Was it a penalty?

[billy.ronson]

Sorry haven’t seen any highlights of the game but I thought the Burnley defender”s hand are was above his head but did the ball strike it ?

Apologies for going off topic ! but game was 0-0 and a potential chance for us to win the game.

[the other bob wilson]

Sorry haven’t seen any highlights of the game but I thought the Burnley defender”s hand are was above his head but did the ball strike it ?

Apologies for going off topic ! but game was 0-0 and a potential chance for us to win the game.

From where I was sat, admittedly it wasn't the best view, Burnley had more of a shout for a penalty when Morrison grabbed at Vokes than we did. Neil Warnock was saying our appeal was exactly the same as one which was given in the Newcastle v Leicester match - I've not seen Match of the Day yet, but if that really was the case, then I would say it was the ref at the Geordies game who was wrong.

[EastbourneBlue]

From where I was sat, admittedly it wasn't the best view, Burnley had more of a shout for a penalty when Morrison grabbed at Vokes than we did. Neil Warnock was saying our appeal was exactly the same as one which was given in the Newcastle v Leicester match - I've not seen Match of the Day yet, but if that really was the case, then I would say it was the ref at the Geordies game who was wrong.

Right decision not to give either in my opinion. Did hit the Burnley chap’s arm, but was very close by. Morrison did have a bit of a nibble, but not enough of one.

[billy.ronson]

Morrison did have a little pull on Vokes but not enough to hold him back or to go down

[Pedro de la Rosa]

It would have been harsh but you've seen them given.

[Baloo]

Debatable under the current rules - the Leicester penalty at Newcastle was very similar.

I actually think that if your arm is in the air and the ball hits it, preventing it from heading towards goal in this case, it should be a penalty. Bit like when the ball hits your foot in hockey. Intention doesn't come into it, the defender in hockey just has a responsibility not to interfere with the ball with his/her foot and is penalised for mistakes. I think that's how it works anyway - can appear harsh at times but it's clear and consistent.

[NottinghamBlue]

Debatable under the current rules - the Leicester penalty at Newcastle was very similar.

I actually think that if your arm is in the air and the ball hits it, preventing it from heading towards goal in this case, it should be a penalty. Bit like when the ball hits your foot in hockey. Intention doesn't come into it, the defender in hockey just has a responsibility not to interfere with the ball with his/her foot and is penalised for mistakes. I think that's how it works anyway - can appear harsh at times but it's clear and consistent.

Yes, I agree. His hands were up in the air, above his shoulders. I think it should have been a penalty.

[NYCBlue]

It was a definite penalty. A shot on goal blocked by someone's arm above their head.

[PontBlue]

It was no different to the penalty given against Bamba at Bolton last season.

[bobh]

Bellamy said it was a penalty.

[Vindec]

From the replay the Burnley defender had his hands above his head in an unnatural position when the ball struck him- obvious penalty. Vokes actually dived - the replay shows that he tripped himself up. The tug by Morrison was minor and had no influence on Vokes falling over and Vokes also had hold of Morrison's arm - no penalty.

[Lawnmower]

Penalty. Ball hit hand and hand was up.

Only defended for the Burnley player was that Patterson’s foot was near his head to he may have been shielding his head.

We got unlucky with that one . Especially after the Morrison one v Newcastle