North London Derby

[Degnann]

Surprised to see this hasn’t been brought up.
Maybe we are already in agreement…
2 key points.

the arsenal penalty and the Lamela red card.

lots of pundit talk and some ex refs obviously stating lucky for both.

personally for me both are correct decisions

 

[es1]

the penalty only seems harsh cos the foul only happened due to laczette shanking the initial shot, almost seems like they get 2 bites...but i've no issue

couple of wider issues...no foul/caution for the very late charge by kane into gabriels back, seems pretty clear and obvious and right infront of the AR...also thought kane blatently dived to 'win' the late free kick from which he hit the post, no contact from the defender makes him collapse like that with his legs flying out

 

[GraemeS]

Baffled that's there's controversy on either, think they're both spot-on.

I actually thought the penalty was wrong on first viewing as the angle the ball moved made it look a clean tackle, but first replay from the reverse angle makes it clear he's nowhere near the ball.

And no one would have any issue with a yellow for Lamela if it was his first yellow - it's only the unfair expectation that referees are supposed to bend the rules to keep players on the pitch that makes it remotely debatable. But the laws don't make a distinction between "reckless enough for a first caution" and "reckless enough for a second caution", so I don't see any problem with the decision. It's called a caution for a reason: it's a warning not to commit a second offence. Smashing your forearm into an opponent's throat is always liable to be called as a cautionable offence - he should have been smarter.

 

[Ryanj91]

Lamela was lucky to be on the pitch for his goal.

Off ball incident about 5 mins before his goal. He ran up to Luiz and kicked him. No VAR check or anything.

He was lucky to avoid a second caution for flying in on Xhaka(?) About 2 mins before his actual second yellow.

Could have been sent off 3 times, was sent off haha

 

[OIREF!]

I've no argument with wither the penalty of sending off.

For the penalty Lacazette made a mess of the shot but the challenge is high and so late it will probably be on next week's MOTD highlights.

Lamela raised his arm to a position where he should reasonably have expected the opponents head to be. Admittedly it wasn't particularly physical but it looked deliberate and he knew what he was doing.

 

[bloovee]

Half the FKs for kicking an opponent's foot are when the player kicking the ball follows through into the blocking player's raised foot. In this case, if Lacazette had hit the ball cleanly it would either have been a goal or a great block. I think he's been given the benefit of a miskick.

 

[ChasObserverRefDeveloper]

MOTD2 "expert"... "Never a penalty, yes Sanchez kicked him but then Lacazette kicked Sanchez"...

 

[Paul_10]

Stonewall pen, even if Lacazette had a successful shot, defender was going to foul him, its clumsy defending. I'm actually gobsmacked Dermot Gallagher disagreed with the referees decision!

 

[QuaverRef]

Easy penalty that. I can’t believe there’s so much debate to be honest.

 

[QuaverRef]

Baffled that's there's controversy on either, think they're both spot-on.

I actually thought the penalty was wrong on first viewing as the angle the ball moved made it look a clean tackle, but first replay from the reverse angle makes it clear he's nowhere near the ball.

And no one would have any issue with a yellow for Lamela if it was his first yellow - it's only the unfair expectation that referees are supposed to bend the rules to keep players on the pitch that makes it remotely debatable. But the laws don't make a distinction between "reckless enough for a first caution" and "reckless enough for a second caution", so I don't see any problem with the decision. It's called a caution for a reason: it's a warning not to commit a second offence. Smashing your forearm into an opponent's throat is always liable to be called as a cautionable offence - he should have been smarter.

I think Michael Oliver did his best to keep him on the pitch as well. Lamela did himself no favours in how he conducted himself throughout that match

 

[deusex]

Sorry Oliver fan club, it's not a penalty.
But if it is then surely it's a red card for SFP? If a waist high studs up tackle is what we're calling it?
In reality it was an attempted block that hit Lacazette with as much force as he hit Sanchez.

On a side note, it's well established in the EPL that once you have got your shot away in the penalty area you CANNOT be fouled!

 

[Jtpetherick1]

Sorry Oliver fan club, it's not a penalty.
But if it is then surely it's a red card for SFP? If a waist high studs up tackle is what we're calling it?
In reality it was an attempted block that hit Lacazette with as much force as he hit Sanchez.

On a side note, it's well established in the EPL that once you have got your shot away in the penalty area you CANNOT be fouled!

Why do you say no foul? Would you give it as a foul elsewhere?

And it’s hardly ‘studs up’ in the way people mean - the studs make no contact with the body.

 

[RefIADad]

It's a penalty, it needs to be a penalty, and these "the ball is away, so the defender has free reign to hammer the shooter" needs to stop.

Michael Oliver has been back to his old self the second half of the season after having some rough patches earlier in the season. I can't really think of another SG1 referee who would make this call.

 

[Degnann]

In reality it was an attempted block that hit Lacazette with as much force as he hit Sanchez.
!

In which case you would penalise the more serious offence which would be the penalty, no?

 

[GraemeS]

Sorry Oliver fan club, it's not a penalty.
But if it is then surely it's a red card for SFP? If a waist high studs up tackle is what we're calling it?
In reality it was an attempted block that hit Lacazette with as much force as he hit Sanchez.

On a side note, it's well established in the EPL that once you have got your shot away in the penalty area you CANNOT be fouled!

Who's calling it that? This is the definition of a strawman argument!

Let's also not forget that we've recently seen Trent Alexander Arnold give away a penalty for an "attempted block" that just happened to result in his head making contact with an opponent's knee. So even if we do accept you "reason" for it not being a penalty, that still doesn't actually stop it being a penalty...

 

[es1]

Who's calling it that? This is the definition of a strawman argument!

Let's also not forget that we've recently seen Trent Alexander Arnold give away a penalty for an "attempted block" that just happened to result in his head making contact with an opponent's knee. So even if we do accept you "reason" for it not being a penalty, that still doesn't actually stop it being a penalty...

i think you're both right.

it is a foul, it has to be, but we rarely see this sort of action resulting in a foul. frequently you see the attacker get a shot off and then get fouled by the defender/keeper with no hint of a penalty being given (or appealed for usually)

 

[GraemeS]

i think you're both right.

it is a foul, it has to be, but we rarely see this sort of action resulting in a foul. frequently you see the attacker get a shot off and then get fouled by the defender/keeper with no hint of a penalty being given (or appealed for usually)

There's nothing in the laws that says "once a shot has taken place, you've got free reign to do what you want to the opponent". Not to again pick out another Liverpool example, but it's been well established that the failure to punish Pickford for the VVD injury even though the ball was actually dead in that situation was a serious mistake by the officials on the day in that situation.

The laws do not support the idea that a shot means you can then hit an opponent freely, the PL referees have been doing a poor job in creating that situation and we should be praising every little attempt to push back against that.

 

[es1]

There's nothing in the laws that says "once a shot has taken place, you've got free reign to do what you want to the opponent". Not to again pick out another Liverpool example, but it's been well established that the failure to punish Pickford for the VVD injury even though the ball was actually dead in that situation was a serious mistake by the officials on the day in that situation.

The laws do not support the idea that a shot means you can then hit an opponent freely, the PL referees have been doing a poor job in creating that situation and we should be praising every little attempt to push back against that.

dont disagree with you at all, it just doesnt seem to work that way in practice more often than not

 

[JamesL]

The only question that needs to be answered in respect of the penalty decision is was the challenge committed careless, reckless or use excessive force.
For me, its careless So penalty, no sanction required.

Getting lay men to understand this is impossible as they don't actually understand, nor want to understand, the decision making process of the referee.

People use phrases that arent in the laws of the game to justify foul/no foul that have aren't the main consideration in the decision making process. We might consider them in asking ourselves the above question, but it's the question above that hold the most importance.

Opinion of the referee might deem this a fair challenge, but as Graeme rightly points out the Liverpool player was punished for similar offence recently and ia believed that to be correct. I have same thoughts on this one, you have to block it, or if you don't and you hit the attacker then that is careless. You are acting without precaution not to foul the attacker

 

[socal lurker]

The laws do not support the idea that a shot means you can then hit an opponent freely, the PL referees have been doing a poor job in creating that situation and we should be praising every little attempt to push back against that.

I don't think its just the PL, I think its pretty ubiquitous. There at least seems to be a sliding scale that a foul must be worse after a shot than before. And there is a bit of justification for that--what is trifling after a shot is away can be more than what is trifling while a player is trying to shoot.