Has anyone seen it. I have read some reports that Mitro headed the ball up & when it came down "grazed his shoulder". Slavisa on the other hand said it hit his hand. Who actually saw it. Slavisa also has doubts about the first. I think he means that Murray was first offside & we should have had a free kick before the ball was again played in when Vietto caught him.
It was a stonewall (and silly) penalty. The ball clearly was controlled by his arm in the box, under no pressure.
saw it - clear pen. i think mitro misjudged the flight of the ball or maybe the wind caught it. the ball did not come down in the trajectory that mitro expected.
A clear penalty.
Thanks for the clarity from those who saw it.
or maybe the sun got in his eyes.
Their first penalty was definetly offside in the build up. Personally I think Mitro was unlucky with the pen, top of the arm shoulder for me, not as blatant as many think. IMO.
Penalty for me I'm afraid.
Hit his hand - but was it defo a penalty ?
No it was a mis control and no one near him
Very harsh decision
I think its a clear penalty. Mitrovic misjudged ball movement, and within that he had to stop the ball from coming to brighton midfielder. He taught ref will not see, or not blow the whistle i guess...
I would not have given it but I am biased like Probert was. Not for the first time against us.
Gentleman Jim certainly seemed to think it was a penalty.
if it was in the oppositions penalty area would you want it to be given? if so its a pen!
I thought it dropped out of the sky and hit his arm where it meets the shoulder. Very harsh, for me.
The first the player, who kept diving, made a meal of the challenge - threw himself to the ground.
It was a pen let's move on!
It was definitely a penalty unfortunately. As the ball came down Mitro got it under control with the top of his arm -whether it was 100% intentional is debatable, but it had to be given.
Quote from: gezkc on September 01, 2018, 06:45:06 PM
It was definitely a penalty unfortunately. As the ball came down Mitro got it under control with the top of his arm -whether it was 100% intentional is debatable, but it had to be given.
If it's not intentional then it's not a penalty.
It is all down to interpretation. Was it a deliberate attempt to handle the ball or not.Sometimes they are given, sometimes not. With Probert & his useless linos there was never a doubt it would be given.
According to most it was a clear penalty. Disappointing after leading 2 nil with a penalty already saved to say the least!
It didn't appear to be deliberate and did not effect play but it appeared to glance off his shoulder and may have grazed his hand as it fell. The lino was looking straight at it and wasted no time in upping the flag. All in all, a penalty. The first one looked a bit enhanced as he fell as if someone cut his legs off. Had it happened at Old Trafford with Sir Alex in charge, it wouldn't have been called.
Quote from: YankeeJim on September 01, 2018, 07:45:39 PM
It didn't appear to be deliberate and did not effect play but it appeared to glance off his shoulder and may have grazed his hand as it fell. The lino was looking straight at it and wasted no time in upping the flag. All in all, a penalty. The first one looked a bit enhanced as he fell as if someone cut his legs off. Had it happened at Old Trafford with Sir Alex in charge, it wouldn't have been called.
If it didn't appear to be deliberate then it's not a penalty. This is the law of the game.
Quote from: MikeTheCubed on September 01, 2018, 07:48:16 PM
Quote from: YankeeJim on September 01, 2018, 07:45:39 PM
It didn't appear to be deliberate and did not effect play but it appeared to glance off his shoulder and may have grazed his hand as it fell. The lino was looking straight at it and wasted no time in upping the flag. All in all, a penalty. The first one looked a bit enhanced as he fell as if someone cut his legs off. Had it happened at Old Trafford with Sir Alex in charge, it wouldn't have been called.
If it didn't appear to be deliberate then it's not a penalty. This is the law of the game.
Law of the game? Probert was the law of the game and he stood with his lino. When I ref'd (granted they were teenagers so hardly pros) I called it if it was deliberate and if it effected play. Mitro lost sight of the ball. It shouldn't have been called but Prem refs will call that every time.
Guys, he controlled the ball with his arm in the box. There's nothing to debate here. It's a penalty 100 times out of 100.
Quote from: Denver Fulham on September 01, 2018, 08:35:21 PM
Guys, he controlled the ball with his arm in the box. There's nothing to debate here. It's a penalty 100 times out of 100.
Control is a strong word. It did hit his arm but there was no attempt to control the ball.
I thought the penalty was awarded because he controlled it with his lower shoulder. Below the shoulder blade.
Didn't know he purposely handled the ball.
As someone said above the main question is would you want us to be awarded a penalty in the same situation, and for me the answer is yes, definitely. Mitro had a great game and as Slav said, things like that(the penalty) happen. We have to move on to the next game. COYW
Quote from: Denver Fulham on September 01, 2018, 05:48:39 PM
It was a stonewall (and silly) penalty. The ball clearly was controlled by his arm in the box, under no pressure.
That is how I saw it on the TV replays. Bad play by Mitrovic.
Quote from: YankeeJim on September 01, 2018, 09:32:43 PM
Quote from: Denver Fulham on September 01, 2018, 08:35:21 PM
Guys, he controlled the ball with his arm in the box. There's nothing to debate here. It's a penalty 100 times out of 100.
Control is a strong word. It did hit his arm but there was no attempt to control the ball.
Of course there was. He was trying to chest the ball down and misjudged it and settled it with his arm. Not sure why this is even a discussion. Unfortunate mistake under no pressure, but certain penalty.
Quote from: YankeeJim on September 01, 2018, 09:32:43 PM
Quote from: Denver Fulham on September 01, 2018, 08:35:21 PM
Guys, he controlled the ball with his arm in the box. There's nothing to debate here. It's a penalty 100 times out of 100.
Control is a strong word. It did hit his arm but there was no attempt to control the ball.
The result was that the ball was controlled by his arm.
Whether he consciously attempted to do that or not is debatable, but that's what happened.
But it has to be deliberate rather than just a mistake - too fine a line to call really - the ref was a homer all match
It was a stonewall penalty!
Ridiculous mistake from Mitro who was under no pressure!
First goal was also a terrible mistake from Le Marchand.
A good away point but it could & should have been 3 points!
Onwards & upwards!
COYW
Quote from: Baszab on September 01, 2018, 10:33:45 PM
But it has to be deliberate rather than just a mistake - too fine a line to call really - the ref was a homer all match
looked deliberate to me. Misjudged the flight completely and ended up in the wrong position and didn't realise he had time. Could of easily not had his arm where it was as it was a looping ball.
Quote from: MikeTheCubed on September 01, 2018, 07:03:12 PM
Quote from: gezkc on September 01, 2018, 06:45:06 PM
It was definitely a penalty unfortunately. As the ball came down Mitro got it under control with the top of his arm -whether it was 100% intentional is debatable, but it had to be given.
If it's not intentional then it's not a penalty.
He should not have had his arms in the unnatural position they were in. I think he misjudged the flight of the ball and instead of catching on his chest, it struck his outstretched arm. I think it was his arm and not his shoulder, and therefore was given. The ref is within his rights to think that even if he did not intend to use his arm, it was only there in case of such a misjudgement or miscontrol.
Yes. The first penalty should never have happened because it came from continued play after a clear offside by Murray. But the second was definitely a penalty. On the plus side if you'd offered me a draw from that match before kick-off I'd have taken it.
Of course its a penalty.
If that was at the other end and we never got it,the screams on here would be deafening.😱
Quote from: MikeTheCubed on September 01, 2018, 07:03:12 PM
If it's not intentional then it's not a penalty.
The only truth I can see written in all the above. If the ball touches any part of the arm from shoulder down unintentionally then it is not a penalty. Unfortunately and throughout football this mere detail has been swept aside by referees who are clearly under pressure whenever controversy looms. In my books it was harsh but they are given these days which doesn't mean it is correct interpretation.
Just seen it what a howler....
Quote from: WokinghamWhite on September 02, 2018, 08:54:43 AM
Yes. The first penalty should never have happened because it came from continued play after a clear offside by Murray. But the second was definitely a penalty. On the plus side if you'd offered me a draw from that match before kick-off I'd have taken it.
We said before the Burnley game we would be thrilled with four points from the following two games and that's what happened. Next month is probably our toughest month of the year, though.
The referee was not biased.
The only biased people are those on this board with a natural love for Fulham and did not think that it was a penalty.
Leave it and get on with another subject.
Having watched many replays it was the sort of penalty more home sides get than away ones. It was the easy way out for a poor ref . He saw what he wanted to see, unlike the blatant offside leading up to the 1st pen. He also failed to see the the huge number of times Murray conned him into giving free kicks. & the many times Mitro was clambered over with nothing given.
The lino gave the second one. We've all seen decisions like that given in both cases so let's not complain too much and hope we get some decisions like that go our way soon
We can use this thread as an example the next time someone gets on their soapbox about how other teams have deluded fanbases.
Astounding that there are even people arguing this point.
Quote from: bobby01 on September 01, 2018, 05:53:50 PM
Their first penalty was definetly offside in the build up. Personally I think Mitro was unlucky with the pen, top of the arm shoulder for me, not as blatant as many think. IMO.
Yes def offside the first one. and yes def handball the second.
Quote from: grandad on September 02, 2018, 09:08:24 AM
Having watched many replays it was the sort of penalty more home sides get than away ones. It was the easy way out for a poor ref . He saw what he wanted to see, unlike the blatant offside leading up to the 1st pen. He also failed to see the the huge number of times Murray conned him into giving free kicks. & the many times Mitro was clambered over with nothing given.
True. but he also missed the push that Mitro gave Dunk in the run up to his goal. In any case, it wasn't the ref that saw it - the linesman (yes linesman) was right in front and flagged it straight away.
Stupid penalty to give away, only thing I could say is he may have misjudged it, otherwise stupid.
How have we got 3 pages out of the most obvious cast iron penalty I've seen in yonks ? Those who think otherwise need to get those rose tinted cleaned. I despair sometimes..
