Not a pen, but probably given as a foul everywhere else on the pitch.

comment by junction8 (U1074)
posted 4 minutes ago
Not a pen, but probably given as a foul everywhere else on the pitch.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah that needs to stop. A foul is a foul. This whole “inside the box means its not a foul” is ridiculous.

And yes, i think it was a pen. Once again, did VAR even look at it?

comment by BISS Bash BOSSED (U8366)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by junction8 (U1074)
posted 4 minutes ago
Not a pen, but probably given as a foul everywhere else on the pitch.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah that needs to stop. A foul is a foul. This whole “inside the box means its not a foul” is ridiculous.

And yes, i think it was a pen. Once again, did VAR even look at it?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Think they did.....

Didn't they conclude he'd rather into the post.

comment by junction8 (U1074)
posted 2 minutes ago
Not a pen, but probably given as a foul everywhere else on the pitch.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I personally think it's a penalty. Extremely harsh but by the letter of the law it's a foul, it's dangerous play.

Although they have probably set a dangerous precedent after Doku did similar, albeit that one was more clear cut.

comment by BISS Bash BOSSED (U8366)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by junction8 (U1074)
posted 4 minutes ago
Not a pen, but probably given as a foul everywhere else on the pitch.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah that needs to stop. A foul is a foul. This whole “inside the box means its not a foul” is ridiculous.

And yes, i think it was a pen. Once again, did VAR even look at it?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They looked at it for quite a long time. Whilst you say a foul is a foul anywhere they clearly keep repeating that penalties have a higher bar, for some reason.

To be honest, at the time - I couldn't believe our luck. About to get gifted a nailed on penalty from nowhere, I can't remember what the score line was at the time.

I was really surprised it wasn't given. As the op says, wouldn't have changed the result and we certainly didn't deserve anything from the game - but I did find it really odd.

Also, first time in a long time I have seen a ref give a penalty for a defender's follow through challenge on Gvardiol - after his shot went off target. Normally once the shot has been taken the sliding defender has licence to clatter the shot taker and receive no punishment. Meh

comment by Realistic_Spurs_Fan (U7921)
posted 1 minute ago
Also, first time in a long time I have seen a ref give a penalty for a defender's follow through challenge on Gvardiol - after his shot went off target. Normally once the shot has been taken the sliding defender has licence to clatter the shot taker and receive no punishment. Meh
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That was never a penalty. Poor officiating and exactly wtf is VAR for if it doesn't overtrun decisions like that?

I was too busy laughing at how inept Spurs are to really care... Just glad he didn't hurt himself

comment by PhilspursFGR (U3278)
posted 7 minutes ago
To be honest, at the time - I couldn't believe our luck. About to get gifted a nailed on penalty from nowhere, I can't remember what the score line was at the time.

I was really surprised it wasn't given. As the op says, wouldn't have changed the result and we certainly didn't deserve anything from the game - but I did find it really odd.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wasn't it 4-2 !?!?

Yeah it was 4-2 so could have made the last 10 very interesting

Yeah, the defender should have let him score.

!?!?

So because he had to try and do something, means it wasn't a foul !?

I was surprised a penalty wasn’t given tbh. It was 4-2 at the time so assuming Son had scored the resulting penalty, incredibly Liverpool might have been hanging on at the end.

For what it's worth when I first saw it I didn't think there was anything wrong with the challenge but on replay I certainly, imo anyway, feel it could/should have been a foul and hence a pen, I can see why there is debate about it from both sides however

comment by Realistic_Spurs_Fan (U7921)
posted 35 minutes ago
Also, first time in a long time I have seen a ref give a penalty for a defender's follow through challenge on Gvardiol - after his shot went off target. Normally once the shot has been taken the sliding defender has licence to clatter the shot taker and receive no punishment. Meh
----------------------------------------------------------------------
As they say, that's a foul anywhere else on the pitch.

yh funny one isnt it, not much gomez can do he has to go for that, luckily it was clean and the damage was done by the post if anything.

It was a clear cut penalty. I think VAR were swayed by Gary Neville’s commentary

He cleared the ball. You’re never getting pens for that.

Same way if a striker does a bicycle kick he doesn’t get done for a high foot

comment by junction8 (U1074)
posted 1 hour, 34 minutes ago
comment by PhilspursFGR (U3278)
posted 7 minutes ago
To be honest, at the time - I couldn't believe our luck. About to get gifted a nailed on penalty from nowhere, I can't remember what the score line was at the time.

I was really surprised it wasn't given. As the op says, wouldn't have changed the result and we certainly didn't deserve anything from the game - but I did find it really odd.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wasn't it 4-2 !?!?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah that'd make sense, as I stopped watching for a large chunk of the game from about halftime, so it must have been after I decided to start vaguely paying attention again!

I guess you could argue it may have affected the result then in that case. We were robbed! Replay the match!

We are not getting a penalty at Klanfield, just like everybody else. It was a dangerous high boot that endangered an opponent and is a clear foul and penalty kick.

Last year it was Jota on Skipp and no red card was given, the year before Fabinho elbowing Son and nothing was given, etc etc etc

comment by Bats Uncensored (U18355)
posted 1 hour, 29 minutes ago
It was a clear cut penalty. I think VAR were swayed by Gary Neville’s commentary
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What about Gakpo getting brought down in the area? Neville said he was looking for it and went down easy.

If that was Havertz it would be a 100% nailed on pen.

comment by Thorgen Kloppinson (U1282)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Bats Uncensored (U18355)
posted 1 hour, 29 minutes ago
It was a clear cut penalty. I think VAR were swayed by Gary Neville’s commentary
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What about Gakpo getting brought down in the area? Neville said he was looking for it and went down easy.

If that was Havertz it would be a 100% nailed on pen.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Blatant pen that.

Let’s not even discuss the game earlier in the season.

high boots are called incredibly inconsistently

comment by Gaffer Pranky (U22336)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson (U1282)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Bats Uncensored (U18355)
posted 1 hour, 29 minutes ago
It was a clear cut penalty. I think VAR were swayed by Gary Neville’s commentary
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What about Gakpo getting brought down in the area? Neville said he was looking for it and went down easy.

If that was Havertz it would be a 100% nailed on pen.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Blatant pen that.

Let’s not even discuss the game earlier in the season.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah.