Forest deserved a penalty in win over Everton – KMI Group

video subtitles, Match Day 2: How the referee’s decision affects Everton vs Nottingham Forest

  • author, Nick Macht
  • Role, Senior football journalist

An independent panel said Nottingham Forest should have been awarded a penalty after three unsuccessful appeals against Everton.

Ashley Young’s challenge on Gio Reina, his handball and subsequent tackle attempt on Callum Hudson-Odoi were all rejected by Anthony Taylor on the pitch, with video assistant referee Stuart Atwell didn’t intervene either.

Minutes after full-time, the club posted on social media claiming Atwell was a fan of relegation rivals Luton Town, a statement that has been viewed more than 45 million times.

Forest’s post read: “Three extremely poor decisions – three no penalties – which we simply cannot accept.

“We warn PGMOL that VAR is Luton fans… The NFFC will now consider its options.”

What did the panel say?

The Critical Match Incident Panel is independent and consists of three former players or coaches, a Premier League representative and a member from the Professional Match Officials Council (the refereeing body).

It reviewed the biggest refereeing decisions from every Premier League match, with the consensus being that Forest should have received a penalty when Young brought down Hudson-Odoi in the 55th minute.

“Young inherited the risk of going down from the wrong side and Hudson-Odoi beat him to the ball. This was a foul,” the jury wrote in their decision, seen by BBC Sport road.

“It was agreed that a penalty should have been awarded and that VAR should have intervened as Young did not make any contact with the ball and there was evidence that his contact with Hudson-Odoi caused the attacker to trip. “

They also voted 5-0 that VAR should intervene.

The panel was split 3-2 on a live decision on whether Forest should have been awarded a penalty when the ball hit Young’s arm in the 44th minute, but all agreed VAR was right not to intervene.

They believe this is a subjective judgment, but “most believe this is a dynamic situation where the arms are in a reasonable position and there is no clear movement to deliberately handle the ball. In addition, the very close position of the attacker hitting the ball has been considered Inside.

They also agreed at 5-0 that Young’s challenge on Reina in the 24th minute did not merit a penalty and that VAR was right not to intervene.

“The ball was not kicked out and there was contact between the defensive player and the offensive player, but any contact was minimal and exaggerated by the offensive player and below the high threshold for a penalty kick,” the team wrote.

What did Howard Webb say?

Referee chief Howard Webb sided with the jury over Ashley Young’s challenge on Gio Reina and the defender’s handball in the penalty area.

Regarding Young’s tackle on Reina, Webber told Sky Sports’ Mic’d Up program that the PGMOL set a “fairly high bar” for intervening in incidents inside the penalty area and in this case “minimal contact” occurred .

Regarding Young’s handball, Webber said VAR agreed with the on-field referee that the defender was trying to block the shot from a “short distance” and that his arm was in a “natural position”.

However, Webb admitted VAR should have intervened in Young’s challenge on Hudson-Odoi by sending the referee to the pitchside monitor.

“This is an issue that reaches a very clear threshold,” he said.

Weber said there could have been a “different outcome” if a referee had been sent to review the incident in person.

What did the VAR official say?

Forest requested an audio exchange between officials after the defeat at Goodison Park.

Audio of Taylor and Atwell during Young’s challenge on Hudson-Odoi was broadcast on Mic’d Up and played while VAR reviewed the incident.

Referee: “Ball, ball, ball.”

VAR: “Checking possible penalties, standby.”

Referee: “Looks like he’s playing ball.”

VAR: “Okay, so, take your time. Because it just comes into the shot. Okay, so they come together. There’s contact between them. [Young and Hudson-Odoi] Before kickoff, but it was more of a fight.Langi [Simon Long – assistant VAR], what I see here is no obvious movement from the defender.Thales [Taylor – referee] Confirm on-field play decisions. Check completed. Players from both sides are fighting for the ball. Because they all play in the same place, there is a level of normal contact.

What’s the background?

Forest are expected to face charges from the Premier League and the Football Association after the social media post.

Last week, the FA formally requested comment from Forest, coach Nuno Espirito Santo, defender Neco Williams and club refereeing analyst Mark Clattenburg.

The Premier League is also investigating, saying it was “inappropriate to question the integrity of match officials”.

After the incident, Forest was allowed to listen to a recording of the officers’ discussion.

Liverpool made a similar request after Luis Diaz’s goal was wrongly disallowed in their 2-1 loss to Tottenham Hotspur in September.

Forest are one point above the Premier League’s bottom three after Sunday’s 2-0 loss to Manchester City and travel to relegated Sheffield United on Saturday.

Source link

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *