When you fall to the ground like that all the attacker has to do is initiate contact and fall which is what elliot did. That is given as a pen 99% of the time
How many points has that Wolves game cost us?
- Thread starter Di Maria's angel
- Start date
When you fall to the ground like that all the attacker has to do is initiate contact and fall which is what elliot did. That is given as a pen 99% of the time
We’ve had some pretty abysmal decisions go against us all season.
The Arsenal game at Emirates was a big one.
I’m hoping one of our resident nerds has been documenting it and will give us some siiiiick thread with analysis and clips of it all.
The Arsenal game at Emirates was a big one.
I’m hoping one of our resident nerds has been documenting it and will give us some siiiiick thread with analysis and clips of it all.
I don't point to random matches to try and distract from our main issue. The manager. Definitely coping and now seething.
Theres a thread for that, you little cry baby.
The reaction of our players tell the story.
Dalot lay on the ground in shame against Chelsea knowing he'd fecked it. AWB knew he'd fecked it today.
If they weren't penalties, our players would be surrounding the ref. They're penalties, the players who committed the fouls knew they were penalties.
I'm convinced part of the reason our players are so dumb is they're never held accountable for their mistakes by the manager and the fans. The manager will always come out and blame the ref when our players does something dumb and our fans will always blame the ref. Our players are under no obligation to make sensible decisions on the football pitch because they know they will be absolved of all blame for their stupid decisions. What the feck is AWB doing going to ground there?
Dalot lay on the ground in shame against Chelsea knowing he'd fecked it. AWB knew he'd fecked it today.
If they weren't penalties, our players would be surrounding the ref. They're penalties, the players who committed the fouls knew they were penalties.
I'm convinced part of the reason our players are so dumb is they're never held accountable for their mistakes by the manager and the fans. The manager will always come out and blame the ref when our players does something dumb and our fans will always blame the ref. Our players are under no obligation to make sensible decisions on the football pitch because they know they will be absolved of all blame for their stupid decisions. What the feck is AWB doing going to ground there?
In my mind that's anobvious penalty, I can't fathom how anyone sees it differently.
…and I cannot fathom how you’ve seen that as a penalty…!!! We’ve got a lot of budding Gary Neville’s in here…how there are football people on here that can’t see that Elliott has deliberately stepped across into the path of AWB’s slide is beyond me. He’s not putting his foot down in a normal stride pattern and that’s not “feeling contact” and going down, he has gone looking for contact by stepping in between AWB’s legs…it’s blatant cheating for me! I get why the ref may have seen it as a pen in real time but there’s no excuse for VAR to not call him over to look at it…
...
Last edited:
It’s simple, if Wan Bissaka stays on his feet there’s no decision to make.
Time and time again I see dubious decisions made against us this season, but our players haven’t learned that by lunging in, we make it easy for officials to feck us over.
Same as Bruno, Anthony going down with minimal contact. How have they not figured out by now that their reputations mean it won’t be given and all they are actually doing is giving the opposition the chance to counter attack?
Time and time again I see dubious decisions made against us this season, but our players haven’t learned that by lunging in, we make it easy for officials to feck us over.
Same as Bruno, Anthony going down with minimal contact. How have they not figured out by now that their reputations mean it won’t be given and all they are actually doing is giving the opposition the chance to counter attack?
There cannot be a serious debate over whether the AWB foul on Elliott was or was not a pen. It was. It was brainless by AWB, which I suppose is a debatable question, but once AWB went spider legs and didn't get the ball, it's a stonewall pen.
This is also very true! Don’t give the ref the opportunity to penalize you…
Was a clear pen but this should have actually won us loads of points as it should have exposed to Ten Hag that having a midfield in the Premier League is pretty important. Clearly didn't sadly.
The penalty is debatable, because it does appear he left a foot in to instigate the contact, but they're given so often that I'm not surprised this was too. I'd expect it to be given for us if it happened at the other end.
But the idea that we are being continually punished because of one penalty that wasn't given against us back in August is a bit mental.
But the idea that we are being continually punished because of one penalty that wasn't given against us back in August is a bit mental.
I'd be livid if that penalty hadn't been given against us, is he looking for it? Yes. I'm more concerned by how idiotic of a challenge it was by Wan-Bissaka though.
Doesn't seem to compute with some people.
Vs Chelsea both players caught wrong side and because of that both make clumsy attempts to recover and it results in a penalty.
Vs Liverpool Elliott was going no where and there were 4 other Utd players there to help out. AWB slides in and gives away a penalty.
People can blame referees and VAR all they like, but the players have made stupid moves or decisions and given them the chance to give the penalties. Nobody to blame but the players themselves.
I’ll actually give a proper answer cos I know exactly what you mean:
•Handball against tottenham 2nd game of season
•Ball not going out of play against brighton in the 3-1 loss (same thing happened arsenal vs newcastle, goal was given)
•Arsenal game Garnacho wasn't offside, Hojlund should have had a pen, and evans was fouled on rice goal
•Crystal palace game at home handball•
•Non penalty against city
•Bear hug on garnacho from udogie against spurs at home in the box
•Honorable mention for the wolves penalty away, neto dived could have cost us points, nearly did. •Foul on rashford in build up to citys goal
•2 dives against chelsea
So you could say it’s cost us atleast 10-20 point’s depending on wether some of them games we went on to win or draw,we will never know.
•Handball against tottenham 2nd game of season
•Ball not going out of play against brighton in the 3-1 loss (same thing happened arsenal vs newcastle, goal was given)
•Arsenal game Garnacho wasn't offside, Hojlund should have had a pen, and evans was fouled on rice goal
•Crystal palace game at home handball•
•Non penalty against city
•Bear hug on garnacho from udogie against spurs at home in the box
•Honorable mention for the wolves penalty away, neto dived could have cost us points, nearly did. •Foul on rashford in build up to citys goal
•2 dives against chelsea
So you could say it’s cost us atleast 10-20 point’s depending on wether some of them games we went on to win or draw,we will never know.
Stonewall pen for me, I get that Elliot was going down, but even if you accept this and the ball was gone AWB still fouled him after the ball was gone.
What we need is the reintroduction of the indirect free kick, for all those soft-half-arsed penalty shouts, yes it is a foul technically but was is likely to impede a goal or shot on goal or even an attack of any sort? like when a player running away from the goal towards the corner gets a little nudge and crumples like a paper bag, I miss indirect free kicks worse thing they ever did was to stop giving them (they are still in the rules but never given now!), bring back the indirect free kick!!!
What we need is the reintroduction of the indirect free kick, for all those soft-half-arsed penalty shouts, yes it is a foul technically but was is likely to impede a goal or shot on goal or even an attack of any sort? like when a player running away from the goal towards the corner gets a little nudge and crumples like a paper bag, I miss indirect free kicks worse thing they ever did was to stop giving them (they are still in the rules but never given now!), bring back the indirect free kick!!!
Those of you calling it a "stonewall penalty" are just peddling the "giving a referee a decision to make is a penalty" shite. Its become a practical non contact sport enough without adopting this quantam physics "well player had to adjust themselves" crap. I mean even just adopting the idea now that if you even brush off a player in the box and they go down its a penalty, is nonsense.
There are so many instances in the game when a tackle could be classifed as "wreckless" and nothing happens. It seems like "Wreckless" is now the goto excuse/reason for a penalty being correctly given, regardless of what kind of tackle it was. Almost like "well AWB shouldnt of done the stupid tackle" is the actual foul.
The rule is not that here has to be contact, though. It is about illegally obstructing a player. He clearly comes into Elliot’s path before Elliot starts to fall, that is a certainty.
AWB didnt foul him after the ball went, Elliot found AWB with his foot. This acceptance that Kane level penalties, where the diving player makes sure there is contact, is a legitimate foul has to stop. Its rewarding cheating. Just because its now become part of the sport doesnt mean people should just go with it.
Im sick of how cynical cheating is just adopted in the sport. There was a time when they tried to actively discourage diving and players had to actually be fouled to win a penalty. They might aswell just put "if you give the referee a decision to make in a the box its a penalty" in the rules so at least its clear.
If a player is in the penalty box and is forced to readjust but the defender doesnt win the ball, in all scenarios its a penalty ? So whats the difference between a player using their body to "obstruct" and a tackle ? Like if AWB quickly moved on front of Harvey and doesnt make contact, but Harvey lunges into AWB, then that should be a penalty ?
I feel this rule is not very clear at all. This looked like a penalty in real time. But when you see that no contact caused the player to go down, you are left really with "well the referee had a decision to make" as the strongest defence of why it was justified, which isnt really an objectively clear one.
This is particularly true when I think of many different instances (some posted in other threads) were we didnt get penalties (and I didnt think we necessarily should) but they were penalties (if these penalties against united are in fact "stonewall")
He shouldn’t have dived in because he didn't need to, that's the point. If that were a Utd player and it wasn't given you'd have people jumping up and down about it for years.
He dived in where he didn't have to, didn't get anywhere near the ball, took the player down, it's a fecking penalty. It was a stupid attempt at a tackle and it was rightly punished.
Bang on about VAR and referees, but until Utd get rid of all these brain dead lazy players this shit will continue to happen.
I felt the penalty was soft, but then I'm a bit old school and I think 80% of penalties are soft now. But in terms of what constitutes a penalty today, it was a definite penalty.
Nothing to do with this actual penalty, but more to do with what I see nearly every game. I think VAR should take into account the contact and the way the player goes down. For instance, if a player gets a slight tug on the arm and his legs come from under them, then this IMO shouldn't be given as the player is in my book trying to cheat his way to a penalty. I also think a slight touch and player goes flying like superman should also be ruled out. But unfortunately in todays game, they are given.
Nothing to do with this actual penalty, but more to do with what I see nearly every game. I think VAR should take into account the contact and the way the player goes down. For instance, if a player gets a slight tug on the arm and his legs come from under them, then this IMO shouldn't be given as the player is in my book trying to cheat his way to a penalty. I also think a slight touch and player goes flying like superman should also be ruled out. But unfortunately in todays game, they are given.
I agree with all this, but I do also take into consideration that AWB is playing out of position, just like the Dalot penalty against Chelsea. I would have been more fuming at the pair if they where playing at RB. Although I think the Dalot one was super soft.
Sh*t performances aside but 100% the media meltdown after the Wolves game has played an big part with refs and us this season. Terrified to give us anything and nothing to opponents.
My thoughts on the penalty are that it both is and isn't 
Basically, there is no contact initiated by AWB on Elliot. However, the fact he has slid in has given Elliot the opportunity to plant his foot in such a way that it becomes a penalty. Stay on your feet and there is no chance of the penalty. It's just silly defending and deserved to be punished. It's soft and the contact is minimal - but it was more of a penalty than both of the ones Chelsea got. I can understand why VAR didn't overturn any of them, but I also think they probably wouldn't ask the referee to go and look at them if the referee didn't give it on-field either personally.
Basically, there is no contact initiated by AWB on Elliot. However, the fact he has slid in has given Elliot the opportunity to plant his foot in such a way that it becomes a penalty. Stay on your feet and there is no chance of the penalty. It's just silly defending and deserved to be punished. It's soft and the contact is minimal - but it was more of a penalty than both of the ones Chelsea got. I can understand why VAR didn't overturn any of them, but I also think they probably wouldn't ask the referee to go and look at them if the referee didn't give it on-field either personally.
He didn’t take the player down, the player was going down before any contact was made. Only reason any contact was made was because the diving player made sure there was contact.
I get this is a cynical part of the sport but it doesn’t make it a foul, just that the sport has allowed it to be interpreted that way.
“He shouldn’t have dived in” or doing something “brainless” doesn’t make it a penalty.
My thoughts on the penalty are that it both is and isn't
Basically, there is no contact initiated by AWB on Elliot. However, the fact he has slid in has given Elliot the opportunity to plant his foot in such a way that it becomes a penalty. Stay on your feet and there is no chance of the penalty. It's just silly defending and deserved to be punished. It's soft and the contact is minimal - but it was more of a penalty than both of the ones Chelsea got. I can understand why VAR didn't overturn any of them, but I also think they probably wouldn't ask the referee to go and look at them if the referee didn't give it on-field either personally.
I think this is the most reasonable Interpretation which suggests it’s not a definitive penalty. It also suggests it’s a subjective call by the ref. So the rule is “if you give the ref a decision to make in the box and he gives a penalty it’s a penalty cause you gave him a decision to make”.
So you'd be happy for that not to be given as penalty to a Utd player with 5 mins left and 2-1 down?
Yes, I’d be happy if it wasn’t given if it meant a penalty has to be a clear foul and not guesswork that defaults to “well he’s given a the ref a decision to make there” logic.
I'd say that alright.
Would this forum be saying it was a penalty if it happened at the other end?
100% yes in my opinion.
100% yes in my opinion.
‘In all scenarios’ you ask, and I think it’s easy to say no, definitely not in all scenarios. If you get in ahead of the defender with the front to the ball, shielding the ball, you will almost never get a PK against. If you do the same thing with your back to the ball, a PK will be given most time. If you get a hip or a shoulder in the way of the attacker without reaching the ball, probably it will be nothing. If you slide tackle in front of the attacker without getting the ball, 9 out of 10 it will be. Or 8. It’s certainly not fool proof, but it’s not one of those issues that constantly divide experts, unlike issues like handball, holding/tugging or when to use VAR. Wan Bissaka obstructed Elliot in a way that I’d be surprised hugely if it wasn’t awarded at PK or FK, unlike what happened with Dalot and Antony last game.
It doesn’t matter what people think, if it’s a clear foul it should be easy to say why. The best answers have been ambiguous.
“it was a wreckless tackle by AWB, contact does not need to be made, ” is probably the “clearest” explanation I’ve read. Wreckless is subjective and seems to have varying degrees of interpretation. Not making contact means you are making a subjective call on how the wreckless incident impacted play.
It looks like the incident looked really stupid by AWB and the default stance is moreso on a “well AWB shouldn’t have lunged like that so he deserved to be punished” kind of sentiment.
None of that clears up the objective challenge of what the foul was. Being stupid is not a foul nor should it play any bearing on the objective clarification of why a foul is a foul.
This is the thing though, I can see why it was given I just don’t know what the actual foul is. Sounds contradictory, I feel its more a foul because simulation is accepted as part of the game (particularly attackers moving their feet in a way that finds contact) moreso then it actually being a tackle that had any meaningful impact on the shooter in any physical way.
Good god, is there really people trying to say that wasn't a penalty? It's as blatant as they get.
The only thing blatant was the dive
The AWB one is a penalty but it's basically the Pool player creating contact and AWB being an idiot. It's a bit of a snapshot of a big issue with the game where you get taught now how to create the contact and essentially how to buy penalties/dive. If you run into the box and there is contact on you without the ball being touched, it's never getting overturned by VAR if you go down. These days even if you touch the ball as the defender it doesn't necessarily save you. The Chelsea one was much worse, he knew Dalot was there, could feel his arm and just crumpled and won a penalty even when VAR could literally see on replays there was no trip.
(1) Wan-Bissaka's tackle on Elliott (Penalty given) : reddevils (reddit.com)
Worth a look at the footage from this angle on Reddit. Elliott dives before the contact, which he initiates.
So the sequence event of fouls are:-
1) Simulation by Elliott (free-kick to United)
2) Contact on Wan-Bissaka iniated by Elliott and completely avoidable (seen arguments both ways but don't think it's a penalty).
Either way, feels like a harsh one.
I don't think playing on the opposite side is much of an excuse. It's Phil Neville vs Romania levels of stupid. You can see by the players reaction they know they've fecked up.
Yep. Same with the 2 midweek against Chelsea and the same with the Wolves one.