Penalty

[Dodgin]

Bit worried when i the saw Areola clash, thought it was a penalty but VAR proved it wasn't. Was it.

[Caedal]

I personally think it should have been. I'm worried about a retrospective red....

[BestOfBrede]

I personally think it should have been. I'm worried about a retrospective red....

That's about the 3rd thread where you have said that!
Blimey, who's side were you on?
He got the ball mate! There was no intention of fouling the p,Ayer.
Thank god you are not a ref!

[Jamie88]

Was convinced it was a penalty and left the room briefly as I was so annoyed. To my amazement when I returned, VAR had not even stepped in! Yet another decision that shows how poor our refs are collectively. If this was the other way around I would be absolutely fuming.

[SP]

Not for me & I thought he may've been offside?

[Jamie88]

I personally think it should have been. I'm worried about a retrospective red....

That's about the 3rd thread where you have said that!
Blimey, who's side were you on?
He got the ball mate! There was no intention of fouling the p,Ayer.
Thank god you are not a ref!

First of all, Bogle actually won the ball first which then hit Areola, and secondly Areola came out and slammed straight into the players knee, jarring it. Anywhere else on the pitch and that is at the very least a yellow

[Cambridge Pete]

Thought it was 50:50. As both ref and VAR said no penalty don't see how there can be a retrospective Red (unless they listen to Sourness)

[Andy S]

Likewise and possibly off side as well

[BarryP]

Didn't think it was a red personally.

[Denver Fulham]

I think you can make a case for a penalty. Areola saved with his left, but kicked out his right leg and clearly tripped him. Whether that was all one continuous motion and in a save and therefore legal, hard to say. But it wouldn't have been criminal to give it. About time we got some fortune.

[Kent_Fulham]

From the FA website regarding retrospective action. It was seen so I take from that there shouldn't be retrospective action.

"Firstly, it's important to state that the principal objective behind retrospective action is to punish players who have clearly committed a red card offence 'off the ball'.

It is not designed to 're-referee' tackles but can be applied if an act of violent conduct or serious foul play occurred secondary to the challenge or if the match officials' view of the specific misconduct was unclear.

In order for The FA to take retrospective action it must first establish from the match officials whether the incident was 'not seen'. If they confirm they did see it then in almost all cases no further action is taken.

There are extraordinary exceptions, such as in the case involving Ben Thatcher [Manchester City versus Portsmouth in 2006]. If it is confirmed the match officials did not see the incident, The FA convenes a panel of three ex-professional referees and asks them to review the video footage independently of one another.

Only in circumstances where the panel members are unanimous will the player be charged. For more information visit:

www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/lawsandrules/rulebook-analysis/not-seen-incidents"

[WolverineFFC]

I personally think it should have been. I'm worried about a retrospective red....

If Pickford did not get a retrospective red earlier this year, there is no way they can give one to Areola for this.

[Tabby]

Was convinced it was a penalty and left the room briefly as I was so annoyed. To my amazement when I returned, VAR had not even stepped in! Yet another decision that shows how poor our refs are collectively. If this was the other way around I would be absolutely fuming.

Yeah, this is the reason that I won't be joining the choir of people praising Areola tonight. Doubt there will be any retrospective action though, not really worthy of a red.

[grandad]

As they say in cricket, Not Out, read the score book.

[F(f)CUK]

If it had happened the other way round, I would be fuming that it wasn't given

[RaySmith]

Bogle made contact with Areola first, played the man before the ball- Areola just reacted  - not a pen.

[Somerset Fulham]

I think it was a penalty. Utterly undeserved from a dreadful side, but it was a penalty.

If that tackle had happened to one of ours in midfield, we'd be up in arms about it.

[BestOfBrede]

Watch again...
Keeper got the ball before striker touched it!
Keepers eyes on ball not player
Coming together - both hit each other
Different angle of bodies makes it look worse - keeper diving as you would expect so lower body position meaning trailing leg would be higher, unless he can disconnect hip!
Striker more upright meaning body in forward thrust

Do you know what...
How many times have we been on the wrong end of decisions and no one says nowt. Fulham fans come on here trying to get a Fulham player a retrospective red card - beggars belief!

Still not a pen or card in my book!

[blingo]

NEVER a penalty. Even if it was......IT WASN"T

[Nero]

I personally think it should have been. I'm worried about a retrospective red....

If Pickford did not get a retrospective red earlier this year, there is no way they can give one to Areola for this.

Isnt it because ref saw so there cant be any retrospective action, so hell be fine