Gomez Penalty Shout
Some nice footwork from Victor Moses played in Jordi Gomez who took a touch past Ashley Cole before going to ground and claiming a penalty. The referee waved play on, but should Wigan have been given a chance to open the scoring from the spot?
Simon M – “I initially thought that Gomez had been clipped, but replays showed that he basically threw himself on the ground in a bid to cheat the ref. I would have liked to have seen him carded for that, poor show.”
Ben – “I think Gomez stumbles and then tries to make something of it by making contact with the opposing defender, there was no foul and I’m pretty sure Gomez knows it too.”
Ant – “No chance was this a penalty, Gomez just fell over plain and simple.”
Mike – “Moses is starting to show some real form of late and he’s been involved in numerous penalty shouts recently. I hesitate at calling it a dive because I don’t think he deliberately goes over with the intention of deceiving the officials. I think his momentum takes him over. No foul, though.”
Simon F – “There is barely any contact, and certainly Gomez is not impeded in any way.”
Overall Verdict – Correct Decision
Ivanovic Handball In Area
The ball broke on the edge of the area and a thunderbolt of a shot was fired towards Chelsea’s goal, Branislav Ivanovic found himself in it’s path and replays seemed to show that in blocking it the ball hit his arm. Was it intentional? Should Wigan have been awarded a penalty?
Simon M – “Ivanovic couldn’t have done anything more to get his arms out of the ball’s path and if it hadn’t hit his arm it would have hit his chest, no penalty.”
Ben – “Ivanovic’s arms are tucked in and the ball comes at him so ferociously that what looks like an attempt to get his arms out of the way actually fails. Again, nothing in this one.”
Ant – “The ball does hit his arm but it is not a penalty as his arms are in and not flung out to try and stop the ball.”
Mike – “It’s surprising how the concept of deliberateness has been lost when examining balls hitting arms these days. If a ball makes blatant contact with an arm, even experienced pundits will often say it should have been a penalty, completely ignoring the level of intent to handle. In this case, Ivanovic tucks his arms well and truly in and, although he does appear to turn his arm into the path of the ball, this no different to the trouble goalkeepers have in judging the flight of the ball. This is not a deliberate handball for me.”
Simon F – “There is clear contact between the ball and Ivanovic’s arm, but he has his arm tucked down by his side and is trying to turn away from the ball. No intent and therefore no penalty.”
Overall Verdict – Correct Decision
Diame Elbow On Lampard
A coming together in the centre of the pitch resulted in Lampard being treated for a cut to his mouth. Replays showed his face connecting with the Wigan midfielder’s elbow, was it accident or not?
Simon M – “Good to see Lampard not make a fuss about it, he just moved to the side of the pitch for treatment, some players might have thrown themselves to the ground and rolled around for a while, even though they knew it was an accident.”
Ben – “The video replays aren’t conclusive, I’m not sure I even see the elbow. It looks to me like Lampard is holding onto Diame and it’s his attempts to get free that cause the incident.”
Ant – “Not intentional at all and didn’t deserve any booking.”
Mike – “It’s hard to even make out contact here, although Lampard’s bloody orifice is proof that contact occured. I see nothing deliberate, though.”
Simon F – “A tough one to tell from the camera angles, but I don’t think there was any intent on Diame’s part. A simple coming together which had unfortunate results for Lampard.”
Overall Verdict – Correct Decision
Dann Goal Offside Call
Blackburn’s goal came from a knock down by Chris Samba, which Scott Dann converted. West Brom claimed that Dann was in an offside position when Samba headed the ball on, but the flag stayed down. Off or on?
Simon M – “It’s the finest of margins for both Dann being offside and the ball moving forwards, but I think the margin is there. Can’t expect officials to get decisions like these right all the time, I don’t even think the replay is conclusive.”
Ben – “Incredibly difficult to be sure, so sympathy for the linesman on this one, I think it’s close and I’m siding with the official. Looked level. Just.”
Ant – “Although this is an extremely tight decision I think Dann was slightly offside when Samba headed the ball on.”
Mike – “This is genuinely about as marginal as it gets. Firstly, you have to consider whether Dann is being played on by the defenders around Samba. If he isn’t, and is therefore in an offside position, does Samba’s header move forwards, as it has to to be given offside? Both calls are so tight. I can see this being divisive. Having looked as closely as possible, I think Dann is offside by the tiniest margin, and the header also goes ever so slightly forwards. For that reason, I’m saying it should have been offside, but I don’t blame the linesman for not spotting it. There comes a point where we have to recognise the officials are human and, after all, I’m struggling to be sure with the aid of a video replay.”
Simon F – “Dann is clearly beyond the final West Brom defender, but he is level with Samba and therefore, by my interpretation of the law, onside.”
Overall Verdict – Incorrect Decision
Pedersen Elbow On Odemwingie
Similar to the Diame/Lampard incident. On this occasion the referee felt that Pedersen deserved a yellow, obviously believing that some intent was involved, could/should he have shown red?
Simon M – “I think the yellow is a bit harsh, Pedersen is just trying to hold off his opponent and turning at the same time, not intentional and definitely not worth a red.”
Ben – “Looked a correct decision, Pederson was making a cynical foul but there was no violent intent there.”
Ant – “I think there was some intent and I can see why some people may think it could have been a red but for me a yellow was the correct decision.”
Mike – “No way is that intentional. A yellow card seems harsh to me. Pedersen is attempting a very quick turn and his arm flails because of that. Because I view the yellow card as harsh, I have to say incorrect.”
Simon F – “There is no question that Pedersen has flung his arm out in an attempt to stop Odemwingie, but does that constitute violent conduct? For me, it doesn’t, and therefore not worthy of a red card.”
Overall Verdict – Correct Decision
Jarvis Penalty & Woodgate Possible Second Yellow
Wolves opened the scoring from the spot, a penalty awarded for a foul on Matt Jarvis by Jonathan Woodgate. Was it a penalty and considering the fact Woodgate had already been shown a yellow, earlier in the game, should the former Spurs man have seen red?
Simon M – “It’s a clear penalty, Woodgate is caught out for pace and it’s a really desperate tackle. I’m going to say it wasn’t worthy of a yellow, purely because I think the penalty was punishment enough.”
Ben – “A penalty was the right call and as for the tackle, poor? Yes. Worthy of a yellow? No.”
Ant – “No violent intent with the tackle and I consider the penalty to be punishment enough for Woodgate’s lack of pace.”
Mike – “I’m probably going to be in a minority here, but I think a second yellow would have been harsh. Yes, it’s a penalty, but it’s not a dangerous tackle and Woodgate is clearly making an attempt to play the ball. Perhaps his lack of fitness lets him down because the ball is well gone. A penalty is punishment enough for me there, and I’d actually praise the referee for using a bit of common sense.”
Simon F – “A nailed on penalty, Jarvis does Woodgate for pace and the Stoke defender trips him. Such offences are almost always met with a yellow card, and I can see no reason why this shouldn’t have been as well. Woodgate was a very lucky boy.”
Overall Verdict – Correct Decision
Free-kick for Stoke Goal
Stoke got their equaliser from a free kick awarded for a foul on John Walters by Roger Johnson. Should they have had the chance? Were they benefitting from yet more dodgy refereeing?
Simon M – “Johnson gets the ball and twenty years ago that would have been considered a brilliant tackle, but the rules have changed and you can’t go in on a player like that, whether you get the ball or not. A definite free kick.”
Ben – “I’m a little surprised this is even being considered controversial. Contact with the ball or not, it’s a poor tackle and a foul.”
Ant – “Hardest decision of the week to judge and could have gone either way I think the referee saw a challenge from behind and that made him consider this a foul. I feel it was a good tackle and he clearly made contact with the ball.”
Mike – “From the first angle, I thought it was a definite foul. But the second angle clearly shows he wins the ball, and he does so by coming round the side rather from behind. For that reason, I’d say it was a really good challenge.”
Simon F – “Another which will have people screaming “he got the ball” but in doing do he went through the back of Walters and the referee was right to award the free kick.”
Overall Verdict – Correct Decision
Free-kick for Norwich Goal
Almost identical to the Stoke free-kick decisions, Norwich were awarded the set play for a foul committed by John Heitinga. Was it a foul? Should Norwich have had the chance to score the opening goal?
Simon M – “This is clear cut, he’s all over Hoolahan and is trying to gain an unfair advantage. Correct decision.”
Ben – “Heitinga knows exactly what he is doing here, a free-kick was the right call. He’s all over the Norwich player and then tugs him back shortly after.”
Ant – “Heitinga was all over him and this was a stupid foul to give away.”
Mike – “Now that is a foul. Heitinga’s arm is around Hoolahan’s neck and stays that way as the pair swivel to track the path of the ball. Hoolahan is more or less forced to the ground as a result.”
Simon F – “Heitinga probably fouls Hoolahan twice here, so the referee could have had his pick. He climbs on the Norwich player to win the initial header, then pulls him back from winning the second ball.”
Overall Verdict – Correct Decision
Holt Elbow On Fellaini
A tussle for the ball near the touchline went sour when Marouane Fellaini claimed to have been the victim of a Grant Holt elbow, the referee thought otherwise and no card was shown. If there was an elbow, was it deliberate and should a red card have been awarded.
Simon M – “This is shocking and could have caused serious damage if it had connected properly. Not sure how the referee missed it, seems fairly obvious and warranted a straight red.”
Ben – “The FA surely have to give a three match ban for this? Violent conduct, clearly.”
Ant – “Started as a tussle and Holt was in the wrong to throw his elbow like that and should have been red carded.”
Mike – “At first it’s an honest, physical battle between two genuine warhorses. I think Fellaini might catch Holt with an elbow at one point, but that doesn’t look deliberate. On the other hand, I think there’s intent in Holt’s elbow, unfortunately.”
Simon F – “Very different from the Pedersen/Odemwingie incident, Holt has clearly thrown an elbow deliberately at Fellaini and should have been sent off as a consequence.”
Overall Verdict – Incorrect Decision
Welbeck Goal Offside
A bog standard offside call. Wayne Rooney with the through ball, Danny Welbeck with the run and neat finish. The goal was chalked off for offside by the linesman, was it or wasn’t it?
Simon M – “We often give the assistant referee’s a little bit of grace with offside decisions because so many are tight calls, not this one. Definitely onside and a really poor decision.”
Ben – “Level at worst, big teams getting all the decisions again, I see?”
Ant – “Bad decision from the linesman Welbeck is clearly on side and what makes it worse is the linesman is in the best possible position to tell Welbeck is on.”
Mike – “Love them or hate them, there’s no denying United haven’t always had the rub of the green with decisions this season so far. This is the kind of decision where a linesman really lets himself down. It’s obviously a genuine mistake but Welbeck is far from offside. INCORRECT by a long chalk.”
Simon F – “Hard to be absolutely certain given the camera angle, but Welbeck looks level with the last defender at very least. Another case of the benefit of the doubt not going to the attacker.”
Overall Verdict – Incorrect Decision
Robin Van Persie Goal Offside
What would have been an equalising goal was denied by the assistant referee’s flag, Van Persie adjudged to have timed his run incorrectly before completing a sublime finish. Was it off or on?
Simon M – “I might be in the minority, but I think Van Persie is just onside here, only just. Unlike the Welbeck decision this was very close for the officials to call, but I do think they got it wrong.”
Ben – “Such a shame that Van Persie was just off because it was a fantastic finish.”
Ant – “Van Persie is slightly offside but at the end of the day he is offside so the linesman got this one right.”
Mike – “Another incredibly marginal one this time. I suppose van Persie is offside by the tiniest of margins.”
Simon F – “Another very tough one to call, and I do have sympathy with the assistant referees in these matters, but I think the Man City player on the far side is just playing Van Persie onside.”
Overall Verdict – Correct Decision
Micah Richard’s Handball In Area
Yet another one of those handball decisions that splits fans, ball to hand or hand to ball? Did Richard’s even know anything about it?
Simon M – “This might sound bizarre, but there’s something about this one that makes me think he could have moved his hand in time. I dunno, his body is in a strange position and I wouldn’t have been surprised to see a penalty given.”
Ben – “Couldn’t possibly get out of the way of this one. A fairly easy decision as far as handballs go.”
Ant – “Clearly the ball hits Richards arm but there is no intention and his reaction shows it was unexpected.”
Mike – “The ball smacks Richards bang on the arm, but he clearly isn’t anticipating it. It takes him totally by surprise and you just can’t give handball for that”
Simon F – “I can see why people would say this was a good call as they could point to the fact that Richards is moving his arm away from the ball. However, the ball has travelled a long way and he leans into the ball and I would have given a penalty.”
Overall Verdict – Correct Decision
Barry Tackle On Arteta Possible Red
Arsenal fans were up in arms about a late tackle on Mikel Arteta by City midfielder Gareth Barry, the feeling being that the England man got off lightly with a yellow. Should a red have been shown?
Simon M – “It’s an over enthusiastic tackle, but I don’t think it’s malicious. I would have marked this as incorrect if he had been red carded.”
Ben – “I thought this was a really poor challenge and a yellow was about right. A red would have been very harsh but it was far from a good tackle.”
Ant – “The ball was there to be won and Barry went for it although a foul it was not worthy of a booking let alone a sending off. The reaction of Arteta is poor and too common in football these days.”
Mike – “If that’s a red card, shall we just shut football down and not bother with it anymore? There’s a ball to be won and that is Barry’s intention. That being said, he doesn’t make it and he does take Arteta down so I’ve no problem with a foul being given. But that will do here.”
Simon F – “A tackle from behind that didn’t win the ball, was not made with excessive force but was careless. A foul and yellow card was exactly the right decision from Phil Dowd.”
Overall Verdict – Correct Decision
Agger Handball In Area
In a rare foray forward Villa’s Marc Albrighton fired a vicious shot towards goal from outside of the area, the shot was blocked by Agger and Villa appealed that it had been blocked by an arm. Was it deliberate?
Simon M – “Very difficult to tell in real time, the ball is moving so quickly, but replays show a definite shift in Agger’s body and he lifts his arm slightly. In my opinion he could easily have moved his arm before the ball hit it.”
Ben – “I wasn’t sure on first viewing, so more sympathy from me for the officials but the second replay (from behind Agger) really highlights what decision should have been made. That decision should have been a penalty.”
Ant – “Hard for the referee to see to be fair but this should have been a penalty, Agger clearly uses his arm to lean towards the ball if this was given Agger would feel very stupid as there was no need to do this at all.”
Mike – “This one, I feel, is a bit different. Although Agger doesn’t throw is arm out at the ball, he does lean it at the ball. There looks like a clear intention to use the arm here.”
Simon F – “Although Agger’s arms are down by his side, he leans into the ball and deflects it away with his arm. For me it should have been a penalty.”
Overall Verdict – Incorrect Decision
***You can follow all five judges on Twitter; Simon M – @Deb_Decisions, Ben – @0Neji, Ant – @Acidburn81, Mike – @Mike7077 and Simon F – @SFurnivall.
0 votes
