Worth scanning through here, Paul: https://x.com/nufcspence/status/1783360696597778578

Comments from Newcastle fans:

"To be fair I was screaming that it should have been a penalty. However watching it over, I’d be FUMING if that was given against us. I just wish there was consistency because penalties have absolutely been given for this (and less) this season."

"Embarrassing by Longstaff. Just play on and shoot. Hate it when other sides do it too."

"He goes under the radar for the amount of diving around he does. One of worst in the league for it."

There's a few saying it was a pen, but it's certainly not the consensus, nor the stonewall you've said it was.

And yet, regardless of why Newcastle fans wrote those comments, they did and therefore it can't by definition be a stonewall penalty.

The PGMOL made it clear this season that contact alone is not enough for a penalty, but rather the contact must have a consequence in causing the opponent to go to ground.

In this case, Longstaff threw himself to the ground - which made the official’s mind up for them. He didn’t fall to the floor because Hughes threw him there, he fell because he was touched and thought he’d win a penalty to get his team back in the game.

Like I said, it’s a contact sport.

Those are the rules, yes, but that’s not how the game is played. If it was, it wouldn’t ever get played, because it would be stopped every second for a foul. There’s literally no point in quoting them, because they provide a platform for the decision making process which I’ve covered above. I didn’t make up that the PGMOL said its contact with consequence for penalties. Look it up if you need to.

As you’ve said he drew attention to the contact and in doing so highlighted there was no real contact of consequence at all.

Where's this PGMOL stuff? I can't find it

Also, I’m not listening to people on Twitter. I don’t think it’s a penalty, Olimite didn’t think it was a penalty either, but we’re both Palace fans. I fancied getting an alternative perspective and that’s what led me to look at some Newcastle commentators, who also didn’t universally think it was a penalty.

Anyway, the above should help with context.

I thought it should’ve been a pen.

Make sure you allow multiple answers.

It was in the X link at the top of the page.

Moot_Geeza wrote:

Anyone got a link to The Incident?

I think it's in here

The three tests haven’t changed, Paul.

I choose option C: 'It's one of those, isn't it?'

2 mins in:

That's a good point actually. Hughes loses his own balance in the contact and nearly faceplants himself

Paul the sparky wrote:

Syph79 wrote:

Given this is the test now…

There will now be three factors considered by the VAR: whether or not there is clear and proper contact; whether that contact has the consequence of bringing the player down; and whether the motivation of the attacking player was to go down easily and seek a penalty.

It fails at the second and third tests. Contact yes, consequence no, motivation dive.

What's the context for this and where did you get it from? It looks like it's about diving/initiating contact again.

On the third one, the motivation of the player was to play football without being impeded from behind. Unfortunately the Palace player had other ideas. The second one is odd too as you don't have to go to ground to be fouled. Again some context missing I reckon

It was in the CPFC article I linked earlier. It’s not an opinion, it’s fact. Clubs have been repeatedly briefed about this by the PGMOL.

I can see that others have said it’s a penalty, so the general mood seems to be it is more of a penalty than not. Fair enough. It’s not my view, but there we go.