gives me confidence that we're capable against our rivals.

[ManxRam]

Especially when Forest are 2 up at wolves

[ramAnag]

Should have been a penalty, no doubt. But the dying swan act, IMO, convinced the referee otherwise. They say players win penalties, in this instance, Jerome lost us one.

Bad luck, hopefully will learn from the experience. Still a good point, and gives me confidence that we're capable against our rivals.

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.

[Ram59]

What next, goals disallowed for over celebrating?