Brighton Penalty Yesterday

[Super]

Sorry can't seem to upload video but I can't remember a pen given before for a clash of heads. I'd be furious if that was given against us.

Anyone else seen it?

[Fordy62]

Yeh. Ridiculous. The only explanation I can imagine is that VAR hurried themselves so much, they didn’t bother to check if Saliba won the ball. 

On the other hand, I thought the challenge on Anthony Gordon versus Spurs possibly should have been considered. 

@Super it’s here…

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/live/cj0rgqzv51lt

 

[ChubStixx]

The Brighton player wins the ball, then the arsenal player inadvertently headbutts him. It's unlucky, perhaps, but a penalty is a reasonable decision, in my opinion.

[Port Said Red]

14 minutes ago, ChubStixx said:

The Brighton player wins the ball, then the arsenal player inadvertently headbutts him. It's unlucky, perhaps, but a penalty is a reasonable decision, in my opinion.

That was my thoughts initially but when you look at it in the VAR slow motion you can see the Arsenal player also heads the ball just before the clash. They should have picked that up.

[ChubStixx]

15 minutes ago, Port Said Red said:

That was my thoughts initially but when you look at it in the VAR slow motion you can see the Arsenal player also heads the ball just before the clash. They should have picked that up.

It's a good point and I completely missed that. At first I was inclined to agree, but I don't think it makes a difference. The Brighton player has clearly won the ball before he's taken out. Sticking with the penalty.

[Fordy62]

46 minutes ago, ChubStixx said:

It's a good point and I completely missed that. At first I was inclined to agree, but I don't think it makes a difference. The Brighton player has clearly won the ball before he's taken out. Sticking with the penalty.

But the Arsenal player wins the ball thereafter and therefore surely the Brighton player collides with Saliba because he’s now the one technically in possession of the ball!

[Numero Uno]

The fact it’s being debated so 50/50 says VAR have to stick with referees call. It’s not a clear an obvious error, more a subjective judgement. If it happens down the other end that odious turd Arteta is screaming for a penner all day long using terms like headbutt.

[2015]

Not a good decision, but as long as it upsets Mikel Arteta then that's a good thing in my book.

[spudski]

1 hour ago, Fordy62 said:

Yeh. Ridiculous. The only explanation I can imagine is that VAR hurried themselves so much, they didn’t bother to check if Saliba won the ball. 

On the other hand, I thought the challenge on Anthony Gordon versus Spurs possibly should have been considered. 

@Super it’s here…

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/live/cj0rgqzv51lt

 

It's getting ridiculous. 

The penalty rule needs a complete overhaul imo. 

All the time, energy, finance etc creating a team, a way of playing...all undone by a free shot at goal for basically nothing. 

The reward far out ways the action. 

Penalties imo, should only be given if a clear goal scoring opportunity has been stopped by a foul in the box. 

Free kicks, direct and indirect inside the box should be the norm. 

Not penalties for the likes of this, or the ball hitting the hand accidentally.

 

 

[Will Rollason]

strange one really, clash of heads both players going for the ball. not usually a foul

[Lorenzos Only Goal]

It's not a penalty, and it cant be there are loads of those week on week.

[Numero Uno]

3 minutes ago, spudski said:

It's getting ridiculous. 

The penalty rule needs a complete overhaul imo. 

All the time, energy, finance etc creating a team, a way of playing...all undone by a free shot at goal for basically nothing. 

The reward far out ways the action. 

Penalties imo, should only be given if a clear goal scoring opportunity has been stopped by a foul in the box. 

Free kicks, direct and indirect inside the box should be the norm. 

Not penalties for the likes of this, or the ball hitting the hand accidentally.

 

 

That will create just as much argument. Free kick given “bollocks ref, I would have scored from there or “had a simple pass for an open goal there”. You would need to word it “free kick if no reasonable chance of a scoring opportunity”.

[Markthehorn]

1 hour ago, Port Said Red said:

That was my thoughts initially but when you look at it in the VAR slow motion you can see the Arsenal player also heads the ball just before the clash. They should have picked that up.

Yes agree as MOTD showed .

[spudski]

10 minutes ago, Numero Uno said:

That will create just as much argument. Free kick given “bollocks ref, I would have scored from there or “had a simple pass for an open goal there”. You would need to word it “free kick if no reasonable chance of a scoring opportunity”.

Anything would be better than what we have now. 

 

[Mendip Broadwalk]

42 minutes ago, Will Rollason said:

strange one really, clash of heads both players going for the ball. not usually a foul

 

Its a foul if you challenge for a ball you cant win when not in a playable distance of the ball. The sketch was its a late challenge with the head to a ball the player was never getting to. 

Edited January 5 by Mendip Broadwalk

[Cityboy1954]

2 hours ago, Super said:

Sorry can't seem to upload video but I can't remember a pen given before for a clash of heads. I'd be furious if that was given against us.

Anyone else seen it?

Yes its called the referee show now look at me that just finished off any Arsenal hopes of catching Liverpool.

[RedHienz]

Glad VAR is there to help.

[BobBobBobbin]

1 hour ago, 2015 said:

Not a good decision, but as long as it upsets Mikel Arteta then that's a good thing in my book.

This a thousand times. 

Anything that screws Arsenal, their nutjob fanbase or their odious manager is fine by me!! 

[italian dave]

28 minutes ago, RedHienz said:

Glad VAR is there to help.

Spot on!

Theres no fewer controversies now than there were pre VAR! 

They should keep VAR for objective decisions only (offside etc) and leave everything else to the referee. (And hope it’s a better one than we had yesterday!!!)

[Will Rollason]

1 hour ago, Mendip Broadwalk said:

 

Its a foul if you challenge for a ball you cant win when not in a playable distance of the ball. The sketch was its a late challenge with the head to a ball the player was never getting to. 

Yeah it was a bit reckless, he had to think about it for a bit before giving it. I'd be fuming if i was Arsenal tho.

[Will Rollason]

26 minutes ago, italian dave said:

Spot on!

Theres no fewer controversies now than there were pre VAR! 

They should keep VAR for objective decisions only (offside etc) and leave everything else to the referee. (And hope it’s a better one than we had yesterday!!!)

I would like to see the emphasis change with VAR. I dont want it at all for refereeing but for offside i would like it to be that the player is only offside if there is a gap between him and the last defender when the ball is played. The marginal calls will then go to the attacking team.

Actually i would prefer not to have VAR at all and just go with the humans, mistakes and all but hey...

[Mendip Broadwalk]

9 minutes ago, Will Rollason said:

Yeah it was a bit reckless, he had to think about it for a bit before giving it. I'd be fuming if i was Arsenal tho.

and that reckless is in the laws of the game for fouls along with careless  . I would think about that for a moment think he was never getting to it makes contact and thats the reckless and careless covered for a foul and here is the penalty. 

[underhanded]

Bif of a segway, but how awful is Jamie Redknapp as a pundit? His analysis of the decision was atrocious - seemingly it was immaterial that Saliba gets the ball, and just kept repeating you 'can't do that in the box'. Bloke just strings a bunch of football cliches together in a random order and calls it insight. Weird.

[MarcusX]

2 hours ago, spudski said:

Anything would be better than what we have now. 

 

I gotta say, it's an interesting idea but can't see it happening. Would lead to far far more controversy than currently happens.

At least at the minute players no where they stand, a foul is a foul - in the box = penalty. You'd have endless arguments about whether a player would score or not.

I think the answer here is that VAR probably didn't deem it an obvious mistake so didn't overrule? I do think in those circumstances the ref should go and have a second look, but VAR stay out of it and keep their opinion to themselves - just let him watch it again and see if he thinks differently from another angle.

2 hours ago, Fordy62 said:

But the Arsenal player wins the ball thereafter and therefore surely the Brighton player collides with Saliba because he’s now the one technically in possession of the ball!

Touching the ball doesn't equal no foul though, common misconception. Same way that you can "foul" (impede) someone without making contact with them.

I;m not sure this one's a penalty tbh though

[Sir Geoff]

At least it gave whiney Arteta something to whinge about. I just laughed can't stand Arteta or Arsenal.

[2015]

2 hours ago, BobBobBobbin said:

This a thousand times. 

Anything that screws Arsenal, their nutjob fanbase or their odious manager is fine by me!! 

Agreed. Can't stand them and their supporters. They make Liverpool winning the Title a very good thing.

[spudski]

1 hour ago, MarcusX said:

I gotta say, it's an interesting idea but can't see it happening. Would lead to far far more controversy than currently happens.

At least at the minute players no where they stand, a foul is a foul - in the box = penalty. You'd have endless arguments about whether a player would score or not.

I think the answer here is that VAR probably didn't deem it an obvious mistake so didn't overrule? I do think in those circumstances the ref should go and have a second look, but VAR stay out of it and keep their opinion to themselves - just let him watch it again and see if he thinks differently from another angle.

Touching the ball doesn't equal no foul though, common misconception. Same way that you can "foul" (impede) someone without making contact with them.

I;m not sure this one's a penalty tbh though

I think the problem is it stops defending naturally. Defending is a big part of the game, but when you've got defenders defending with their arms behind their back, it's crazy. Funnily...that isn't a natural position to have your arms, that's unnatural. Goes against everything. 

At the moment it's ridiculous. 

 

[Ronnie Sinclair]

4 hours ago, 2015 said:

Not a good decision, but as long as it upsets Mikel Arteta then that's a good thing in my book.

Biggest whinnying buffoon in English football, imagine if he'd had the decisions Wolves have had against them for example - Just For Men-adorning fool

[MarcusX]

31 minutes ago, spudski said:

I think the problem is it stops defending naturally. Defending is a big part of the game, but when you've got defenders defending with their arms behind their back, it's crazy. Funnily...that isn't a natural position to have your arms, that's unnatural. Goes against everything. 

At the moment it's ridiculous. 

 

Totally agree with that and the "natural" position rubbish

[Chivs]

3 hours ago, Mendip Broadwalk said:

and that reckless is in the laws of the game for fouls along with careless  . I would think about that for a moment think he was never getting to it makes contact and thats the reckless and careless covered for a foul and here is the penalty. 

I'm glad this decision has been raised as I had a query for McCrorie for us.

On at least two occasions recently he has been penalised when jumping for a ball against an opposition player.

I tend to watch his aerial duels from behind a (metaphorical) sofa with my (real) hands over my eyes mumbling to myself "Please don't kill anyone Ross".

He is "committed" in his challenges.  And frankly, I'm not surprised he is penalised as some of his challenges seem reckless (to use the word you quote).

However, if they are reckless, why is he not booked? And why can he get away with some but not others? 

 

To be clear, I love the way he plays but wonder at the laws of the game when two players challenge in the air for the ball.

[Davefevs]

8 minutes ago, Chivs said:

I'm glad this decision has been raised as I had a query for McCrorie for us.

On at least two occasions recently he has been penalised when jumping for a ball against an opposition player.

I tend to watch his aerial duels from behind a (metaphorical) sofa with my (real) hands over my eyes mumbling to myself "Please don't kill anyone Ross".

He is "committed" in his challenges.  And frankly, I'm not surprised he is penalised as some of his challenges seem reckless (to use the word you quote).

However, if they are reckless, why is he not booked? And why can he get away with some but not others? 

 

To be clear, I love the way he plays but wonder at the laws of the game when two players challenge in the air for the ball.

His eyes are always on the ball, he’s committed, his opponent might not be and that’s when it looks worse for Ross.  Ogilvie for Portsmouth came off worse the other day, got the free kick too, but Ross did nothing wrong, won the ball.

Edited January 5 by Davefevs

[archie andrews]

6 hours ago, 2015 said:

Not a good decision, but as long as it upsets Mikel Arteta then that's a good thing in my book.

Please explain why....

[Mendip Broadwalk]

41 minutes ago, Chivs said:

I'm glad this decision has been raised as I had a query for McCrorie for us.

On at least two occasions recently he has been penalised when jumping for a ball against an opposition player.

I tend to watch his aerial duels from behind a (metaphorical) sofa with my (real) hands over my eyes mumbling to myself "Please don't kill anyone Ross".

He is "committed" in his challenges.  And frankly, I'm not surprised he is penalised as some of his challenges seem reckless (to use the word you quote).

However, if they are reckless, why is he not booked? And why can he get away with some but not others? 

 

To be clear, I love the way he plays but wonder at the laws of the game when two players challenge in the air for the ball.

ok i will give it go. careless = foul no booking. reckless = foul and booking.  there is ref guidance for careless and reckless and that around  its force speed attention regard for your opponents safety. Reffing if i think its genuinely reckless its a yellow. Three four careless challenges x the time between them and its persistent infringement and its a yellow. 

 

 

Edited January 5 by Mendip Broadwalk

[petehinton]

Pen all day for me. 
 

I see Arteta’s crying about it as well. Should probably be focusing more on how he’s spent hundreds of millions & multiple years at Arsenal to end up being a pretty average side, relying on corners to win games…

[Kodjias Wrist]

Ok a bit off topic b it  for someone who does not follow premiership that well in recent years and someone who is not on social media, why is there such disdain for Arsenal fans? Those that I know of (several) are pretty fair and sensible. I hear similar about spurs fans as well. For balance I rarely hear anything negative about Chelsea fans? So what have I missed?

[2015]

3 hours ago, archie andrews said:

Please explain why....

Doesn't stop whinging..Acts like the universe is against him.

[Markthehorn]

6 hours ago, Sir Geoff said:

At least it gave whiney Arteta something to whinge about. I just laughed can't stand Arteta or Arsenal.

I can be certain had it been for Arsenal he would have not been complaining!

[Rob k]

4 hours ago, MarcusX said:

Totally agree with that and the "natural" position rubbish

The ‘natural position’ thing is the biggest load of nonsense in football!  If i ping a ball at you from 5 yards very hard towards your face, the ‘natural’ thing to do would be to stop that ball hitting your face, which 9/10 times will be with your arms!! 

[Mendip Broadwalk]

2 hours ago, Rob k said:

The ‘natural position’ thing is the biggest load of nonsense in football!  If i ping a ball at you from 5 yards very hard towards your face, the ‘natural’ thing to do would be to stop that ball hitting your face, which 9/10 times will be with your arms!! 

 its not a penalty if the ball hits your arms if the ref considers the arms to be in a natural position to defend your face!.  

[Numero Uno]

20 hours ago, spudski said:

Anything would be better than what we have now. 

 

Including scrapping VAR entirely and only having goal line technology but that's been done to death and will not ever happen now.

[Numero Uno]

10 hours ago, Markthehorn said:

I can be certain had it been for Arsenal he would have not been complaining!

Of course not. I wish the guy nothing but failure in his managerial career. Whatever you say about Colin at least he was coming from a position of actually knowing the laws of the game albeit the famously sarcastic "of course it's not a free kick, we're in London" was probably not the best counter argument to the officials...................

[spudski]

10 hours ago, Mendip Broadwalk said:

 its not a penalty if the ball hits your arms if the ref considers the arms to be in a natural position to defend your face!.  

Then why do defenders put their arms behind their backs when defending?

The natural position is to have them by your side, for balance. And when you move, run, jump, twist, turn ( all the actions of a footballer ) your arms move ' naturally' for balance. 

The most unnatural thing to do, is put them behind your back. 

The reason they do it, is to take away any doubt, and lessen the chance of the ball hitting their arm. 

It's the most unnatural thing to do...it stops defenders doing their job most efficiently. 

That, and defenders pulling out of a tackle in the box, just in case their is the slightest touch. 

It's my biggest bugbear with football. 

 

[And Its Smith]

4 minutes ago, spudski said:

Then why do defenders put their arms behind their backs when defending?

The natural position is to have them by your side, for balance. And when you move, run, jump, twist, turn ( all the actions of a footballer ) your arms move ' naturally' for balance. 

The most unnatural thing to do, is put them behind your back. 

The reason they do it, is to take away any doubt, and lessen the chance of the ball hitting their arm. 

It's the most unnatural thing to do...it stops defenders doing their job most efficiently. 

That, and defenders pulling out of a tackle in the box, just in case their is the slightest touch. 

It's my biggest bugbear with football. 

 

Agreed. The Joelinton handball on Saturday is what it’s come too. Never a handball in terms of the laws as far as I’m aware (he’d need super human reactions to get his hand out of the way) but also I can absolutely see from Ange why he went crazy about it.  
 

But I’m happy to be corrected as well as the law changes all the time!  My brother text me yesterday saying the De Ligt handball was wrong but then I think that decision was correct!   

[Rob k]

11 minutes ago, And Its Smith said:

Agreed. The Joelinton handball on Saturday is what it’s come too. Never a handball in terms of the laws as far as I’m aware (he’d need super human reactions to get his hand out of the way) but also I can absolutely see from Ange why he went crazy about it.  
 

But I’m happy to be corrected as well as the law changes all the time!  My brother text me yesterday saying the De Ligt handball was wrong but then I think that decision was correct!   

I agree with this, i thought the Pen for Liverpool was definitely a penalty, the same as we should have had a pen v Burnley 

[spudski]

19 minutes ago, And Its Smith said:

Agreed. The Joelinton handball on Saturday is what it’s come too. Never a handball in terms of the laws as far as I’m aware (he’d need super human reactions to get his hand out of the way) but also I can absolutely see from Ange why he went crazy about it.  
 

But I’m happy to be corrected as well as the law changes all the time!  My brother text me yesterday saying the De Ligt handball was wrong but then I think that decision was correct!   

It's complete madness...we have VAR that looks at offsides to the mm.

Then them judging whether a players arm is in an unnatural position. 

What qualifications do they have say what's natural or not.

We move naturally...and everyone is slightly different depending on build. 

Being given a free shot on goal, purely because the ball touched an arm, even when unintentional, is ridiculous imo. 

How many points are lost due to this stupid rule?

It takes away from how good a team actually is. 

[Super]

28 minutes ago, And Its Smith said:

Agreed. The Joelinton handball on Saturday is what it’s come too. Never a handball in terms of the laws as far as I’m aware (he’d need super human reactions to get his hand out of the way) but also I can absolutely see from Ange why he went crazy about it.  
 

But I’m happy to be corrected as well as the law changes all the time!  My brother text me yesterday saying the De Ligt handball was wrong but then I think that decision was correct!   

Amazed anyone could think it wasn't a pen yesterday when his hand is in the air. I can't even understand how the ref didn't give it.

[hertsexile]

Brighton penalty just highlights how VAR is making a mess of our wonderful game. 
My understanding it should be there to review a clear and obvious error!!!

This decision should have been reviewed and overturned in all honesty but we all know how useless the VAR referees are !! 
If VAR is to work we need to take a look at how rugby union uses it when ref asks the question is there any reason why I may not award etc 

I believe they are going try something in The league cup semi and final or whatever it is called these days 

[You Do The Dziekanowski]

On 05/01/2025 at 10:28, Fordy62 said:

Yeh. Ridiculous. The only explanation I can imagine is that VAR hurried themselves so much, they didn’t bother to check if Saliba won the ball. 

On the other hand, I thought the challenge on Anthony Gordon versus Spurs possibly should have been considered. 

@Super it’s here…

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/live/cj0rgqzv51lt

 

This bugs me massively. 
 

Gordon, not a pen. Labelled as a ‘coming together’ 
 

Minutes later, near enough carbon copy incident, Maddison runs into Botman, Free kick and a yellow card. 
 

How can you have the same incident and give two different decisions? All because one was in the box and ‘not enough’ for a penalty. 
 

I have no affiliation to either side or the premier league. But when refs are so inconsistent it winds me up. 
 

Can any ref explain what level the fouls has to be to be considered a penalty?? 
 

As I always understood it as it’s a foul that occurs in the box, but that seems to have changed over the years. Commentators and Pundits are the same for the inconsistencies as well. 
 

Feel better now, can get on with my day 

[spudski]

This article explains that they want players to have their arms close to their body, as ' they' see that as a natural position

https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/howard-webb-explains-premierleague-rule-33850540#amp-readmore-target

When you jump, you use your arms for balance, out wide. You don't ' pogo'. 

When you turn or twist, you put your arms wider for balance. You don't keep them by your side. 

It's bonkers. 

[Mendip Broadwalk]

50 minutes ago, spudski said:

Then why do defenders put their arms behind their backs when defending?

The natural position is to have them by your side, for balance. And when you move, run, jump, twist, turn ( all the actions of a footballer ) your arms move ' naturally' for balance. 

The most unnatural thing to do, is put them behind your back. 

The reason they do it, is to take away any doubt, and lessen the chance of the ball hitting their arm. 

 

 

laws of the game really does not dictate they have to put arms behind bodies when defending and IFAB 110% gospel have said it doesnt need to happen  !! the brilliant Virgil Van Dijk arms are not behind his body as he chucks himself around defending. 

 

14 minutes ago, You Do The Dziekanowski said:

This bugs me massively. 
 

Gordon, not a pen. Labelled as a ‘coming together’ 
 

Minutes later, near enough carbon copy incident, Maddison runs into Botman, Free kick and a yellow card. 
 

How can you have the same incident and give two different decisions? All because one was in the box and ‘not enough’ for a penalty. 
 

I have no affiliation to either side or the premier league. But when refs are so inconsistent it winds me up. 
 

Can any ref explain what level the fouls has to be to be considered a penalty?? 
 

As I always understood it as it’s a foul that occurs in the box, but that seems to have changed over the years. Commentators and Pundits are the same for the inconsistencies as well. 
 

Feel better now, can get on with my day 

 A foul if its spa stopping a (promising attck) is a yellow and direct free kick. A foul at eighty metres from goal can be spa and a booking or not and also yes and no at the half way line. A careless foul is a free kick. Careless fouls become persistent offending and thats a booking - A foul at five is not the same as twenty five if its the third foul by the same player because its persistent offending and thats a yellow card offence. A foul can get carded because there have been to many fouls and warning players has not stopped the offending. A reckless foul is free kick and booking or a penalty and yellow.  offence inside the box if consider a foul is a penalty. 

big sketch here is football for the ref is incidents are not near carbon copies of another incident you dont ref each incident as the same you put the the laws to each individual incident. 

1 hour ago, And Its Smith said:

Agreed. The Joelinton handball on Saturday is what it’s come too. Never a handball in terms of the laws as far as I’m aware (he’d need super human reactions to get his hand out of the way) but also I can absolutely see from Ange why he went crazy about it.  
 

But I’m happy to be corrected as well as the law changes all the time!  My brother text me yesterday saying the De Ligt handball was wrong but then I think that decision was correct!   

Joe Linton distance from the ball isnt part of the law. His arm was in a natural position. no penalty. 

De Ligt handball justifying that as natural? no penalty. 

[Mendip Broadwalk]

23 minutes ago, Mendip Broadwalk said:

De Ligt handball justifying that as natural? 

Unnatural PENALTY!!

[Markthehorn]

Both were penalties or not tbh .

Presume on both the VAR thought  there was no clear error?

The Liverpool one definitely was handball .

That is where VAR is good .

Edited January 6 by Markthehorn

[Markthehorn]

2 hours ago, hertsexile said:

Brighton penalty just highlights how VAR is making a mess of our wonderful game. 
My understanding it should be there to review a clear and obvious error!!!

This decision should have been reviewed and overturned in all honesty but we all know how useless the VAR referees are !! 
If VAR is to work we need to take a look at how rugby union uses it when ref asks the question is there any reason why I may not award etc 

I believe they are going try something in The league cup semi and final or whatever it is called these days 

A lot of people thought it was a penalty tbh which shows how subjective it all is .

They are only going to announce the final decision over the tannoy like at the ladies World Cup last year .

Not play out real time  audio .

 

 

 

Edited January 6 by Markthehorn

[And Its Smith]

3 hours ago, Mendip Broadwalk said:

laws of the game really does not dictate they have to put arms behind bodies when defending and IFAB 110% gospel have said it doesnt need to happen  !! the brilliant Virgil Van Dijk arms are not behind his body as he chucks himself around defending. 

 

 A foul if its spa stopping a (promising attck) is a yellow and direct free kick. A foul at eighty metres from goal can be spa and a booking or not and also yes and no at the half way line. A careless foul is a free kick. Careless fouls become persistent offending and thats a booking - A foul at five is not the same as twenty five if its the third foul by the same player because its persistent offending and thats a yellow card offence. A foul can get carded because there have been to many fouls and warning players has not stopped the offending. A reckless foul is free kick and booking or a penalty and yellow.  offence inside the box if consider a foul is a penalty. 

big sketch here is football for the ref is incidents are not near carbon copies of another incident you dont ref each incident as the same you put the the laws to each individual incident. 

Joe Linton distance from the ball isnt part of the law. His arm was in a natural position. no penalty. 

De Ligt handball justifying that as natural? no penalty. 

I’m aware of that. And it couldn’t have been a penalty as outside the box!

 

My issue is the law is mad and keeps changing! 

[maxjak]

On 05/01/2025 at 10:35, ChubStixx said:

The Brighton player wins the ball, then the arsenal player inadvertently headbutts him. It's unlucky, perhaps, but a penalty is a reasonable decision, in my opinion.

No.........they both headed the ball..........VAR phecked up,it was never a penalty, and It is 2 points that Arsenal could have made back from Liverpool?   Ref's are failable, and i can see how he mis- interpreted it, but VAR is NOT doing the job it was intended for, namely correcting errors of judgement?  Very Poor.

[maxjak]

22 hours ago, petehinton said:

Pen all day for me. 
 

I see Arteta’s crying about it as well. Should probably be focusing more on how he’s spent hundreds of millions & multiple years at Arsenal to end up being a pretty average side, relying on corners to win games…

Oh come on Pete............off to Specsavers with you.....2 Headers, do NOT a Penalty make?, and this is from a fan of your podcast?  Please don't climb aboard the hating Arteta/Arsenal bandwagon, it's beneath you, Ha!!

[Rob k]

That’s a pen for me 

[Mendip Broadwalk]

10 hours ago, maxjak said:

No.........they both headed the ball..........VAR phecked up,it was never a penalty, and It is 2 points that Arsenal could have made back from Liverpool?   Ref's are failable, and i can see how he mis- interpreted it, but VAR is NOT doing the job it was intended for, namely correcting errors of judgement?  Very Poor.

 the ball made contact with the Arsenal player after the Brighton players heads it. The Brighton player heads the ball it hits the the Arsenal player who was late = making a careless challenge which is a foul. 

[maxjak]

On 07/01/2025 at 06:46, Mendip Broadwalk said:

 the ball made contact with the Arsenal player after the Brighton players heads it. The Brighton player heads the ball it hits the the Arsenal player who was late = making a careless challenge which is a foul. 

Will Have to agree to disagree?   If that was a penalty......i find it depressing and illogical.  Looking forward to the next 2 header  penalty in 2035?