Everton penalty yesterday

[Martiju]

It certainly wasn't a genuine attempt to play the ball so the double jeopardy law doesn't apply. So I can't see how it was anything other than DOGSO or SPA. There was a real doubt as to whether the attacker would get to the ball before the keeper, so I'd support a caution for SPA.

Just to note that 'genuine' was removed from the LOTG after the first attempt! Now we just have to determine if there was 'an attempt to play the ball'. Either way, if you accept the push, it's DOGSO RC as that can't be an attempt.

 

[Big Cat]

I'd like to see the incident from the AR's perspective as I'd say he had the best view. The one thing it's not imo, is a dogso

 

[spuddy1878]

Think majority in agreement penalty and YC.

It was the assistant that gave the decision, Roger East had a good game but from a great angle didnt give the penalty.

 

[Hoosier Ref]

Was it a push/charge in the back... two angles were tough to say. One angle sure looked like it. Was attacker waiting for the contact and kicked his legs back? I think so but there is a charge/push in the back in my opinion. I'm good with a PK.

Now for the card.... Evaluating DOGSO... Distance to goal = yep, Defenders = yep last man, Direction = yep. Straight at goal, Distance to ball = this is where I think it fails DOGSO. He is close but very questionable that he would retain possession of the ball had the push/charge not occurred. It sure looks like it will remain a 50/50 with the keeper and probably the keeper getting there first. I do not believe DOGSO is appropriate on this one. It is just not obvious.

I think the YC for SPA is the right decision.