We woz robbed!

[Ken Hairy 3,812]

Jay, if that 2nd penalty is a penalty then we may as well give up the game being a contact sport.

Yes the disallowed goal was wrongly chalked off, but as I said I understand the officials getting it wrong, and as I've been very vocal in not wanting VAR then I've accepted this one.

The timing of the 2nd penalty makes it even worse and hence the uproar as it 100% cost us 2 points.

[horsefly 4,326]

A comment from the Southampton fan site

"Well, to be honest, everyone would be fuming had Norwich got such a penalty.
So, a lucky point in the end."

[Faded Jaded Semi Plastic SOB 1,050]

18 minutes ago, JayNCFC said:

The second penalty was a penalty all day long. It’s soft and a players mistake. 
 

The disallowed goal is the real issue. Goal scored in second phase of play. Officials clearly don’t understand the law. Especially given that the cut back from sarge was coming backwards…. Initial offside wasn’t interfering with play. 
 

That was the shocker for me. Unsure why there’s such uproar for a soft penno we would have screamed the Barclay down for, but not for the clear and obvious disallowed goal. 

I agree that without replays and the benefit of VAR, seen in in real time you can understand the 2nd penalty being given, but with the benefit of slow motion replays it is clear Walker-Peters dived, have a look at the replay from behind, Walker-Peters actually makes a movement into the Norwich player before mysteriously and briefly losing the use of his legs. I have been knocked into harder whilst shopping in the supermarket and managed to stay on my feet and I am nearly 61 and asthmatic!!..........

[GJL Mid-Norfolk Canary 1,821]

I've tried watching the 2nd pen without yellow tinted glasses and through Southampton glasses as ,if I could see why it was given it might make myself feel a bit better.....but having seen it 7 or 8 times now ,it looks more and more corrupt everytime I see it.

Walker-Peters simply falls into Giannoulis, there was nothing Dimi could do.

I dont blame the player for trying it , as in 7th min of injury , you'll try anything.

I blame a weak ,gullible referee for falling for it.

Getting a win away at a place like Southampton , or stadiums with larger crowds is going to be incredibly difficult from now on, should you happen to enter added time with only a 1 goal lead, now these ridiculous amounts of minutes are going to be added on.

8, 10 , 12+ minutes of added time is an awful lot to try and see out if a referee is going to buckle under the pressure from the home team/crowd like we saw yesterday.

Darren England should be struck off the list if he's that weak

[horsefly 4,326]

31 minutes ago, Ken Hairy said:

Jay, if that 2nd penalty is a penalty then we may as well give up the game being a contact sport.

Not only that, but the Southampton player completely manufactures what little contact there was by diving into Giannoulis away from the trajectory of the ball. Appalling refereeing. He must have had a clear view of the incident to award the penalty, so there is simply no excuse to have failed to see what really happened.

[Mr.Carrow 380]

1 hour ago, JayNCFC said:

The second penalty was a penalty all day long. It’s soft and a players mistake. 
 

The disallowed goal is the real issue. Goal scored in second phase of play. Officials clearly don’t understand the law. Especially given that the cut back from sarge was coming backwards…. Initial offside wasn’t interfering with play. 
 

That was the shocker for me. Unsure why there’s such uproar for a soft penno we would have screamed the Barclay down for, but not for the clear and obvious disallowed goal. 

Sure we'd have all appealed. But it would have been swiftly followed by chuckles and knowing looks to your mates as we all knew our player was trying to buy one. I'd say we're in double figures of "manufacturing contact" in the last few years and never got a decision go our way. 

[Mason 47 1,426]

5 minutes ago, Mr.Carrow said:

Sure we'd have all appealed. But it would have been swiftly followed by chuckles and knowing looks to your mates as we all knew our player was trying to buy one. I'd say we're in double figures of "manufacturing contact" in the last few years and never got a decision go our way. 

Indeed, Max is a seasoned veteran at doing exactly this in the box, and it was consistently waved away. He actually has quite the reputation with opposition fans.

I also haven't seen much mentioned of Adams handball in their box, which seemed very obvious to me (much like v Hull last week)

[horsefly 4,326]

8 minutes ago, Mr.Carrow said:

Sure we'd have all appealed. But it would have been swiftly followed by chuckles and knowing looks to your mates as we all knew our player was trying to buy one. 

Indeed! Exactly the view of a Southampton fan on their fan site: "Well, to be honest, everyone would be fuming had Norwich got such a penalty. So, a lucky point in the end."

[Jim Smith 2,365]

1 hour ago, JayNCFC said:

The second penalty was a penalty all day long. It’s soft and a players mistake. 
 

The disallowed goal is the real issue. Goal scored in second phase of play. Officials clearly don’t understand the law. Especially given that the cut back from sarge was coming backwards…. Initial offside wasn’t interfering with play. 
 

That was the shocker for me. Unsure why there’s such uproar for a soft penno we would have screamed the Barclay down for, but not for the clear and obvious disallowed goal. 

I disagree on the second penalty, was a dive. However I agree strongly on the disallowed goal. We should be making a fuss over that as it’s not a marginal offside where the Lino as a matter of judgment gets it wrong. It’s experienced officials not knowing the laws of the game. The ref incidentally gets rewarded by being appointed the VAR official for todays Chelsea v Liverpool game.

Watch the Isak goal for Newcastle yesterday. Ruled onside by VAR. ours is worse because there is even an opposition player who touches the ball between the free kick and the finish ruled out as well as Sargent’s pass 

 

[First Wazzock 919]

I didn't think the second one was a penalty.

I'm waiting for the day when the refs have enough courage to tell the players to get up and stop being a wet blanket.

[pete 322]

Yes it was as soft as soft gets.  But Giannoulus provided the opportunity for it to be awarded by charging perhaps not charging but touching the back of Saints player.  Falling over then gave the ref a decision may have felt a draw was the fair result.  Put the blame where it rightly belongs.

[Mr.Carrow 380]

1 hour ago, Mason 47 said:

Indeed, Max is a seasoned veteran at doing exactly this in the box, and it was consistently waved away. He actually has quite the reputation with opposition fans.

I also haven't seen much mentioned of Adams handball in their box, which seemed very obvious to me (much like v Hull last week)

Yes, Sargent has done it a few times too and always looked embarrassed having to get to his feet and jog away knowing we're all thinking "nice try son!".

[Well b back 3,310]

1 hour ago, First Wazzock said:

I didn't think the second one was a penalty.

I'm waiting for the day when the refs have enough courage to tell the players to get up and stop being a wet blanket.

They did in every other game I watched yesterday, especially in the Newcastle Villa game, where the commentator even explained why such incidents would not be given as free kicks ( let alone penalties ) this season.

Plenty on here saying 1st goal was a push on Stacey and 2nd penalty was not a penalty but surely if the ref was consistent it would be one decision was right and one wrong ie if it was not a push on Stacey, then it wasn’t a penalty and vice versa if it was a push on Stacey ( that goal disallowed ) then it was a penalty. Either way one should have been given and one not, if there was consistency.

[Well b back 3,310]

With VAR yesterday op, we would probably of won. However like many you hate VAR. Yes we all wish the officiating was much better, but you can’t have it both ways, we either live with the refs decisions, or we have VAR in the Championship and destroy the elation of celebrating a goal.

[lake district canary 4,563]

Let's just call it cheating. It is totally clear that the Southampton bought the penalty, leaning over to his left and falling over as soon as he felt the slightest touch. A strong ref would have resisted the noise of the crowd, but really it is just cheating. Our players do it as well and sometimes you feel justified they have done it if earlier in the game there was a clear injustice, but this was right near the end of the game where any decent ref would have been on the look out for dives. 

[Ken Hairy 3,812]

Just now, Well b back said:

With VAR yesterday op, we would probably of won. However like many you hate VAR. Yes we all wish the officiating was much better, but you can’t have it both ways, we either live with the refs decisions, or we have VAR in the Championship and destroy the elation of celebrating a goal.

Agreed with this, which is why I've not been as angry with the disallowed goal as the 2nd penalty.  I get the lino getting the goal wrong, but I just cannot fathom the penalty, as whilst live and not needing super slow mo etc I was screaming dive, it was just clear as anything and the ref had a good view of it too.

[RobJames 905]

I appreciate the attempt to crack down on dissent, bad behaviour ie. kicking the ball away etc, but we now have a situation where the refs are being encouraged to ignore 'physical play', until it happens in the penalty box. As, a player falls over causing Dino to fall on top and it is a penalty. Barnes almost had his shirt ripped off yesterday. No free kick. There were two 'back passes' to Gunn yesterday that would have been given as a free kick before.

An over zealous approach to hand ball will also bring refs into disrepute. The idea was  'playing the ball' was an offence. We now have it being an offence where it is deemed the ball may have inadvertently touched the players arm/hand.  It is the inconsistency that riles. Against Hull in the 2nd half the ball bounced up and clearly hit the players hand before going out for a corner. How does that compare with the penalty against Duffy.

We have yet to see a player being sent off for two 'minor' offences. Player gets booked for kicking the ball away. Later he argues with the ref. By the new guidance, that is also a booking. Will the ref send him off with, say, 40 minutes left ?

I suspect this guidance will cause more problems than it stops. Far better to have a 'blue' card shown. One which financially penalises the player. A percentage of his wage, match fee etc. That way the game is not spoilt and the player is made to take personal responsibility. .I'm sure that would focus minds much better.

[Robert N. LiM 4,667]

15 hours ago, Robert N. LiM said:

Offside call does seem a mistake from what people are saying. I couldn't tell on my stream. But refs and assistants are going to make mistakes, it's part of the game and I think you just get on with it. Better that than VAR, in my view.

On reflection, I've actually changed my mind on this. If the offside call was wrong because the officials got the law wrong, that's completely unacceptable. At the very least, surely the ref and assistant should have had a conversation about precisely what the flag was raised for. Perhaps they did via their earpieces, but the speed at which the decision was made suggests that it wasn't a long enough conversation to establish that while Barnes was offside when Sara's free-kick was struck, Sargent wasn't, and by the time the ball found its way to Barnes, a new phase had begun.

[RobJames 905]

I am surprised the referee can hear any call with all the noise. It was just another inconsistency as the the ref tries to keep up with the latest guidance..

What happened to the 'not interfering with play' thought ?.