Lee Mason
- Thread starter Alex
- Start date
- Status
The challenge from Vidic for the second penalty was never a card worthy challenge.
The one early in the second half was potentially worth a yellow, but Mason was consistent there, in that he let similar challenges from West Ham players go without a card too.
The one early in the second half was potentially worth a yellow, but Mason was consistent there, in that he let similar challenges from West Ham players go without a card too.
Penalties are often open to varying degrees of interpretation as it is. Whether someone meant to handle the ball (which is almost never anyway, unless by some spastic impulse) isn't the only way to give one away...obstructing the natural course of the ball with an illegal part of your body is often a justifiable pen. It's only when they're in a position like Upson's that it's fair to overlook it....Evra was waving his hands around like a spastic. That's generally always a pen.
Think that is a pretty fair summary of the big decisions. We were probably lucky he didn't book hitzelberger in the first half or he'd have had to have given Vidic a second for the mistimed tackle in the second half.
He wasn't that bad, I've seen much worse this season (namely some cnut named Martin Atkinson). First penalty was spot on, their second just outside the box but things happen in a split second and he doesn't have the luxury of seeing a replay the way we do. Vidic yellow card was just right IMO, both were tussling and I felt the WH player went down too easily plus I think PIG might have just got there first. Our penalty was spot on, his arm kind of came out when Fabio tried to cross the ball in.
I felt he took a while to book a WH player but in the end, he did book a few.
I felt he took a while to book a WH player but in the end, he did book a few.
Not give it, obviously. It was a crazy decision to award that penalty given the uncertainty of it.
Saying that, our penalty was a bit soft and all. Not a great day for the ref, really.
Bum spazzers
No it wasn't
It's probably centimetres outside the line, but at full speed in the game, it looks like a penalty. Certainly my first thought as it happened. Entirely within his rights to give the penalty. To say its 'crazy' is horse shit I'm afraid
I think the wrong decisions from him evened themselves out.
I'd say West Ham got more wrong decision go their way, but we got the biggest one (our penalty).
I respect all the referee's decisions today
Alright, chill out Norma.
Admittedly, I'm not sure of what the exact ruling is here. All I will say is that the ref, despite being well positioned, must have incredible, almost impossible perceptual abilities to be able to call that a penalty given the speed at which it happened and how close it was.
If it is not the case that he has said abilities, then there must've been some doubt about the decision. If there is doubt in such a situation, I would've thought it reasonable to give benefit to the the defender given the impact of a penalty on a game of football as opposed to a freekick.
Again, I don't know the exact rulings here.
Debatable pen, but then again, so was the one we got. Vidic could easily have prevented ours by going for the crap tackle a second or two earlier instead of backing off until the edge of the box. His fault really.
It was a chilled comment. I fear for some of you sensitive souls at times!
It's the refs job to try and make a call in such circumstances. And yes sometimes it is almost impossible, but they have to do the best they can. He made the decision that looked right at the time. Replays show it might just have been outside, he doesn't have that benefit. Fair decision I say
This is my point. Making such a call would surely call for certainty because of the ramifications of giving the penalty. It was clearly a foul, but to give a penalty in that situation (whereby he could not possibly have been certain) is surely unreasonable, no?
That's before even moving on to the fact that he was wrong in his decision.
Benefit of the doubt should go to the defender there, for me. Will stand by the original view that it was crazy to award the penalty in those circumstances. It arguably showed an unnecessary willingness to give the penalty, though I wouldn't go down the road of questioning his ability to be impartial.
The thing is that Cole wasn't in the box and wasn't exactly sprinting in at a Ronaldo gallop he was doing step overs into the box and Mason was 15 yards away it's clear that the initial occurred outside of the box.
Haven't seen it mentioned. That was an absolute bullshit call on Hernandez when he turned the defender and had a breakaway. Our best finisher has a break and the ref blows the whistle but people want to perseverate over Vidic being the last man, which doesn't mean a red card unless you stop a goal scoring opportunity.
He's given a penalty because he thought the incident occurred on the line or in the area. Why couldn't he have thought he was definatly correct? At normal match speed, in the instant, I certainly thought penalty, why not he?
We're talking absolute millimetres for moving objects. You're setting an impossible bar. I'm sure he would have simply awarded a free kick if he didn't think it was in the area
Most will realise it was a reasonable call, maybe I'm wrong but I just wonder sometimes if folk arguing with this kind of thing understand what goes on in a game. The ref can't possibly win sometimes. He's arguably got every decision correct, perhaps the one he got wrong went in our favour for a pen, and some on here are saying he was shit!!!
It wasn't millimeters Brad, first contact was made a good foot or two out. If Mason can't see that from where he was he needs to get his eyes checked. Also, the pace of the play was by no means extreme, I mean ffs it was Carlton Cole doing stopovers at the edge of the box, not Messi bursting trough at full pace.
First contact doesn't matter. If Cole could keep going at first and the contact continued into the box and then bought him down (which is what looked like happened to me), it's a penalty.
I'm surprised that Manc ref Mason didn't snap up the opportunity to give Blackpool the blatant penalty they should've had at 2-1 today.
More shite today from Mason. Blackpool should have had a penalty, which likely would have made it 2-2.
Absolute bollocks decision.
Absolute bollocks decision.
Pete is so full of shit isn't he?
Very much so. Maybe Mason is that confident Arsenal can't catch us that he doesn't want to blow his cover.
Was told to "feck off" by Wilshere a few times this afternoon.
Didn't do anything about it obviously.
Didn't do anything about it obviously.
I look forward to seeing the penalty decision replayed ad nauseum on Sky Sports News this week.
Time to start complaining to the ombudsman? My daughter is mentally scarred now.
Just seen the penalty incident 
How does a ref justify NOT giving a penalty for a sliding tackle like that? I mean, you can't say it wasn't a foul, unless he says it's a dive, in which case he'd be waving for the Blackpool player to get up and/or book him for diving.
How does a ref justify NOT giving a penalty for a sliding tackle like that? I mean, you can't say it wasn't a foul, unless he says it's a dive, in which case he'd be waving for the Blackpool player to get up and/or book him for diving.
The ball had long gone - you see this all the time when forwards get a shot off and there's a collision.
Strange post. He went past Koscielny who mowed him down - absolutely clear cut - and Blackpool got no advantage of the situation. The ball had long gone when Rafael bumped into Varney in that famous situation you talk about so much earlier this season, he was never going to get that ball after playing it out of touch. I didn´t see you defend Rafael, and this was a far more clear cut pen than that was. Stonewall. A foul is a foul, you can´t scythe people down in the box just because they´re going to lose the ball.
In fact, if you scythe down someone who isn´t even close to the ball in the box, it will be a pen. You simply can´t foul people, regardless of where the ball is, and expect to get away with it. The rules doesn´t require you to have possession of the ball to be fouled, and Taylor-Fletcher was absolutely hacked down. Your logic isn´t really sound here, I´m afraid.
That's rubbish. If he hadn't been fouled he would have been in a good position for a return pass. Definite penalty.
Doesn't really bother me though, Arsenal fecked up by drawing three on the bounce following our defeats to Chelsea and Liverpool. You'll be lucky to hold on to second place.
Out of curiosity, does anyone know what the law is on the first Blackpool goal.
Mason played an advantage and it led to a goal. Should he then be going back and sending Lehmann off as that would have been the outcome of the penalty award?
I'm sure Blackpool would have rather had a penalty and a red card than a goal and continuing against 11.
EDIT: Also,
at Pete saying it shouldn't have been a pen at 2-1. That wasn't predictable at all
Mason played an advantage and it led to a goal. Should he then be going back and sending Lehmann off as that would have been the outcome of the penalty award?
I'm sure Blackpool would have rather had a penalty and a red card than a goal and continuing against 11.
EDIT: Also,
at Pete saying it shouldn't have been a pen at 2-1. That wasn't predictable at all You see it every other game the forward gets a shot off and gets clattered by a defender - no pen.
Why do you keep saying "gets a shot off"? He didn't shoot. He knocked it away from the defender and got taken out. It's a blatent pen.
If he waves play on and the team gains an advantage from the situation, which would otherwise have been a red, the offender should be booked once the situation is over.Out of curiosity, does anyone know what the law is on the first Blackpool goal.
Mason played an advantage and it led to a goal. Should he then be going back and sending Lehmann off as that would have been the outcome of the penalty award?
I'm sure Blackpool would have rather had a penalty and a red card than a goal and continuing against 11.
EDIT: Also,
But it's an interesting question that you ask, because I was thinking this myself; Who decides what's an advantage? As it is, keeping possession of the ball is deemed an advantage, but in this case, with Arsenal having no keeper on the bench, it would be more advantageous to have an outfield player in net for the opposition, even if they were not to score from the ensuing penalty, would it not?
But if the ref is going to go back after the goal and punish Lehmann surely it should be a red? He's still denied that player a clear goalscoring opportunity. Surely the fact it has led to another doesn't matter.
Of course it is a pen. Ignore him. He is being deliberately obtuse. My guess is a WUM.
Arsenal were fortunate today as Blackpool had plenty of chances to get something from the game.
Well yeah, but he didn´t shoot, he went past Koscielny. Bizarre comment, I watched the game with an Arsenal mate who said he couldn´t believe it wasn´t given. That was as stonewall a pen as you´re gonna get, and as I say - what about the Rafael incident? Varney was never gonna reach that ball. So what say you, pen or no pen there?
- Status