Ref Review: The controversial decisions from week 33

Date published: Monday 11th April 2016 9:16

Slaven Bilic: Lets his feelings known to the referee's assistant

Slaven Bilic: Lets his feelings known to the referee's assistant

Our panel debate several highly-dubious decisions across the Premier League this weekend, with a number of hugely controversial verdicts in the West Ham v Arsenal game coming under particular scrutiny.

Refereeing decisions are regularly the source of debate among fans, pundits, players and managers so this season a five-strong TEAMtalk panel will be passing judgement on every red card (or avoidance of one), every penalty and any other major incident every matchday.

We’ll also keep a tally of the major decisions to go for and against each team in an attempt to settle the never-ending debate about whether certain clubs are favoured more than others by Premier League referees.

Andy Carroll red card escape v Arsenal: The West Ham striker certainly made his mark on the match, hauling the Hammers back into the match with a deadly double on the stroke of half-time, before putting them 3-2 ahead by completing his hat-trick shortly after.

However, the Hammers forward was arguably lucky to still be on the field, having been booked for a poor lunge on Laurent Koscielny in the third minute, he then caught Gabriel with a flaying elbow in the second half. However, despite ref Craig Pawson awarding the foul, three of our five-man panel felt a second booking would have been harsh. Verdict: Correct decision

Manuel Lanzini disallowed goal v Arsenal: The Argentinian thought he’d handed West Ham an early lead in the match when he converted Carroll’s overhead kick from close range. However, the linesman waved Lanzini offside, though replays showed he was clearly played on by Hector Bellerin. Verdict: Incorrect decision

Nacho Monreal penalty appeal v West Ham: The Spanish full-back felt he deserved a spot-kick after a collision in the box upended him. However, there was not enough in it to warrant a penalty, with the passage of play leading directly to Mesut Ozil’s opener for Arsenal. Verdict: Correct decision

Possible Mesut Ozil offside in Arsenal’s opener v West Ham: The German handed Arsenal the lead when his well-taken shot beat Adrian, though the Hammers felt Ozil could have been offside. However, replays showed the playmaker was level with Angelo Ogbonna when latching onto Danny Welbeck’s pass and the officials were right to let play continue. Verdict: Correct decision

Possible offside in build-up to second Carroll goal v Arsenal: The Gunners felt Michail Antonio was offside as the ball was dinked back into the box just ahead of Carroll’s equaliser on the stroke of half-time. However, the West Ham wing-back, while stood in an offside position, was not interfering with play and again it was right for the goal to stand. Verdict: Correct decision

Lanzini penalty appeal v Arsenal: The Argentinian completed an unfortunate afternoon when he was denied what a possible penalty following a challenge from Bellerin in the area. Although you can understand why the referee, with what initially looked like an innocent coming together, waved play on, our panel felt (with the benefit of replays) that the Spaniard had both an arm on his shoulder and also slipped and fell onto the player’s legs. Verdict: Incorrect decision

Dimitri Payet disallowed goal v Arsenal: West Ham felt they’d been denied a goal when Payet fired in after Koscielny and David Ospina had allowed the ball to escape them both under heavy pressure from Carroll. But our panel voted 3-2 in favour of the referee, who’d deemed the West Ham striker to have fouled Arsenal’s French defender. Verdict: Correct decision

Gabriel red card escape v Arsenal: The defender carelessly lost possession when under pressure from that man Carroll and stuck out a leg at the end of a theatrical tumble to not just impede, but complete prevent the striker, at the least, getting a shot in on goal. Our panel however felt that the Brazilian’s challenge was a yellow card at worst. Verdict: Correct decision

Unsual referee intervention in build-up to West Brom’s opener: The Man City players felt hard done by after referee Mike Jones inadvertently blocked Samir Nasri’s run and ensured possession was turned over to the visitors, who soon opened the scoring through Stephane Sessegnon. However, as unfortunate as this was for Man City, play-on was the only call available to referee here. Verdict: Correct decision

Manchester City penalty v West Brom: Stephane Sessegnon went from hero to zero after clipping Aleksander Kolarov’s heels in the box. While Tony Pulis felt the call was harsh, our panel sided with the officials 4-1. Verdict: Correct decision

West Brom penalty appeal v Manchester City: Sandro was clumsily barged in the box after competing for a cross with Eliaquim Mangala. But with the French defender wiping out his opponent in mid-air and with no chance of playing the ball, we felt the ref, on this occasion, got this one wrong. Verdict: Incorrect decision

Possible Karl Darlow red card v Southampton: The third-choice Newcastle stopper was forced to dash from his area to clear an under-hit back-pass, facing a race with Shane Long for the loose ball. Although the Irish attacker marginally reached the ball first, we felt Darlow’s challenge saw him get enough on the ball albeit a split-second later, with the ref getting a tight decision spot on. Verdict: Correct decision

Norwich penalty appeal v Crystal Palace: Norwich felt they were denied an obvious spot-kick when Damien Delaney appeared to bundle Matt Jarvis over in the box. And much like Mangala on Sandro at the Etihad, we felt the defender had no chance of playing the ball and the Palace defender had had a fortunate escape. Verdict: Incorrect decision

Swansea penalty appeal v Chelsea: The Swans felt they could have had a penalty when Jefferson Montero’s cross appeared to strike Cesar Azpilicueta’s arm, though the full-back did not make an obvious movement to block the delivery, which had been fired at him at point-blank range. The officials were, therefore, spot on with this call, with Swans scoring the winning goal moments later anyway to make the decision immaterial. Verdict: Correct decision

Possible James McCarthy foul in build-up to Everton’s goal v Watford: Watford felt the midfielder had fouled Miguel Britos as the Everton man robbed the Hornets defender of possession before scoring the opener. But there was not enough in the challenge to warrant a foul and the referee was 100% right to award the goal. Verdict: Correct decision

Leicester penalty appeal v Sunderland: Shinji Okazaki went tumbling in the area under a clumsy challenge from DeAndre Yedlin. While the full-back only had eyes for the ball, he can consider himself fortunate not to concede a spot-kick having caught the Leicester forward with a boot into his chest. Verdict: Incorrect decision

Sunderland penalty appeal v Leicester: Robert Huth appears to find himself the subject of a dubious decision every other weekend and the Foxes defender was at the centre of another controversy this week when, going to ground to cut out a Patrick van Aanholt cross, he blocked the ball with his trailing arm. Although accidental, three of our panel felt his arm had prevented the cross reaching its target and the German’s position was unnatural enough to warrant a penalty. Verdict: Incorrect decision

Second Leicester penalty appeal v Sunderland: Riyad Mahrez appealed for a penalty when his shot was blocked by Younes Kaboul. But with the defender turning his back on play, and with it being a case of ‘ball to hand, rather than hand to ball’, he’d have been unlucky to have been penalised here under the current rules.  Verdict: Correct decision

Tottenham penalty appeal v Manchester United: Spurs may have been 3-0 to the good against United, but they kept pushing for a fourth and thought they may have been given that chance when Dele Alli went to ground following a tangle with Matteo Darmian. But the ref decided the England man’s leg went across into the Italian’s, rather than the other way round, with birthday boy Alli picking up an unwanted card from Mike Dean for trying to con the officials. Verdict: Correct decision

Phil Bardsley foul on James Milner in build-up to Liverpool opener: The Stoke full-back was adjudged to have knocked the Liverpool man to the ground, and there looked little in it, with Milner, if anything, appearing just to be off balance. Liverpool then took a quick free-kick with Alberto Moreno firing home a brilliant winner, but our panel think play should not have been pulled back in the first place. Verdict: Incorrect decision

Disallowed Stoke goal v Liverpool: Peter Crouch thought he capped a rare Stoke start with a goal in front of the Kop, only to see his header from Eric Pieters’ cross ruled out for offside. But replays showed the officials had got a pretty tight call absolutely on the money and Crouch was denied a goal on his return to Anfield. Verdict: Correct decision

For and Against

Team For Against Total For/Against
1. Man Utd Nine Two +7
= Leicester Fifteen Eight +7
3. Liverpool Twelve Six +6
4. Aston Villa Seven Two +5
=Man City Eleven Six +5
6. Tottenham Eight Four +4
7. Sunderland Eight Five +3
8. Everton Four Three +1
= Crystal Palace Six Five +1
10. Watford Five Five 0
11. Stoke Six Seven -1
= Chelsea Nine Ten -1
13. Norwich Four Six -2
14.Arsenal Ten Thirteen -3
15. West Brom Six Ten -4
= Newcastle Five Nine -4
17. Southampton Six Eleven -5
= Bournemouth Five Ten -5
19. Swansea Five Eleven -6
20. West Ham Four Fifteen -11

Related Articles

Your Say

Home Forums Ref Review: The incorrect decisions from week 33

This topic contains 13 replies, has 8 voices, and was last updated by  Paxman 10 months, 2 weeks ago.

Viewing 14 posts - 1 through 14 (of 14 total)
  • Author
  • #956201

    James Marshment

    Our panel debate several highly-dubious decisions across the Premier League this weekend, with West Ham’s clash with Arsenal featuring.

    [See the full post at: Ref Review: The incorrect decisions from week 33]


    Derek Belenger

    How can the panel judge that Robert Huth should have had a penalty awarded against him for handball in the Sunderland game. Last week there was an even more blatant handball by him against Southampton.Again with no penalty given Yet the decision by your panel was that this was the correct decision.



    Shouldn’t this thread be titled “How to Troll Asrenal Fans!”? 🙂



    This review thing was supposed to be to review BIG decisions that change games, a free kick in the middle of the half and on the touch line is not a decision that changes games, in the case of the Milner free kick. That decision did not change the game, Stoke player switching off after it was given, and then failing even engage Moreno s what changed the game not the decision. I have seen any other marginally soft free kick in non dangerous areas be reviewed on here. Is that you Homzy? 🙂


    Mark Holmes

    I wasn’t even on the panel this week, Pax, as I haven’t seen any of the goals! Well, I saw yours live (unfortunately), but I don’t plan on watching them again!



    I was only kidding Mark, I don’t blame I do the same, if we have lost I stay away from all highlight packages.



    Surly a decision can only been deemed wrong if all of the panel agree. 3 against 2 for example just becomes opinion again and doesn’t mean the decision was either right or wrong. Andy Carroll for example, whilst there was clearly no intent, the elbow being raised was at very least dangerous and could have caused injury, so yellow card minimum.



    NOLU – Do you want to ban jumping in football because you can’t jump effectively with raising you arms, to me it was even a free kick.



    Well, Carroll should have had a straight red on his first tackle. He stamps Koscielny from behind, and swings the other foot with full force with no intention to get the ball. In second half he elbows Gabriel in the face. And he still shouldn’t be sent off?


    James Marshment

    Re the Huth incidents: each handball is dealt with on its own merits. And our panel felt the ‘handball’ against Sunderland was far more clear cut than the one against Southampton were the ball was simply blasted against his hand. Cheers – Marshy


    James Marshment

    Pax – we debated whether to include the ‘foul’ on Milner in Ref Review this week, but since the (dead ball) pass that immediately followed led to a goal, we felt it worthy of inclusion. Cheers. -Marshy



    James – I can understand what you are saying, but my point is at the position the free kick is in if Stoke do their job then there is no goal by including it, it goes into the table as something that has gone for us in the same category as getting and undeserved penalty or a free kick that is scored directly, there is no way this should have been included, the more I think of it the more ridiculous it seems that it was included. Is someone get a free kick on the edge of there own box and it is knock to a player who then runs the length of the pitch and scores are you going to include that?



    Did you actually watch the foul on Milner?! He is not off balance, he’s clearly tripped from behind by Bardsley! I cannot believe for one second, after going back and rewatching it myself, that you could have come to that conclusion while watching said foul.



    James – You have to admit you have got this one wrong.

Viewing 14 posts - 1 through 14 (of 14 total)

You must be logged in to reply this topic.