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

It's no deal say Spurs insiders over Taiwanese takeover

Senior figures at Tottenham Hotspur insisted on Friday that they had not been informed of any deal to sell Daniel Levy’s stake in the club. A business group, Eight Sports Capital — which is said to include a billionaire Taiwanese financier — claimed that it had an agreement in place to buy a 24.99 per cent stake in ENIC, the club’s majority owners, from Levy, who owns 29.88 per cent. The Times has been told Ng Wing Fai and Brooklyn Earick form part of the group, having both been linked previously to potential takeovers of the Premier League club. The Taiwanese businessman, Richard Tsai, is also said to be part of the consortium. He is reportedly worth £7 billion.  Last year Earick, the former DJ and tech entrepreneur, was part of an attempted £4.5 billion takeover, which was “unequivocally rejected” by Spurs.  An ENIC spokesperson said: “We can confirm that neither ENIC nor THFC are aware of any sale by Daniel Levy’s Family Trust of its minority stake in ENIC, THFC’...

Reports about Charlton sale exaggerated

Reports have appeared in The Guardian and elsewhere that Charlton has been put up for sale. Richard Cawley is an authoritative local journalist who runs a South London Sport substack site.  He reached out to the club yesterday evening to ask for comment on The Guardian’s article. Early indications from the club have been that nothing has changed since the story about them seeking investment, except that it is now a different company doing it. Charlton have since managed to consolidate their place in the Championship, avoiding an instant return to League One, with their women’s side promoted to the WSL, returning to the top flight for the first time since 2007, although staying there is likely to be costly. It would be counter-intuitive for owners Global Football Partners not to progress the club when looking for investment, that the focus remains on driving it forward, that their spend this summer is in line with long-term planning and will see an increase in wages spent on players...

Hull City's 'strange' loan

When football finance guru Kieran Maguire seems flashing lights in a club's loan deal, I become concerned.  He is the leading football finance expert in the UK. Hull City have borrowed £55m against their stadium and training ground yet they should get £30m from the Premier League before long.  What is going on? https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/cpwel48y51do