Skip to main content

The Forest penalties row

The problem with the award of penalties is that a lot of them are marginal decisions, even with VAR.   This is particularly the case with the handball rule which has arguably been applied a little less stringently as the season has gone on, and probably rightly so.

Analysis by the Match of the Day team last night suggested that two of Forest’s penalty claims at Everton were not justified, but the third one was.   The referee should have been at least summoned to the screen to review his decision.

It is easy to be critical of Nottingham Forest. And the manner in which they used social media to voice allegations over the integrity of match officials after Sunday’s 2-0 away loss against fellow relegation candidates Everton was arguably undermining the foundations of the game.   Officials make mistakes, sometimes bad ones, but they may not qualify as clear and obvious errors and they indicate poor decision-making rather than bias.

Yet while they have been criticised for the way they shared their outrage, Forest clearly feel that their frustration and anger are justified.

It is therefore no surprise that the Football Association is investigating the post on X to decide whether any official lines have been crossed. PGMOL (Professional Game Match Officials Limited), the body representing the nation’s top referees, assistants and VARs, is supportive of that stance.

In the away dressing room yesterday, there was a sense of outrage after the final whistle and Forest head coach Nuno Espirito Santo, speaking on BBC Radio 5 Live after the game, encapsulated the level of the club’s anger when he said: “If we were in another country, for sure that (the subject of conspiracy) will come up.”

However, the answer to the question of why those decisions did not go in their favour does not realistically lie with the fact that the VAR official for the game, Stuart Attwell — or the fourth official Keith Stroud for that matter — supports Luton Town, another club in the relegation discussion (as Forest implied with their post-match tweet).

That, as even Nuno pointed out himself after the game, is “not important”. Even just presuming for one minute that there was bias there — and there is no evidence to support that notion — the best result at Goodison for Luton would surely have been a draw, and two players sent off on each side, rather than either team going home with all three points.

It is true PGMOL could have saved itself a problem by not appointing an official with an affiliation to one of the two clubs’ relegation rivals to this game. But if we are at the stage where a match official supporting a team in close proximity to the competing sides in the table must now be taken into account when deciding if they are assigned to a fixture, we will be stepping into a danger zone.

Forest are upset about their points deduction and feel that the dice are loaded against insurgent clubs which in some ways they are.   A lot is at stake for them – and other clubs – but they should avoid being seen as bad losers.   Appointing a former referee as a consultant is not a welcome development.   But so much money is at stake in the Premier League, it can have unintended and unwanted consequences.

 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Wolves get raw deal from FFP

  I used to see a lifelong Wolves fan for lunch once a month.   He was approaching ninety, but still went to games.   Sadly he passed away the other week. As football finance guru Kieran Maguire has noted, Wolves continue to be constrained by financial fair play rules.  Radio 4 this morning described them as this year's 'crisis club' and the pessimists have certainly been piling in. Martin Samuel wrote sympathetically in the Sunday Times yesterday, saying that the Premier League drives talent away with regulatory red tape: 'Why could Al-Hilal sign Neves? Because Wolves needed the money. And why did Wolves need the money? Because the club had to comply with an artificial construct known as financial fair play. So Wolves are going skint, yes? No. There is no suggestion that Wolves are in financial trouble, only that they are failing to meet the rigours of FFP. Wolves’ owners appear to have the money to run the club, and invest in the club, and in fact came up with a pow

Gold standard ground boosts Tottenham's income

The gold standard in European football grounds is the Tottenham Hotspur stadium in north London, a £1bn construction project completed in 2019. Its impact on the club’s finances has become increasingly clear as the effects of the pandemic have faded. Previously, the average fan would spend less than £2 inside the ground on a typical match day, but now that figure is about £16, thanks to new facilities including the longest bar in Europe and an on-site microbrewery. Capacity has gone up from 36,000 at the club’s previous home of White Hart Lane to 62,000.  The new stadium — built on land adjacent to White Hart Lane — has opened the door to a broad range of other events that have helped to push commercial income up from €117mn in 2018 to €215mn in 2022. Last year, Tottenham hosted US singer Beyoncé for five nights on her global Renaissance tour, two NFL matches, as well as rugby games and heavyweight boxing bouts.  Money brought in from football has gone up too. Match day income is

Charlton takeover approved

The long awaited takeover of Charlton Athletic by SE7 Partners from Thomas Sandgaard has been approved:  https://londonnewsonline.co.uk/se7-partners-obtain-efl-approval-for-charlton-athletic-takeover/ Charlton have had unhappy experiences with owners for over a decade, so how this works out will remain to be seen.  There is certainly potential there, but will it be realised? This interview with Charlie Methven gives detail not available elsewhere:  https://thecharltondossier.com/charlie-methven-on-the-record/