Birmingham v Preston

[es1]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1710377511501066344

Looks as bad a 'ghost penalty' I gave ages ago I'm still ribbed for

 

[RustyRef]

Cue clamour for VAR in the Championship, until they then decide they don't really want it.

 

[Mr Dean]

Maybe I need to visit Specsavers (as I'm often told) but that looks like a reasonable decision to me - follow through seems to catch the attacker studs first.

 

[Viridis1886]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1710378473976393924

Pen looks reasonable to me.

 

[RustyRef]

Just shows the importance of angles and the difference they can make. From the view behind the goal the attacker has slipped well before any contact, yet from the other angle it looks like a foul.

 

[santa sangria]

Ouch I don’t like the ref’s angle at all - can he even see - is his view blocked?

Has the AR or 4th influenced this?

This still looks bad for the defender.

We have the angles but you’d hope the AR and R would note the slip and that would make a penalty much less likely and far less expected.

Maybe here the ref was curling his run expecting easy possession for the attacker and a cross… tough one for the team … we don’t see the phase before but the ref’s position is far from ideal here… nearer the corner of the box would be better but might have been impossible to get there…

 

[ChasObserverRefDeveloper]

Just shows the importance of angles and the difference they can make. From the view behind the goal the attacker has slipped well before any contact, yet from the other angle it looks like a foul.

He had slipped, but the defender's studs still hit the opponent's knee . . . penalty for me.

 

[RustyRef]

He had slipped, but the defender's studs still hit the opponent's knee . . . penalty for me.

Not for me as he's almost on the floor as the contact is made. Just don't see a foul there (from that angle).