Yesterday’s “penalties”

[Branston Pickle 3,635]

I hadn’t seen yesterday’s handball incident until the extended highlights were put up on YouTube today, but oddly enough the non-penalty for Rotherham was on the initial Sky highlights, ‘short’ you tube highlights (though not any more) and on the itv programme.

This does seem a bit odd - and somewhat inconsistent.   I’ve watched the incident for their claim and can’t see a huge amount in it, though nor do I think it a dive as such…it was a classic 50-50 ‘coming together’ and I’m certain I’d not have expected it to be given to us.  The handball, though, seems likely that it would have been given with var - the guy’s hand was clearly way higher than it should be - yet wasn’t shown.  It does seem odd.

[Monty13 2,229]

I think it’s because theirs would have changed the game and levelled things so was more of a dramatic moment. Plus the fact the player was carded and the ref got some player/supporter stick all makes some lovely TV drama.

I wouldn’t read to much into it, it’s TV, if our missed penalty opportunity is what stopped us winning the game or even losing it I suspect it would have been featured on the short highlights, especially if our players had reacted similarly.

edit: Unless I’m mistaken our club highlights is missing their penalty shout isn’t it? In which case hilarious 😂 

Edited November 6, 2022 by Monty13

[Mason 47 1,373]

Ours is a shocker. For theirs, you can see the winger is playing for it and has a serious case of the jelly legs. Seen them given (wrongly) but it was perhaps the one call he got right IMO.

More interesting for me is he was then allowed to physically grab the ref and scream in his face with no further punishment. Not sure on the written rules for that but I was a little surprised he didn't get a second yellow 

 

[Branston Pickle 3,635]

I’ve since seen their claim from a vlog thing, taken from their end of the ground - it really doesn’t look like much at all.  I’m not sure why they got so bothered. 

[Google Bot 3,256]

2 hours ago, Mason 47 said:

More interesting for me is he was then allowed to physically grab the ref and scream in his face with no further punishment.

Was watching via stream and couldn't beleive how he grabbed and screamed in the refs face.  It was ridiculous.

[king canary 7,578]

2 hours ago, Branston Pickle said:

I’ve since seen their claim from a vlog thing, taken from their end of the ground - it really doesn’t look like much at all.  I’m not sure why they got so bothered. 

Same. The way it was being talked about I was expecting it to be some stonewall penalty but it is clearly a dive- he moves the ball but makes sure he runs in a way that guarantees contact with the defender. 

[Capt. Pants 4,195]

The Rotherham player lost the plot bigtime and was fortunate not to get 2 yellows. I've yet to see any evidence that was a penalty offence and not even a freekick anywhere else on the pitch.

Our handball claim would have been given by VAR. Maybe the ref was again too far behind play, but lino had a better view.

 

[LaUnionCanary 86]

In rugby if you touch the ref you can look forward to a few weeks off. Not accepted under any cirvumstances.

[lake district canary 4,531]

23 minutes ago, LaUnionCanary said:

In rugby if you touch the ref you can look forward to a few weeks off. Not accepted under any cirvumstances.

Yes, can't understand why football can't have similar rules. Complete lack of cahunas by the FA. Loads of easy things they could do to make the game more ordered. 

[It's Character Forming 1,160]

It was noticeable that Hanley was claiming loudly for our penalty, having conceded a similar penalty himself recently, although their's wasn't quite as blatant it was close !  But he didn't actually manhandle the ref LOL

[Coneys Knee 941]

Has anybody got a link showing the offending incidents?

[paddycanary 538]

8 hours ago, Mason 47 said:

Ours is a shocker. For theirs, you can see the winger is playing for it and has a serious case of the jelly legs. Seen them given (wrongly) but it was perhaps the one call he got right IMO.

More interesting for me is he was then allowed to physically grab the ref and scream in his face with no further punishment. Not sure on the written rules for that but I was a little surprised he didn't get a second yellow 

 

Nice to see some beer product placement in there too. A Chang possibly? Or a Radler?

[cornish sam 944]

8 hours ago, Mason 47 said:

Ours is a shocker. For theirs, you can see the winger is playing for it and has a serious case of the jelly legs. Seen them given (wrongly) but it was perhaps the one call he got right IMO.

More interesting for me is he was then allowed to physically grab the ref and scream in his face with no further punishment. Not sure on the written rules for that but I was a little surprised he didn't get a second yellow 

 

Surely he is pulling the ref out of the way out of the bottle and saying calmly, "look out sir, some oik disagreed with that decision"

[Barham Blitz 652]

8 hours ago, Mason 47 said:

Ours is a shocker. For theirs, you can see the winger is playing for it and has a serious case of the jelly legs. Seen them given (wrongly) but it was perhaps the one call he got right IMO.

More interesting for me is he was then allowed to physically grab the ref and scream in his face with no further punishment. Not sure on the written rules for that but I was a little surprised he didn't get a second yellow 

 

Looks like the ref has had just had that one beer too far, has dropped his bottle and would have passed out if the Rotherham player hadn't caught him.

Which might explain some of the decisions by all accounts ... 🤔

[AJ 1,218]

9 hours ago, Mason 47 said:

Ref bottled it 😅

[Yobocop 1,095]

On 06/11/2022 at 14:43, Branston Pickle said:

I hadn’t seen yesterday’s handball incident until the extended highlights were put up on YouTube today, but oddly enough the non-penalty for Rotherham was on the initial Sky highlights, ‘short’ you tube highlights (though not any more) and on the itv programme.

This does seem a bit odd - and somewhat inconsistent.   I’ve watched the incident for their claim and can’t see a huge amount in it, though nor do I think it a dive as such…it was a classic 50-50 ‘coming together’ and I’m certain I’d not have expected it to be given to us.  The handball, though, seems likely that it would have been given with var - the guy’s hand was clearly way higher than it should be - yet wasn’t shown.  It does seem odd.

Blatant dive, ref got the decision bang on 

[Google Bot 3,256]

20 hours ago, Coneys Knee said:

Has anybody got a link showing the offending incidents?

6:25 shows the Rotherham player screaming in the refs face, hard to see it from that angle but you can see him grab him, and then when his arms go tense twice he was yelling directly in his face.

Must admit does look more like a pen from where Rotherham fans sat:

 

Edited November 8, 2022 by Google Bot

[shefcanary 2,385]

IDK, in that second clip, the Rovrum fan was appealing for a penalty before the two players even came together. 👻

But the first clip shows that it was just a coming together with the Rovrum player changing direction.

[Google Bot 3,256]

6 minutes ago, shefcanary said:

But the first clip shows that it was just a coming together with the Rovrum player changing direction.

Only just realised when watching again how Hayden fronts up to their fans for the bottle being thrown.

[It's Character Forming 1,160]

40 minutes ago, shefcanary said:

IDK, in that second clip, the Rovrum fan was appealing for a penalty before the two players even came together. 👻

But the first clip shows that it was just a coming together with the Rovrum player changing direction.

Yes, their mindset is that if a Rotherham player goes down, it's automatically a foul and if an opposition player goes down, it's always a dive.  I've been to Rotherham quite a few times and that's just the way they view it.  I mean, I know we have a pro-City bias in whether or not something is a foul, but we do have a level of realism which I think they are totally lacking.

[Coneys Knee 941]

I’m trying really hard to take my yellow specs off here. If the tables were turned I’d have been yelling for a penalty. That doesn’t mean I’d be right though. I think the ref got it right but it’s one of those border line decisions.

Refs have been told to let a lot more go this season - and I like that. Contact shouldn’t necessarily mean foul after all. Last season, I reckon that’s given without a doubt. Saturday was a good fortune day for us - we deserve it. 

Hayden going at their fans. I thought, initially he was just goading them, and I couldn’t condone that because I hate it when that’s done to us and it’s so unnecessary. But, if as has been pointed out, it was about the bottle throwing incident, then fair play to Hayden.

Finally, their player man handling the ref. Has to be a red without debate surely?

All in all, you win some you lose some and you have to suck it up. That’s life as a football fan, and to be honest, it’s part of what we all love. It’s what VAR has taken away from the game. Respect to referees but having a good old slagging off at them is part of what we love about football is it not? 
 

 

[It's Character Forming 1,160]

Fair point but the handball incident was a clearer pen IMO so even if they might have got a pen using last season’s approach, we should also have had one regardless.

[shefcanary 2,385]

Just been to Bramall Lane on a freebie and Rovrum felt agreived by another penalty decision going against them, but again it was their player falling after going across his defender, very similar to the one discussed above. Becoming a habit! But at least they won today.

Edited November 8, 2022 by shefcanary

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

If those two incidents had gone to VAR the Rotherham claim might have been given or might not have been but the Norwich City claim for handball certainly would have been. The player threw himself in the way of a cross with his hand in the air and the ball hit the hand and was diverted from its course.

Edited November 9, 2022 by PurpleCanary