Should it have been a penalty?

[Rob_the_Ram]

We know it wasn’t given but should it have been?

IMO - I cannot see a how it could not have been given.

The ref seemed in a great position to see the contact.

My view from roughly centre of West Upper in real time was it was a foul tackle.

Since seeing the replays on SKY, is there any doubt?

Jerome may have exaggerated the fall but how do we know, or the ref for that matter.

Is the first offence (the tackle that didn’t contact the ball but did contact the player impeding his progress) OVERRULED if the ref believes that some playacting took place following that?

Rowett said in his RD interview that the referee told him “he wasn’t sure”.
How does that stack up then against then booking Jerome?
So he can be unsure if contact was made or not and yet be positive that simulation was in play!


I saw a bloke take a tumble down a few steps on the way out of the stand at the end of the game.
I’d would have stopped to help him but couldn’t be sure if the launching of his walking stick about 8 foot in the air as he went down was genuine.

[Romanis]

Not a penalty.

[ManxRam]

Not a penalty.

Why's that Romanis?

Both managers thought it was as did every commentator and pundit.

[Romanis]

Isn't it obvious, shouldn't he know better at his age and experience? Why the **** go and dive like that? That's not a natural fall. How many refs give penalties for dives like that? Just fall normally. Pah!

[Manofpride]

He dived like that because before that incident he got fa for the other foul. Think he was trying trying to show the bloke with the Labrador and white stick what happened! A foul in the penalty area is a penalty end of!

[MadAmster]

When will players learn that football is still, not as much as it was, granted, a contact sport? Contact alone is NOT enough to warrant emulating a dying swan or going down like you have been poleaxed. There was contact, 100% agree on that. The question is, was there sufficient contact to bring the man down? The ref wasn't sure there was. Neither was I. Jerome then started to fall and halfway through that fall he did the swan dive. IMO, the embellishment cost him the decision. It will have pushed the ref towards thinking "insufficient contact to warrant a foul being given". The referee's guidelines are clear, if in doubt, it's not a foul. I fully understand this one not being given and the yellow card as the logic is that if the contact wasn't sufficient to cause a fall then the dying swan act was designed to coerce a penalty.

Having said that, a couple of minutes earlier when Jerome was manhandled in the area most definitely was a penalty. That more than likely led Jerome to think that he had to make it "look good" and caused him to go into dive mode. I am convinced that had he tried to stay upright or simply fallen then he would have got the decision despite the contact not being sufficient to bring him down.

[Romanis]

When will players learn that football is still, not as much as it was, granted, a contact sport? Contact alone is NOT enough to warrant emulating a dying swan or going down like you have been poleaxed. There was contact, 100% agree on that. The question is, was there sufficient contact to bring the man down? The ref wasn't sure there was. Neither was I. Jerome then started to fall and halfway through that fall he did the swan dive. IMO, the embellishment cost him the decision. It will have pushed the ref towards thinking "insufficient contact to warrant a foul being given". The referee's guidelines are clear, if in doubt, it's not a foul. I fully understand this one not being given and the yellow card as the logic is that if the contact wasn't sufficient to cause a fall then the dying swan act was designed to coerce a penalty.

Having said that, a couple of minutes earlier when Jerome was manhandled in the area most definitely was a penalty. That more than likely led Jerome to think that he had to make it "look good" and caused him to go into dive mode. I am convinced that had he tried to stay upright or simply fallen then he would have got the decision despite the contact not being sufficient to bring him down.

And that m'lud, is the case for the defense. Not guilty because of reasonable doubt raised.

[Ramfantastic]

Utter rubbish its nothing to do with any dive, if there was enough contact then its a penalty, if he did not go down he certainly would not have been given a penalty, so your damned if you do and your damned if you don't!
The referee again got it wrong and lets face it he got many decisions wrong.
The standard of refereeing is generally terrible and something must be done, these 2 points lost because of this idiot could cost us £100M at the end of the season.
Well paid and c**p at his job!

[mistaram]

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

[ramAnag]

Agree totally with Ramfantastic, MoP and mista. Nailed on penalty and Sky, as well as the referee should be ashamed of themselves.
Watched it back since and the commentator had only just finished questioning whether Jerome would have ‘won’ a penalty moments earlier if he had gone down more extravagantly then, when he has his ankle taken, the same commentator criticised him for ‘diving’. ‘kin ridiculous...he was fouled in the box and that’s a penalty...end of...and McClaren’s comment...’should have been a penalty and a booking for diving’ - however tongue in cheek - was equally stupid.