Penalty vs City

I said on the match thread immediately that it was never a penalty while many of the other comments were blaming PEH for being clumsy and saying definitely a penalty.

Gundogan made a good run and PEH was was slow to track him. When the ball reached the City player he tried to put his left foot on the ball but mis controlled it and he momentarily lost his footing causing his right foot to flick out and caught PEH. Could even have been intentional when he realised that he had lost the ball. Either way it was a wrong decision and we were hard done by although it would probably not have affected the outcome of the match.

Oh and Lloris should have saved the penalty having guessed right with his dive so double disappointment overall.

comment by Spurtle (U1608)
posted 3 hours, 52 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by Spurtle (U1608)
posted 33 seconds ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 7 minutes ago
Other pundits did pick it up though.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's fair enough, but the fact there were some pundits and commentators who didn't despite the access to slow mo replays is worrying.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I get it to an extent, but they may have just realised it’s a nonsensical argument and so not relevant.

They weren’t equal, Gundogan was ahead of Hojbjerg. That he made contact with him whilst in the act of turning and Hojbjergs other leg also made contact with the leg of Gundogans that caught him is further reason to give it, not less, as it shows he was coming in at completely the wrong angle.

If it’s a case of arguing Hojbjergs leg was there first, think about what that would mean for a lot of other fouls. It’s not just about the contact, it’s the positioning of the players and their actions up to it too. Gundogan got a bit lucky in that he didn’t control it at all anyway, but that doesn’t change Hojbjerg coming in way too square and at speed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I disagree. Can't really justify punishing Hojbjerg for Gundogan making contact with him first. I can't see a reason for Gundogan needing to plant his right foot out so much in the first place that it catches him, unless he is deliberately trying to make contact with Hojbjerg and hoping to win a pen from it?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
With City's record there is little point in them trying to gain penalty kicks, they are more likely to score from open play, as they proved in the second half. Rodri got lucky.

I've watched that "penalty" on tape replay and it was definitively NOT a penalty. It was a case of six-of-one and half-a-dozen of the other. Both players clashed, twice, and in the second clash it looks from some angles as though Hojbjerg trips Gundogan, but from other views Gundogan clearly trips over Hojbjerg.
The Ref just plain got it wrong.
Going in 0-0 at the half may well have resulted in different tactics for the second half.

comment by Everywhere you go always take Lamela with you. (U7905)
posted 9 hours, 20 minutes ago
I barely glance up from my phone when watching spurs these days, but looked a pen to me.

Made absolutely no difference to the game either way.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What kind of ‘supporter’ are you?
Spends all the time on his/her phone, and actively wanting the opposition to win.
I’m no Jose fan, never have been, but your approach is disgusting.

comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 16 hours, 26 minutes ago
comment by Spurtle (U1608)
posted 33 seconds ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 7 minutes ago
Other pundits did pick it up though.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's fair enough, but the fact there were some pundits and commentators who didn't despite the access to slow mo replays is worrying.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I get it to an extent, but they may have just realised it’s a nonsensical argument and so not relevant.

They weren’t equal, Gundogan was ahead of Hojbjerg. That he made contact with him whilst in the act of turning and Hojbjergs other leg also made contact with the leg of Gundogans that caught him is further reason to give it, not less, as it shows he was coming in at completely the wrong angle.

If it’s a case of arguing Hojbjergs leg was there first, think about what that would mean for a lot of other fouls. It’s not just about the contact, it’s the positioning of the players and their actions up to it too. Gundogan got a bit lucky in that he didn’t control it at all anyway, but that doesn’t change Hojbjerg coming in way too square and at speed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What a load of nonsense. Some people really don't know the game...

comment by gone but never forgotten (U21659)
posted 16 hours, 47 minutes ago
It was a clear penalty.

I notice none of you spuddies are talking about the ridiculous dive by Kane to win the free kick he hit the bar with. Salah would have been proud of that one.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A clear penalty.......for YOUR team, you say.......hmmmmmm

Up until this incorrectly awarded penalty we were well in the game and keeping £ity at arms length. After that, our players just gave up mentally (fatigue also a factor there) and were comprehensively outplayed.

comment by add912 (U9189)
posted 2 hours, 38 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 16 hours, 26 minutes ago
comment by Spurtle (U1608)
posted 33 seconds ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 7 minutes ago
Other pundits did pick it up though.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's fair enough, but the fact there were some pundits and commentators who didn't despite the access to slow mo replays is worrying.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I get it to an extent, but they may have just realised it’s a nonsensical argument and so not relevant.

They weren’t equal, Gundogan was ahead of Hojbjerg. That he made contact with him whilst in the act of turning and Hojbjergs other leg also made contact with the leg of Gundogans that caught him is further reason to give it, not less, as it shows he was coming in at completely the wrong angle.

If it’s a case of arguing Hojbjergs leg was there first, think about what that would mean for a lot of other fouls. It’s not just about the contact, it’s the positioning of the players and their actions up to it too. Gundogan got a bit lucky in that he didn’t control it at all anyway, but that doesn’t change Hojbjerg coming in way too square and at speed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What a load of nonsense. Some people really don't know the game...
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Clearly!

hugo should have saved the penalty anyway, but it was shoddy goal keeping, setting the tone for the rest of the rubbish on display.

Up until the 2nd goal we had fairly easily repelled City. Yes we offered little in reply but away at City on a 13 game win streak, one has to accept that we cannot go toe to toe.

In such circumstances it is also a well used tactic to keep it tight and then seek to take advantage later on. Loads of 'lesser' teams do it with us if they are still in the game with 20m to go, rather than opening up against a superior team from minute 1.

What cost us on Saturday was not a rubbish team display as some might put it but actually individual errors, including a penalty that really should not have stood.