One of the most controversial incidents during the derby between Inter and AC Milan was the second half penalty awarded.
With just less than 20 minutes on the clock, Inter were given the chance to level from the spot as Strahinja Pavlovic was deemed to have fouled Marcus Thuram. The Frenchman fired in a cross from near the byline and had his boot stood on, something that could be deemed incidental contact.
Maignan saved his last penalty against Paulo Dybala, and he kept out Calhanoglu too with a fantastic stop, so ultimately the refereeing decision did not cost anything in terms of points, especially because Milan went on to win 1-0.
Luca Marelli spoke live on DAZN about the decision to change to a penalty after the on-field call was that it wasn’t worthy of one. His comments are via Radio Rossonera.
“The penalty awarded with On Field Review from the pitch is impossible to see for two reasons. The first is that Sozza is on the opposite side of the pitch, the second is that the referee is following the ball, which at the moment of contact between the two players is already far away,” he said.
“The fact that Thuram freed himself from the ball did not affect the decision. It’s a complex penalty. Pavlovic’s and Thuram’s movements must be taken into account, but there’s also the recklessness, the step on foot. It’s right to award the penalty, and it’s also right to give the yellow card.”
Graziano Cesari – a former referee who covers games for SportMediaset – offered his take on the decision live last night too. He said it was ‘absolutely justified because Pavlovic committed a reckless act’.
Riccardo Trevisani, in the latest episode of Pressing, harshly criticised the decision, calling it ‘an abomination of football’.
“This thing counts for nothing in the game of football. Thuram crossed, and what happens next is completely irrelevant, because he doesn’t receive a penalty and nothing serious happens to him,” he said.
“Pavlovic’s leg lands on him completely by chance; he doesn’t mean to commit a foul, just to block the cross, and he arrives late. There’s no reason why this should be a penalty in sensible football. But anything goes these days.”
he had already taken the shot, it wasn’t interfered with Pavlovic; clumsy challenge for sure but not a penalty
Yellow card, yes. Penalty, I think I saw Moratta texting during VAR review.
Doesn’t matter. Couldn’t be more irrelevant. You can’t step on a player even if the ball is in the opposite box. Even stupid people get this…
bro , if thuram got the shot away on target and missed and pavlovich steps on his foot after striking the ball is it not a penalty? the bias of these milan fans is incredible
Even sensible inter fans were saying that those situations should not be awarded a penalty.
Pavlovic was trying to block the shot and Thuram follow thru happened to land in the same spot Pavlovic foot landed. It had nothing to do with the cross nor he was making a dangerous play towards Thuram.
But as the saying goes, Ball Don’t Lie and Inter’s penalty was saved by Maignan.
So what? If I try to block a shot and kick someone in the face it isn’t a foul? :DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD How many penalties were made because the defender is clumsy? Pavlovic already had over 5 situations similar to this, it was a a matter of time it will go against Milan.
Right, because kicking someone in the face is the same as 2 feet colliding while one of them is shooting and the other trying to block the shot.
ok then remember fofanas goal this season? pulisic got fouled (kicked in the back of his leg) after the pass was completed . is that not a penalty? cause it surely was going to be if fofana hadnt scored
So you are asking about a situation that wasn’t called a penalty? 🤔
Pulisic and Udinese player were in a duel for the ball, Pulisic gets to the ball 1st and Udinese player kicks him while attempting to shoot the ball. How is that the same with this situation?
Also, there is a difference between a player being kicked from behind after he passes the ball or shoots vs a player trying to block a shot, not tackle, but his foot and opposing player foot land on the same spot.
MKD, I’ll “draw it” for you. The point is that a foul is a foul. Doesn’t matter did you kick the ball correctly, did it go anywhere and was there a chance…What you wrote, yes, there is a difference. One is an accidental foul and not a red card, the other one is a card. BOTH ARE FOULS.
And for Pulisic situation you could then say that the defender was kicking the ball and Pulisic landed his foot in front of it and it wasn’t a foul? 😀 hahahahah You can’t be serious…
I think you might want to look at it from the angle of whether it was a foul or not, not whether it was a pen. What if I allow my opponent to release the ball before I do him a knee on the groin area? Can I make the argument that he had released the ball so whatever I did to him after that counts for nothing? I’m a Milan fan but I think it’s a penalty and we’re lucky Mike saved it.
Meanwhile, I don’t see inter fan here anymore. I wonder what someone said to him to make him not want to come here anymore
It is a 100% penalty. Anyone saying it isn’t is one of those people that would harass the referee if he didn’t give it to Milan or gave it to Inter. Doesn’t matter what happened, it is just based is the decision against or for Milan, objectivity 0.
Pulisic had possession and the challenge was from the back.
You give penalty when a defender interrupts the play and here it’s just a foul. Because of dangerous foul, it’s a yellow card.
Not every foul is penalty my friend, don’t be a Italian referee but see real football.
Even if you see the intention, it’s a unfortunate moment but it’s still a yellow card.
Not a penalty 100%
Football these days it’s like robot. Passive movements from the hand of players has been given a foul. Italian referred must learn from legendary Italian referre, Collina. He had the theory about passive and active hand movements.
I watched the Lazio – Juve game and they refused to award a penalty for literally the same siutation against Conceicao.
I saw that as well. Gilla moved his foot the moment he touched him and Conceicao was already flying, so he faked the fall. Pavlovic stepped on him with full step. Big difference.
The consistency of calls awarded is the biggest issue across the league. Players and refs don’t know what’s a foul, what isn’t a foul, what is awarded and what isn’t. Rocchi is completely incompetent at his job.
100% a penalty. If you’re a Milan fan and you always complain about the penalties for Milan maybe you are the problem, not the referee? 😀
Thankfully we have Maignan.
Yes there was a contact.
But is it enough to call the penalty ? Debatable. Some people can say it was a soft contact. Same as a gentle touch by chest. Will a referee give penalty from a gentle chest contact in the box while the attacker over do the fall ?
I had a problem with this call because Pavlo wasn’t going in for a tackle, but to block the shot. And it was the motion of Thuram’s foot that followed the trajectory of the cross to basically “intersect” with Pavlo’s foot.
I don’t know if any of this makes sense.
Yes, he wasn’t careful and they got a penalty. It happened more than once but it was a penalty the first time. Main reason why I keep saying Pavlovic can be great but will always have situations like this, red card or penalty out of nothing. Because of his lack of concentration and clumsiness.
Its like u have something against pavlovic. the situation is not about his clumsiness cos he wasnt clumsy there. he raised his leg to block a cross and didnt point it towards thuram at all,but thuram followed tru with his leg and landed in the path of pavlovic’s leg. was pavlovic supposed to change his leg direction mid air? the intention behind the situation shud have been judged not the fact there legs collided cos it was even totally after d cross had been made. the penalty was pointless as pavlovic didnt make an intentional tackle or injury threatning one.
Eh……if it was reversed and happened to Milan we would say it’s a correct penalty, or that we were screwed if it’s not given.
The real missed calls were the ones on Lautaro (possibly red) for the elbow on Gabbia and Acerbi (yellow) for the hair pull on Rafa.
What are ppl talking about that is 100% a penalty. Not even close, no controversy
I watched similar incident in Saudi pro league, after VAR review, no penalty given
I watched the Croatian 4th league and the whole team chased the referee and nobody got a red card in the end. What is the point of mentioning this?
Would VAR intervene if Thuram scored that?
If not then it shouldn’t be a penalty because it didn’t affect the outcome of play.
My first impression was that Pavlo lunged in clumsily and it was a clear pen, but after the replay I was less sure. Pavlo is essentially running stride for stride in a straight line and Thuram’s follow-through carries him into Pavlo’s path far more incidentally. Feels like the sort of thing that goes 50/50.
exactly, even from the above picture its clear. pavlovic was not going towards thuram at all but only to block d cross,but u see thurams leg seriously extended to pavlovic’s path. The penalty was pointless but nowadays football has turned to something else. i might agree it shud be reviewed for a penalty if the incident affected d play but it totally did not.
Clear pen. All the excuses are ridiculous and not based in anything that can be found in the rules of football.
Grande Mike!
Look of the distance between the knees and the upper bodies of both Players.
And then how far the Leg of thuram comes around.
Pavlovic hast to Stop His Speed and IT IS a Natural movement, No intention for a Foul.
If this IS a Penalty, then in the Future you Just have to Look when the Defender moves, an Put your foot in the area where the Defender steps.
With a Bit of luck the foot of the attacker ist under the foot of The Defender and you geht a Penalty
No.
It’s a natural attacking movement *by Thuram*. And the defender is making a challenge, making him responsible for where he puts his foot.
What you are proposing in your hypothetical is the opposite – unnatural movement by the attacker, seekling contact, and no intention to challenge by the defender.