Was the Goldson tackle in the second half a penalty?

I thought the Goldson one looked like a penalty but also thought that the Kent chance at the end was as good a shout, the player didn't get the ball and made enough contact on Kent that he didn't control his shot. Thought the ref had a good game as he was at least consistent with almost all decisions.
 
Yep, surprised it wasn’t given but as someone else said above, just daft of Goldson to tempt the ref
 
truebluesince82 said:
Replays show its a dive. No contact. Goldson puts his foot down and player dives. Why var didn't give it
Click to expand...
Mate there was clear contact. All the TV guys said so. Even Alex Rae on watching replays admitted there was contact after initially saying dive. So fvcking glad at the time the ref never checked as I feared the worst.
 
There is contact but not every contact is a foul.

I would 100% have been looking for it though.
 
Was definitely no penalty should’ve been booked for diving played for it ref saw that and didn’t give it well played ref
 
Like most of the responses I was fully expecting it to given, but it wasn’t because while there was a bit of contact - there wasn’t enough for Borre to go down with the force he did.

Over the whole EL campaign, VAR went for us more than against us and without the age old argument again I would bet my bottom dollar the same would happen domestically.
 
Surprised it wasn't tbh.

If that was us I'd have been 100% screaming for a penalty for that and feel cheated we never got it.
 
Think VAR done its job, wasn't a clear error by the ref. Defo contact, but player tries to buy it. If ref had gave it, VAR wouldn't have overturned it either. Way it should be.
 
Leo_Ger said:
I thought it was at first. On the replays I don't think there was enough force to warrant their player's hysterics.

Was a daft challenge to make regardless.
Click to expand...
Totally agree but having not given it probably the VAR referee deemed it not "clear and obvious" enough to steer the onfield ref to the VAR monitor to overturn his decision.

Conversely, if it had been given by the referee I feel the VAR referee again would have decided not a clear and obvious mistake in awarding a penalty and it would likely have been given.

VAR, confusing - YES, solution to all the refereeing decisions - absolutely NOT!
 
TheMish said:
all day I thought TBF.

I was pretty shocked Lundstram didn't get at least a yellow as well.
Click to expand...
Sums up my opinion. When the Goldson incident first occurred, I thought it was a pen.

Lundstrum, although not intentional, he could’ve been given a red. No intent but the refs could’ve seen it as dangerous play.
 
iaatpies said:
Other end of the park and we're screaming for it.

There was definitely contact with the man. No contact with the ball. I think that the way Borre goes down puts a bit of doubt in VAR ref's mind. If it had been given then we would have had no grounds to complain.
Click to expand...
Exactly this.
 
They showed three different replay angles on BT. The first looked a penalty, the second a stonewaller but then the third from behind the goal it appeared there was no real contact and the player was trying to buy it.
 
There's definite contact so could easily have been given but since it wasn't I can understand why VAR didn't overrule the ref - it wasn't a clear and obvious mistake as Borré tried to embellish how much contact there was.

Ironically, I think if the ref had given it then VAR would have supported the ref again.
 
I thought it was it looked that way from a couple of angles but there was one angle showed he got the ball and their player went down rather theatrically imo!
 
mountloyal said:
Mate there was clear contact. All the TV guys said so. Even Alex Rae on watching replays admitted there was contact after initially saying dive. So fvcking glad at the time the ref never checked as I feared the worst.
Click to expand...
Well they're wrong. Close up replay shows zero contact. Var checked said so on screens in stadium. Var check complete. Doesn't touch him though does stick his leg out
 
nateman said:
Got to admit I thought that was a penalty. They showed the angle from behind the goal and there was clear contact, surprised VAR never pulled it up and gave the ref a look at it.
Click to expand...
For me yes, thought JL was walking too. Go t to admit that I thought the gods were smiling on us last night and we were destined to lift it due to things going our way like that.
 
nateman said:
Got to admit I thought that was a penalty. They showed the angle from behind the goal and there was clear contact, surprised VAR never pulled it up and gave the ref a look at it.
Click to expand...
I think yes it was a penalty until you watch the player hold his leg in position, and over react dramatically.
 
I always try and look at it if roles were reversed and I'd be screaming for it. Goldson doesnt touch the ball and takes the guys foot away. Its not much but we've had penalties for less, I think about Red Star at home in particular
 
First I thought , penalty , then on slow motion I thought Borre was at it he was going down no matter what . Whatever contact there was wasn’t enough to impede him.
Still would have wanted it at the other end though.:))
 
It was a stonewall penalty, we got away with it. We got away a few yellows not being given as well. Ref was a bit of mess last night. They got away with one with Aribo, guy barged him in the back in the first half and no freekick was even given. Fair enough if they were shoulder to shoulder, but it was through the back. it was a freekick and yellow card all day long.
 
Yes stonewaller for me, was amazed at the time it wasn’t recommended by the VAR to check.

I’d be apoplectic if we had lost a major final to a decision like that, in the end it didn’t matter though.
 
There was one angle on BT Sport that suggested definite pen. Seems VAR decided it was a subjective decision so didn’t instruct ref to go to the screen
 
It was a clumsy tackle and a penalty if we’re totally honest. If it had been up the other end I’d have been fuming.
 
Thought VAR would've intervened and given it tbh. That said, the theatrical nature in which the Frankfurt player went down probably meant why they didn't look into it too much.
 
No there was slight contact but not nearly enough for their player to go to ground as if shot by a sniper.

Ref was really lenient but at least he was consistent - you could see he wanted the game to remain 11-11 as he could have booked another 8 or 9 players quite easily. They had some cynical fouls that should have been punished but we had a few moments that we got away with as well.
 
Would be raging if that wasn’t given to us. Not sure what VAR is for if not used in this case.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Latest posts

Back
Top