Premier League Match Thread: Nottingham Forest Vs Fulham, sponsored by the PGMOL apology letter room | Page 14 | Vital Football

Premier League Match Thread: Nottingham Forest Vs Fulham, sponsored by the PGMOL apology letter room

So motd all said penalty too for the murillo penalty. I say the same as well yesterday and it was like I had seen something completely different on here.

4:45

 
the jock said:
So motd all said penalty too for the murillo penalty. I say the same as well yesterday and it was like I had seen something completely different on here.

4:45

Click to expand...
I'd like to see it properly. Was Pereira backing in and Murillo trying to stand his ground so he could jump for the cross?

It looks like he catches his heel anyway, so no real problem with VAR giving a penalty, but hooking Elanga's leg from under him is a more blatant penalty so why did VAR not tell the ref to give that one?
 
Feel people are being overly critical.
the jock said:
So motd all said penalty too for the murillo penalty. I say the same as well yesterday and it was like I had seen something completely different on here.

4:45

Click to expand...
You are misrepresenting the discussion and opinion which was about consistency and VAR rereffing decisions that could go either way.

I have no problem with that being referred to VAR and given a penalty if the same happens too for Anderson in the first half and Elanga second half.
 
the jock said:
So motd all said penalty too for the murillo penalty. I say the same as well yesterday and it was like I had seen something completely different on here.

4:45

Click to expand...
It's about consistency.

Ref did not give it.

We have had some absolutely outrageous penalty shouts turned down by VAR because of the "high bar" for calling out an obvious error by the referee.

I think you have a very hard time arguing that the ref turning that down was a "clear and obvious error". It wasn't. This was setting an extremely low bar for VAR to send him to the screen.

Then the Elanga one has more contact and more to it. But VAR backs the original decision saying there was minimal contact and not a clear and obvious error.

Two very similar situations, two completely different decisions.

A few weeks ago we had a pen turned down for a clear handball. But later in the match, so did Wolves; very similar incidents, ref gave the same decision for both. It would have benefited us for him to give both; ours was first, would have totally changed the game so the situation leading to theirs would not have happened.

But we can all live with that because the ref made a decision, it was reasonable and applied fairly to both teams.
 
the jock said:
So motd all said penalty too for the murillo penalty. I say the same as well yesterday and it was like I had seen something completely different on here.

4:45

Click to expand...
It was very harsh, but I suppose with the interpretation of the rules being what they are, it had to be given.

I thought our penalty at Brighton was harsh; harsh in the sense that it was never a penalty in a million fucking years - if that had been given against us there would have been uproar.
 
As long as you have people looking at TV screens making judgements on the level
Of contact then you will get inconsistencies the only people who really know the level of contact are those involved & sometimes particularly if a player is off balance or moving at speed then minimal contact is sufficient to bring them down. The whole thing is a farce they should just apply the same rules in the penalty area as they do over the rest of the pitch might mean a lot of penalties to start with but the players would soon get the hang of it and behave accordingly
 
seasider red said:
As long as you have people looking at TV screens making judgements on the level
Of contact then you will get inconsistencies the only people who really know the level of contact are those involved & sometimes particularly if a player is off balance or moving at speed then minimal contact is sufficient to bring them down. The whole thing is a farce they should just apply the same rules in the penalty area as they do over the rest of the pitch might mean a lot of penalties to start with but the players would soon get the hang of it and behave accordingly
Click to expand...
The same rules do apply in the penalty area as they do in all other areas of the pitch; they are just not interpretted like that by the officials.
 
orbitalforest said:
Remember Williams getting his achilles trod on last season against West Ham ? Much more of a penalty than the Murillo one yesterday but surprise, surprise not given , it's a fucking farce.
Click to expand...
I hate when players stop when they run up to take a pen. I thought it wasn't allowed, and HE did it TWICE. It's unfair to the goalie, and it's unsporting.

New rule should be if the taker stops on the way, the goalie can come off his line. That would cut it out.
 
trickynumber5 said:
I hate when players stop when they run up to take a pen. I thought it wasn't allowed, and HE did it TWICE. It's unfair to the goalie, and it's unsporting.

New rule should be if the taker stops on the way, the goalie can come off his line. That would cut it out.
Click to expand...
In reality, if you use a 5000fps camera, he actually stopped, literally, 50 times, actually.
 
mao tse tung said:
It was very harsh, but I suppose with the interpretation of the rules being what they are, it had to be given.

I thought our penalty at Brighton was harsh; harsh in the sense that it was never a penalty in a million fucking years - if that had been given against us there would have been uproar.
Click to expand...

Can't have hands on the back of an opponent unfortunately
 
In true Sky sports fashion theirs as a pen none of ours were according to dermot gallagher sticking up for his mates as usual though Sue Smith thought at least one of ours was
 
Not feeling the Taiwo one, but Elanga's was close. It's minimal contact, but it's the timing of that contact. He's jumped over the player on the floor, and his foot gets kicked when he's still in the air. It moves the leg he's landing on from under him, you can see his ankle buckle because it isn't beneath him anymore when he actually lands. The contact isn't hard, and had his foot been planted it wouldn't have knocked him over. But it was enough to move a leg with absolutely no weight on it and did, in my opinion at least, genuinely take Elanga down. Still a soft pen, but so was theirs. I don't see there being a big difference between the two, other than VARs shifting threshold to get involved.

The Hudson-Odoi pen last week was definitely a penalty, and I wouldn't have complained if it was given against us. Just as I felt the MGW second yellow was correct as I'd have been fuming if an opposition player didn't get a 2nd yellow for that tackle.
 
mao tse tung said:
It was very harsh, but I suppose with the interpretation of the rules being what they are, it had to be given.

I thought our penalty at Brighton was harsh; harsh in the sense that it was never a penalty in a million fucking years - if that had been given against us there would have been uproar.
Click to expand...
I think you’re wrong on both accounts

The ref didn’t give it and there’s nowhere near enough in it to be overturned by VAR using this years new interpretations

The CHO one was absolutely a penalty. Had to be given and by the same reason, no clear and obvious error by the ref.

Struggling to see your point on this one Mao, outside of differing opinions
 
finbar70 said:
I think you’re wrong on both accounts

The ref didn’t give it and there’s nowhere near enough in it to be overturned by VAR using this years new interpretations

The CHO one was absolutely a penalty. Had to be given and by the same reason, no clear and obvious error by the ref.

Struggling to see your point on this one Mao, outside of differing opinions
Click to expand...
The CHO is pretty straightforward, it was six of one and half a dozen of the other; CHO did not even have control of the ball so the defender had every right to go in like he did - if that had happened outside the box it would not have been a foul.

There was far more in the Fulham penalty but it was still borderline for me.
 
After Chelsea and the international break we have Palace at home, Leicester away and then back to back home games against West Ham and Newcastle - think we’ve got to aim for 9 points if we can. Anything less than 7 will be disappointing.
 
Will.NFFC said:
After Chelsea and the international break we have Palace at home, Leicester away and then back to back home games against West Ham and Newcastle - think we’ve got to aim for 9 points if we can. Anything less than 7 will be disappointing.
Click to expand...

7 points from those 5 games would be great and keep us well on track for mid table

Any more amazing

9 points from those games very tough

No wonder you get easily disappointed will!!

You have to be more realistic about how hard the EPL is?

There's no easy games home or away and you always need luck and var on side as well

Any one of those teams would be hoping or expecting to get a result against us themselves.

Best side doesn't always win. Which sometimes will help us and sometimes won't as well
 
You must log in or register to reply here.