Forest should have had one penalty in Everton defeat – KMI Panel
Forest should have had one penalty in Everton defeat - KMI Panel BBC.com
sdgtalks
Nottingham Forest Penalty Appeals Against Everton Revisited
By Nick Mashiter, Senior Football News Reporter
Nottingham Forest should have been awarded one penalty from their three unsuccessful appeals against Everton, an independent panel has said.
Claims for penalties after Ashley Young’s challenge on Gio Reyna, his handball, and an attempted tackle on Callum Hudson-Odoi were all turned down by Anthony Taylor on the pitch, with video assistant referee Stuart Attwell not intervening.
Forest lost the Premier League game 2-0 at Goodison Park on 21 April.
Minutes after full-time, the club posted on social media, alleging Attwell was a fan of relegation rivals Luton – a statement which has been seen more than 45 million times.
Forest’s post said: “Three extremely poor decisions – three penalties not given – which we simply cannot accept.
“We warned the PGMOL that the VAR is a Luton fan… NFFC will now consider its options.”
What did the panel say?
The Key Match Incident Panel is independent and made up of three former players or coaches, one Premier League representative, and one from the Professional Game Match Officials Board, the referees’ body.
It reviews the big refereeing decisions from each Premier League round of fixtures and unanimously agreed Forest should have been given a penalty when Young brought down Hudson-Odoi in the 55th minute.
“Young inherits the risk by going to ground from the wrong side and Hudson-Odoi beats him to the ball. It is a foul,” the panel wrote in their decisions, seen by BBC Sport.
“It was felt unanimously that a penalty should have been awarded and VAR should have intervened on the basis that Young doesn’t make any contact on the ball and that there is evidence that his contact with Hudson-Odoi has the consequence of tripping the attacker.”
They also voted 5-0 that VAR should have intervened.
The panel was split 3-2 over the on-pitch decision over whether Forest should have been awarded a spot-kick when the ball hit Young’s arm in the 44th minute, but all agreed VAR was correct not to intervene.
They argued it was a subjective call but “the majority considered this a dynamic situation where the arm was in a justifiable position, and with no clear action to deliberately handle the ball. In addition, the close proximity from which the ball was played by the attacker was taken into account.”
They also agreed, in a 5-0 decision, that Young’s 24th-minute challenge on Reyna did not warrant a penalty and that VAR was correct not to step in.
The panel wrote: “The ball isn’t played, there is contact by the defender on the attacker but any contact is minimal and is exaggerated by the attacker, and falls below the high threshold for a penalty.”
What did Howard Webb say?
Referees’ chief Howard Webb sided with the panel in regards to Ashley Young’s challenge on Gio Reyna and the defender’s handball in the penalty area.
On Young’s tackle on Reyna, Webb told Sky Sports’ Mic’d Up programme that PGMOL has set “quite a high threshold” for intervention on incidents in the penalty area and that, in this case, there was “minimal contact”.
In regards to Young’s handball, Webb said VAR agreed with the on-field referee that the defender was attempting to close down a shot from a “short distance” and that his arms were in a “natural position”.
Webb did, however, concede that VAR should have intervened for Young’s challenge on Hudson-Odoi by sending the referee to the pitchside monitor.
He said: “It’s one that reaches the threshold of being very clear.”
Webb said that had the referee been sent to review the incident himself, there would likely have been a “different outcome”.
What did the VAR officials say?
Forest requested the audio between officials following their defeat at Goodison Park.
The audio between Taylor and Attwell for Young’s challenge on Hudson-Odoi was aired on Mic’d Up and occurs as VAR checks the incident.
Referee: “Plays the ball, plays the ball, plays the ball.”
VAR: “Checking possible penalty, stand by.”
Referee: “Looks like he plays the ball.”
VAR: “OK, so, slowly please. Because it just comes into shot. OK, so they come together. There’s mutual engagement between them [Young and Hudson-Odoi] before the playing of the ball but it’s more of a tussle. Longy [Simon Long – assistant VAR], what I’m seeing here is no clear action by the defender. Tayls [Taylor – referee] confirm on-field decision of play on. Check is complete. Both players tussling for the ball. There is a degree of normal contact as they both play the ball in the same place.”
What is the background?
Forest is expected to face charges from the Premier League and Football Association following their social media post.
Last week, the FA formally asked for observations from Forest, boss Nuno Espirito Santo, defender Neco Williams, and Mark Clattenburg, the club’s referee analyst, following their comments.
The Premier League is also investigating, saying it was “never appropriate to improperly question the integrity of match officials”.
Forest has been allowed to listen to the audio recording of the officials’ discussions after the incidents.
It follows Liverpool’s similar request when Luis Diaz’s goal was incorrectly disallowed in their 2-1 defeat at Tottenham in September.
Forest is one point above the Premier League’s bottom three after Sunday’s 2-0 defeat by Manchester City and travels to relegated Sheffield United on Saturday.
Related Topics
- bbc.com
Join us, as fellow seekers of change, on a transformative journey at https://sdgtalks.ai/welcome, where you can become a member and actively contribute to shaping a brighter future.
