Everton vs. Arsenal Controversy in missed penalties

[Alberto]

Well, we had two major gaffes in the first 15 minutes of play. The referee Mark Clattenburg missed a possible send off or at minimum an obvious caution when Jens Lehmann grabbed Johnson in the penalty area. He looked like a linebacker tackling a quarterback, the fact he punched the ball was meaningless. He was tackling Johnson before he punched the ball out. Terrible missed call. Just minutes later, it looked like Tim Howard got all man and not the ball when he came out to make a play. This was a more difficult decision since it needed slow motion to confirm that he took down the man.

Several studs up takles, one which to me should have been an obvious caution, but one where he spoke to both players and let the offending player go.

In general he sacrificed skill, let both teams knock each other around. As is typical of the Premiership, many high ball challenges featuring contact that was not vertical went without any whistle.

Anyone watch the match?

Your thoughts.

[bluedevils]

Missed the match; hope to catch the re-airing sometime this week. DID see the Lehmann tackle on a quick clip. Looked like a foul to me, but I was casually watching. *If* the referee got it wrong, I don't think it was a "missed call" since the clip I saw included the ref pretty close to the action and indicating through some sort of pointing gesture that 'he got the ball.' I'm not saying that was the correct decision, but it seemed the ref had a look at what happened, probably had a pretty good idea of what actually happened, and deemed it a no-call.

[MassachusettsRef]

Didn't see the match but the highlights, including the two non-penalty calls, are here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOQiftEMAa4

I agree with you that the first one is a penalty and, probably, a send off. From the angle shown at the 19 second mark, it's pretty obvious that it's a penalty. The problem, though, is that from the opposite (referee's angle) I'm not quite sure that he's able to see the contact before Lehman gets the ball (in the next few frames). It was wrong, but it was a very tough call from the opposite angle, I think.

I disagree on the Howard situation, though. The attacker touches the ball into Howard's sprawling left hand and then Howard catches him with his right. To me, that's akin to a defender making a fair tackle with one leg and then having the attacker fall over the second leg. Unless there's a malicious intent (like a scissors tackle or excessive force with the second leg), that's not a foul. Howard makes a clean play on the ball and the attacker falls over the other hand.

The other situations you talk about aren't included in the clips, so I can't really comment on his performance overall.

[Alberto]

This match reinforces why I have such a difficult time watching the Premiership. It's expected that hard challenges are part of play. I like to let them play too, but when a player gains an advantage from a challenge that is not about shoulder to shoulder contact then it's a foul. I know the expectation level from players is to allow play to continue, but for me it reinforces the notion that you can be physical, knock the hell out of your opponent and get away with it, because it's all part of play. This is soccer, not rugby. I still see speed and physical play the order of the day in the Premiership to the detriment of skill. Many good players come to England and see a marked reduction in their abilities because of this. Far too much rough play is allowed to go unsanctioned and the game suffers as a consequence.

I don't understand how the FA does not take action to correct this situation based upon England's poor performances internationally. This is a major problem.

[USSF REF]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOQiftEMAa4

Listen to the commentary from the guys on the TV show in this clip. There is some debate among them as to whether or not a penalty should be given in the first place.

This is clearly part of cultural difference that exists in the game between many places in the world and England. That makes it tougher in the USA for referees where a significant number of premier coaches are English or are taught by a Brit. While many other teams and coaches are influenced by the finesse of the Latin game. A melting pot indeed.

I respect Alberto's opinion on this, but I like the physical play in the EPL - I find that league very entertaining. I don't necessarily think I would referee it that way, but it is enjoyable to me.

As to the decisions - the keeper in me says Lehman must be permitted to make this play, the referee in me sees it differently. I would likely have given the penalty and maybe a caution, but certainly not a sending off. I don't buy that this was an Obvious goal scoring opportunity.

The Howard decision was correct, that was not a foul, in my book. Again, thats partly the keeper in me, but I really believe Howard made it to the ball first, and since nothing else Howard did after that could be seen as a foul, this is not a penalty.

[Englishref]

It may just me being English, but I didn't see anything wrong with the game yesterday whatsoever. In fact, everyone I've spoken to about it has agreed that it was a fairly easy game to referee, with no real bad challenges. The only one he could/should have cautioned was the tackle by Vaughn in the first 10 mins, which I think if it happened later in the game would have been cautioned. However, after that, I didn't see any challenges that were worthy of cautions that weren't. I know we, as Arsenal, are often on the end of the rough treatment, especially by the smaller clubs, but this tends to be reflected in the higher caution counts for these clubs when we play them.

As for the penalty appeals, my first instinct on the Lehmann challenge was that it was a blatent penalty. On slow motion, there is less grappling than I thought, and he does manage to reach round and punch the ball away. However, I still think there's enough to award a penalty, despite the majority seeming to agree it was a clean challenge.

And the second penalty appeal was a great save/tackle by Tim Howard.

[MassachusettsRef]

As to the decisions - the keeper in me says Lehman must be permitted to make this play, the referee in me sees it differently. I would likely have given the penalty and maybe a caution, but certainly not a sending off. I don't buy that this was an Obvious goal scoring opportunity. You know, initially I didn't buy that it was a send off, based on the fact that the attacker is going away from goal with his direction. And, strictly speaking, under the (to me, foolishly) stringent USSF guidelines for DOGSO, I don't think it is a send off.

However, I think UEFA guidelines (which give the referee a little more latitude) and the Spirit of the Law call for a send off. Freeze frame the YouTube video at 7, 15/16, and 19 seconds. You can see, first off all, that the contact/grab from Lehman occurs well before he gets near the ball, which means that the foul certainly affected any real chance the attacker had to play the ball. More importantly, though, even though the attacker is facing somewhat away from goal (probably a 30 degree angle), it wouldn't be too hard for him to redirect the ball back towards the goal if he isn't fouled. And, most importantly, we're dealing with a completely empty net (it's always amazed me that there's no distinction by USSF in DOGSO cases between having 1 and have 0 defenders between the attacker and the goal), which means this isn't a case of a defender taking down the attacker when he still has the keeper to beat. This is the keeper dragging down someone who is behind him and faces an empty net.

It might have been hard to see in real-time and, admittedly, by the letter of USSF instructions it may not be a send off here. But, ultimately, in a literal sense, it doesn't get much more obvious insofar as denying an obvious goal-scoring opportunity. If Lehman doesn't touch the attacker, he certainly gets a foot on the ball and, unless he seriously mis-hits it, the ball would probably be going into a wide open net.

[intechpc]

I don't particularly care for Clattenburg's style. He tends to let more things go than the average referee. I know commentators love this but at the end of the day I think it causes him some match management issues. It's a style issue not an ability issue, I just personally don't care for the amount of leeway Clattenburg gives and how slow he is to produce a card from his pocket.

For the record, I felt the first should have been a definite PK as the keeper makes contact with the player well before the ball and just goes through the player to make the punch on the ball. The second incident however, I'm in agreement was not a penalty. Keeper gets to the ball first and it is akin to a good tackle in my book.

[blech]

for someone who has made it to as near the top as he has been, Lehman seems to be a real loose cannon who puts himself in a lot of very questionable situations.

i actually thought there very could have been a pk awarded to arsenal very late in the game on a tackle that i believe brought down walcott. (i might be remembering that wrong). the announcer said he got the ball and was doing his job, but he didn't touch the ball (and i have no comment about his job). it was one of those difficult scenarios where the player is moving away from the goal near the outer corner of the area, and not the goal scoring opportunity that one typically thinks of as meriting a pk, but of course that just meant it was even more stupid for the defender to bring him down when he was contained and moving away from the goal. still, looked like a pk to me, and i remember thinking that he simply swallowed his whistle to avoid giving a pk late in a scoreless game.

[bluedevils]

As for the penalty appeals, my first instinct on the Lehmann challenge was that it was a blatent penalty. On slow motion, there is less grappling than I thought, and he does manage to reach round and punch the ball away. However, I still think there's enough to award a penalty, despite the majority seeming to agree it was a clean challenge.

Well, at least you thought it was a penalty! The last part of the quoted paragraph, "the majority [of your English football friends?] seeming to agree it was a clean challenge" -- to me, this is a good illustration of how differently football and the laws are viewed in England vs. the USA. How the Lehmann play could be considered a 'clean challenge' is beyond me. Although I am inclined to disagree, I can see how it could be considered a 'legal' challenge or perhaps doubtful enough so as not to warrant a PK. But 'clean' and 'legal' mean 2 different things to me.

[macheath]

Well, at least you thought it was a penalty! The last part of the quoted paragraph, "the majority [of your English football friends?] seeming to agree it was a clean challenge" -- to me, this is a good illustration of how differently football and the laws are viewed in England vs. the USA. How the Lehmann play could be considered a 'clean challenge' is beyond me. Although I am inclined to disagree, I can see how it could be considered a 'legal' challenge or perhaps doubtful enough so as not to warrant a PK. But 'clean' and 'legal' mean 2 different things to me.

Not just England vs. USA. If you watch other top leagues (Serie A, La Liga), the level of physical challenge that's permitted in the Premiership seems much higher than elsewhere. At the risk of big generalizations, I do think there's somewhat of a cultural difference, in the same way that the Italians have refined subtle, borderline violations of the LOTG, and think that is normal soccer. Or watch how players react to being fouled, or pretending to be fouled--you can show tape with no commentary or identification, and figure out pretty quickly if you're watching Serie A or the Premiership...

[bluedevils]

Not just England vs. USA. ...

You are probably correct; I just didn't want to jump to conclusions that I don't feel terribly well-qualified to support.

[Rufusabc]

I watched the game through Blue eyes, so I am not without bias here. Forgetting the penalties for a second, I thought there were a lot of head high challenges with leading arms that were ignored. I didnt realize when challenging for the ball in the air you could plow through the stationary player in front of you by clubbing him in the head.

I thought both could have been penalties and after the first was NOT called he very well thought he better not call the second.

After seeing the penalty not called AGAINST Liverpool earlier on Sunday, I think a little re-education for the Prem Referees might be in order.

BTW, Johnson's winner was terrific. On to Europe!

Rog

[Alberto]

I had posted over on the Everton board the question as to whether Arsenal got away with a clear penalty and I also asked about Howard's play. I was very surprised that only one poster felt that Jens Lehmann got away with one. Most felt it was a normal part of play. That is what is so telling about the marked differences in the English style of play verus almost anywhere else in the world.

[colins1993]

I had posted over on the Everton board the question as to whether Arsenal got away with a clear penalty and I also asked about Howard's play. I was very surprised that only one poster felt that Jens Lehmann got away with one. Most felt it was a normal part of play. That is what is so telling about the marked differences in the English style of play verus almost anywhere else in the world.

No doubt about it Alberto. I much prefer La Liga over the Premiership myself.
I really don't understand why everyone goes gaa-gaa over the EPL. If I wanted to see speed ball I'd watch hockey. Not saying it's all speed and no skill of course but, to me, slow it down a bit and it will be more enjoyable.

[MassachusettsRef]

A pretty conclusive still photo that shows Lehman got away with a penalty. You couldn't see the grab, really, on the video, but it's undeniable here. Even IF this was after Lehman touched the ball (which I don't think it was), it's still a penalty. Whether it's for the charge or the hold, there's not much doubt about it:

http://soccernet.espn.go.com/gallery?id=415152&index=3&cc=5901

[bluedevils]

A pretty conclusive still photo that shows Lehman got away with a penalty. You couldn't see the grab, really, on the video, but it's undeniable here. Even IF this was after Lehman touched the ball (which I don't think it was), it's still a penalty. Whether it's for the charge or the hold, there's not much doubt about it:

http://soccernet.espn.go.com/gallery?id=415152&index=3&cc=5901

Great pic; thanks for the link.

By the way, I don't necessarily try to classify a foul (holding, charging, etc.) when deciding whether or not a foul occurred. I see the play and decide if it was a DFK, IFK, or nothing. I don't really care if the lawbook says it is charging, or pushing, or what.

[JohnR]

Andy Johnson didn't complain a bit about the noncall. That's England alright.

It's not a foul in youth league play, either. Not in this neighborhood. Keepers can do a lot more than that before they are whistled. In fact, I can't recall when I last saw a keeper whistled for a PK. Four years, I think.