Yes I think that would have been the more logical decision if the ref thought Fry was fouling him.Was definetly a red but never a pen
It doesn’t matter where Stewart was, Fry was never in the penalty area. Ridiculous to say that it was a penalty.Stewart’s foot was on the line, I thought it was a penalty too, he should have just tripped him 10 yards before.
Of course it matters where Stewart was, the fact his foot was on the line meant it was a penalty.It doesn’t matter where Stewart was, Fry was never in the penalty area. Ridiculous to say that it was a penalty.
Only if there was contact on his foot at the time it was on or past the line. If none of Fry was ever in the box, or up to the line, I don't see how he could have committed an offence inside the box.Of course it matters where Stewart was, the fact his foot was on the line meant it was a penalty.
Spot on, it was physically impossible for Fry to foul him on the line but that sort of argument will be lost on the average ref.Only if there was contact on his foot at the time it was on or past the line. If none of Fry was ever in the box, or up to the line, I don't see how he could have committed an offence inside the box.
There are no set criteria for what level of error it needs to be for an appeal to succeed but based on the way it normally works, I think we can say that it has to be something fairly egregious. This wasn't an egregious error.No it doesn't have to be an obvious error. Just an error.
Mates thought it soft I thought it soft. Blatant it wasn’t.Blatant red card not sure how anyone can argue against it. Fry got completely done, tried to recover and fouled him once, possibly twice in the process. Not a pen but a red all day long
Have a day off donOf course it matters where Stewart was, the fact his foot was on the line meant it was a penalty.
Fry had hold of his arm, Stewart’s foot was on the line, penalty. It’s really not that difficult.Have a day off don
If the foul happened/started as Stewart’s foot hit the line, it could be debated that it could be a fouls, but it never so it does appear to be more difficult for some than othersFry had hold of his arm, Stewart’s foot was on the line, penalty. It’s really not that difficult.
Yes the initial contact is out the area but fry continued to have a hold of him, Stewart goes down very cleverly whilst his foot is on the line. We can have no complaints we were outplayed and got what we deserved.If the foul happened/started as Stewart’s foot hit the line, it could be debated that it could be a fouls, but it never so it does appear to be more difficult for some than others
Yes the initial contact is out the area but fry continued to have a hold of him, Stewart goes down very cleverly whilst his foot is on the line. We can have no complaints we were outplayed and got what we deserved.
A still image doesn’t do it justice, fry had a hold of his arm within the refs view. I’m not disputing Stewart bought the penalty but fry was daft to just hold onto him, he should have just cleaned him out in the first instance.View attachment 51612
That's the moment Stewart's foot first touched the line.
Fry isn't touching him.
Stewart dived, it wasn't a penalty, we can have plenty of complaints over that.
The fact Sunderland were the better team on the day doesn't change the fact that they were wrongly awarded a penalty.
A still image doesn’t do it justice, fry had a hold of his arm within the refs view. I’m not disputing Stewart bought the penalty but fry was daft to just hold onto him, he should have just cleaned him out in the first instance.
You said it was no doubt a penalty now you’re saying he bought it. Make your mind up palA still image doesn’t do it justice, fry had a hold of his arm within the refs view. I’m not disputing Stewart bought the penalty but fry was daft to just hold onto him, he should have just cleaned him out in the first instance.