From what I saw on the Football League Show, the ref had a bad game. Tbf, the Hammond incident didn't look like a dive to me although he went down a bit theatrically hence the ref's decision.
rewatching the football league show, hammonds "dive" was a penalty to me as were all the others, but fonte definetley wasnt a penalty
If that silly ****er hadn't got himself needlessly sent off and had they got themselves back in the game, I may have felt some sympathy for them. Fact of the matter is they deserved nothing and got nothing.
Hammond WAS clipped, but had already lost control of the ball, the Referee had a tough call, if he was to give a penalty he would have to have sent the GK off too, the tumble looked a bit theatrical but not necessarily intentionally so. The booking was a get out clause, and Hammys substitution was to protect him from a second yellow, it is possible the Referee could have been looking to even things up, Guly had to tread carefully too. Not the best Referee in the World but he wasn't biased, just wrong a lot.
It's natural reaction to go down early to avoid injury if you know the gk is going to wipe you out. For me it was a pen anyway even if he did start going down early because of that
I'm just watching the extended BBC highlights now, and I'm really surprised at the lack of people on here talking about the block-off on Guly. It's a nailed on penalty for me. That one, along with the 1st half shirt-tug on Lambert and the 2nd half push on Lambert, were all certain penalties, whilst the possible trip on Lambert (which was given) was a possible penalty. The only two which were definately NOT penalties were Hammond's dive and the tug on Fonte - and even with the tug on Fonte, who is to say that Fox or Lambert wouldn't have scored the free-kick? (because obviously it was still a foul).
Agree completely. Also, the handball would have been given on several occasions too. Maybe harshly, but we've all seen them happen. Looking back at all the other contentious challenges from Brighton, inside the penalty area, just made me laugh in the end. On several occasions there was simply no attempt to play the ball. The Brighton defence just could not cope with the physicality of Lambert, Guly, etc... The one time Lambert was challenged fairly, the ball ended in the back of the net, from his header.
Think perhaps, it may have been a case of making amends by the referee. On reflection, he possibly thought after the event that he had made a bad call not giving penalties where he should have earlier, and believed he would level things up nicely with a couple more bad decisions in Saints favour. Regardless, Saints were worthy winners. Brighton didn't record a single effort on target.
im going to agree with you - that guly foul was a clar penalty, as was the 2nd half push, well more of a shove - tbh i thought they were all penalties except the one that was given ! (fonte)
I do think played a huge part in the award of our 2nd penalty. As I say, it quite possibly was a foul any way and hence a penalty would have been the right decision. However there was enough doubt there for the referee to not ordinarily give it - but in this istance, having already got away with so much else in the penalty box, the ref wasn't going to let Brighton possibly get away with yet another one.
I think Guly was looking for it a bit too much, it would have been soft. The handball in the first half, was never a handball. There was a suspicious amount of contact from the defender on Lambert on two occasions, the second shout being a bit better than the first. Hammond...well I'm sorry but the ref got that one right as well (the goalkeeper wouldn't have been sent off so there isn't that element). The second one that was given, well you can't see from the replay whether there was contact or not, leading to a debate on the problems with video technology that I will not start (oops I just did). So all in all, if you swap the penalty that was given on Fonte for the one that wasn't on Lambert in the second half, then I think we have the right result.
Well it did hit the Brighton defender on the arm. That's handball. I suspect you mean it was ball-to-hand, rather than hand-to-ball, which I do agree with. They are still given occasionally though, often around the Manchester area.
Absolutely 100% correct IMO. This is what I thought at the time - the first half shirt pull on Lambert was missed by the ref; protestations/reaction from Lambert along with half time made the ref think he better make amends. Second half "assault" on Lambert was missed and again ref thought he better give us the next 50/50. We deserved 3 penalties in that game so if anyone should be complaining it's us.
maybe this penalty, maybe that penalty, we won, they did not come to win, we scored a goal, BHA did not. playing like they did the only climbing BHA fans will see is their defenders on attackers So even if we were not awarded any penaltys at all, we still won fair and square. Stick that in your pipe Gus.
I hope the BBC extended highlights show how unfortunate we were not to be leading at half time! Will watch them later.
You can watch the whole game in two parts on Saints Player. or short or extended highlights, it is well covered, and still difficult to decide which Penalty shouts were right and which were wrong, the Referee doesn't have the luxury of replays!
I just agree with Steve Claridge. The best team won..end of story. This will be old news on Saturday.
I thought so at the time too, and still do, it's a pity that so much is being made of that and not the fact we still beat them easily, mostly down to renta gob getting sent off and leaving them short handed, that had more to do with it than the penalty decisions themselves, we had a good case for three more so that equalled the justice out a bit. On looking more carefully at the second Pen. there was definite contact, boot on the back of the calf which unbalanced Lambo and his impetus carried him over, no question of a dive, no question it prevented a scoring opportunity, a shade lucky not a red being the last man.
