Well that was a gifted penalty

[Woolly Mammoth]

Penalty or not and for me it was not, although i was wondering at round about that time when during the game will the referee award Liverpool their standard mandatory penalty.
Low and behold, Bobs your uncle he awards a flaming penalty which was backed up by the 3 Stooges Larry, Mo & Curly playing their compulsory VAR Card in favour of Liverpool at the expense of a proper football club.
Nothing changes, and nothing will change whilst the system is corrupt as are the establishment.

Nevertheless Diop the player at the centre of this matter will be and has been many times, picturing the scenario over and over again and kicking himself as to why he allowed himself to be placed in that position in the first place.

In the second place i expect as he is only human he will be tossing and turning in his hammock trying to alter the outcome.

In the third place football matches are won and lost many times by good and not so good judgements, in conjunction with decision making.

So you either win or you learn as Guido Fawkes once said just before Parliament hung drew and quartered him.

It is very frustrating losing in that fashion, but if you are willing to learn, hardships make you stronger and builds character and they are just a couple of reasons why teams punch above their weight, and are seen to have a strong work ethic and team spirit as opposed to teams who never have to fight for anything and get matches handed to them on a plate.

[toshes mate]

I agree with anyone who says those few moments of action were an opportunity for the referee to make a truly controversial call but how many times in the game last night did the referee act in a similar and consistent way when dealing with other controversial calls?

The answer is highly elusive and absolutely impossible to calculate.  It was neither stonewall decision (since we are discussing it here) nor was it a deliberate foul (because we cannot know the truth of that and nor can a referee).  And so what rule did it breach and how did it breach it?  All I see on here are words put together to justify individual opinions but nothing else. 

We can consider and debate why officials are inconsistent and we know they are for a fact since none of us would ever talk about referees again if they wer class acts because there would be no need.  We would know that even their mistakes are genuine.  Simply stated the game is in trouble and needs to be cleaned up.

As Silva said post game that "moment" is embarrassing for the live officials and for the VAR mob and it got that way because far too many an official in football is not fit for purpose.

 




   

[deadcowboys]

With yet another rather dodgy penalty decision against us, no wonder WH Smiths are running out of brown envelopes! 

[_Putney_]

Some people insisted there was absolutely no contact.

Then when evidence of contact is posted the argument is, "well, it wasn't enough" or "football's a contact sport".

We obviously have our own biases and Fulham-tinted glasses on; what if we had Liverpool-tinted glasses on? How would we have read the situation.

Meanwhile, I am a fat man with shards for kneecaps.

[LittleErn]

The problem with VAR is that it can't review actions in 3 dimensions. It was therefore impossible to be certain that contact was made. They could only infer that from the players' movements. The more  I look at it in 2D, the more I think that the Ref was conned. IF there was contact it was caused by the Liverpool player throwing his leg out to the left - an unnatural position- and not by Diop. We can't change it, but there should be a high level discussion at the FA about the usefulness of VAR.

[JimOG]

The problem with VAR is that it can't review actions in 3 dimensions. It was therefore impossible to be certain that contact was made. They could only infer that from the players' movements. The more  I look at it in 2D, the more I think that the Ref was conned. IF there was contact it was caused by the Liverpool player throwing his leg out to the left - an unnatural position- and not by Diop. We can't change it, but there should be a high level discussion at the FA about the usefulness of VAR.

Great point. I've looked at it a few times on FFC site and still I'm not sure. When I was watching the Leinster v Toulouse rugby match their VAR (TMO) had 4 angles on a try that I and others thought was clear cut. But when they used the 4th angle you could see the Leinster winger had just lost control as he dived. Also it took 2 minutes to consider that decision knowing how important a try is. We could learn from them. As for 'taking learnings' Diop has to learn he's not playing in a Sunday match on Fulham Rec. With these top players you get a split second It was his dawdling that caused this whole situation.

[filham]

Big games against Man.U., Man.City and Liverpool lost by penalties against us, is there a jinx.

[Lordedmundo]

I've watched it a few times and it is a difficult call - but I still think no pen. Nunez gets a touch - literally just a toe on the ball. Diop then makes a very deliberate attempt to move his leg out of the away, but Nunez then (I think) initiates contact with our defender to make it look as if he has been tripped.

[Rufus Brevetts Tracksuit]

I was over by corner flag and from my position it looked a clumsy careless challenge - but reading TC's assessment of it on Club website today is disappointing reading if, as it implies, we've been 'done' again.

[Woolly Mammoth]

Big games against Man.U., Man.City and Liverpool lost by penalties against us, is there a jinx.

More a stitch up.

[LittleErn]

The problem with VAR is that it can't review actions in 3 dimensions. It was therefore impossible to be certain that contact was made. They could only infer that from the players' movements. The more  I look at it in 2D, the more I think that the Ref was conned. IF there was contact it was caused by the Liverpool player throwing his leg out to the left - an unnatural position- and not by Diop. We can't change it, but there should be a high level discussion at the FA about the usefulness of VAR.

Great point. I've looked at it a few times on FFC site and still I'm not sure. When I was watching the Leinster v Toulouse rugby match their VAR (TMO) had 4 angles on a try that I and others thought was clear cut. But when they used the 4th angle you could see the Leinster winger had just lost control as he dived. Also it took 2 minutes to consider that decision knowing how important a try is. We could learn from them. As for 'taking learnings' Diop has to learn he's not playing in a Sunday match on Fulham Rec. With these top players you get a split second It was his dawdling that caused this whole situation.

That's not the only thing we should learn from rugby. We should do as they do and stop the clock for injuries, reviews, etc. And sound a hooter for full time. that would take away the subjective decision that the ref has to make. How often do they wait till an attack has petered out before blowing up for time? No player should be allowed to even speak to the Ref except the captain, and if they do - even politely - they should be sent of for 10 minutes.
I agree Diop was slow to clear the ball but he is not entirely to blame. As another poster has pointed out, it was a poor pass from Tosin that put him in that position.

[Sting of the North]

Never a penalty, not sure what anyone can see that warrants a penalty. Strongly disagree with blaming Tosin for the pass. While not very constructive, Diop had time to clear the ball several times over. It wasn't anything even close to resembling a "hospital pass".

Diop should have done much better, the referee should have done much better, but first and foremost, everyone involved in VAR for this incident should be fired because there is no excuse for them to not ask the referee to review the incident.

[Nick Bateman]

Apparently in the second half the ref told Tom Cairney it wasn't a penalty, so there you have it!

[bod]

Yes. That was sloppy. A definite penalty. There was contact. A great pity, as we didn't deserve to lose that one.

[Deeping_white]

Yes. That was sloppy. A definite penalty. There was contact. A great pity, as we didn't deserve to lose that one.

Contact doesn't equal a foul though - Nunez throws his leg into Diop's standing leg & even the ref agreed it wasn't a foul after seeing a replay

[Rupert]

Yes. That was sloppy. A definite penalty. There was contact. A great pity, as we didn't deserve to lose that one.

As we have seen when one of ours goes down, contact does not automatically mean a penalty. If it did, then this discussion would not be happening and we would have had several more chances to miss a penalty this season, not least in the third minute at Old Trafford in the QF of the FA Cup.

[WindyCity]

Diop just stared at the ball I've no idea what he was waiting for, just clear the ball...
It was almost like he was day dreaming

See, this was THE problem.  Diop not focused and way too casual/lazy/sloppy.  You just cannot play like that in this league, against any opponent.  You will be punished.  Diop has to take responsibility for what transpired.  You just don't want to force the ref to make a decision.

All that said, I'm sorry, but this was not a penalty, an expertly executed flop.  WTF are the people in the VAR booth doing???  I can see where if properly reviewed, Nunez gets a yellow for simulation.  What is the purpose of VAR?  They got this one wrong, they got the Mitro penalty shout early in the Cup game wrong, I would venture to say they got the De Bruyne penalty wrong in our first game with City.  A bunch of incompetent boobs or hidden agendas?  (Personally, I don't believe in hidden agendas, but it does give one pause to scratch head wondering...)

[_Putney_]

Definite penalty, you could tell by the contact and that it impeded Nunez.

[_Putney_]

Some refs would not have given that... it was minimal contact for me. Nunez made a meal of it.

[cookieg]

If that had happened anywhere else on the pitch the ref would have waved it away. Contact doesn't always mean a foul.