FOREST SHOULD HAVE HAD ONE PENALTY AT EVERTON - PANEL

Anthony Taylor waved away three Nottingham Forest penalty appeals at Everton

 

 Nottingham Forest should have been awarded one penalty from their three unsuccessful appeals against Everton, an independent panel has said.

Claims for penalties after Ashley Young's challenge on Gio Reyna, his handball and then an attempted tackle on Callum Hudson-Odoi were all turned down by Anthony Taylor on the pitch, with video assistant referee Stuart Attwell not intervening.

Forest lost the Premier League game 2-0 at Goodison Park on 21 April.

Minutes after full-time the club posted on social media, alleging Attwell was a fan of relegation rivals Luton - a statement which has been seen more than 45 million times.

Forest's post said: "Three extremely poor decisions - three penalties not given - which we simply cannot accept.

"We warned the PGMOL that the VAR is a Luton fan... NFFC will now consider its options."

What did the panel say?

The Key Match Incident Panel is independent and made up of three former players or coaches, one Premier League representative and one from the Professional Game Match Officials Board, the referees' body.

It reviews the big refereeing decisions from each Premier League round of fixtures and unanimously agreed Forest should have been given a penalty when Young brought down Hudson-Odoi in the 55th minute.

"Young inherits the risk by going to ground from the wrong side and Hudson-Odoi beats him to the ball. It is a foul," the panel wrote in their decisions, seen by BBC Sport.

"It was felt unanimously that a penalty should have been awarded and VAR should have intervened on the basis that Young doesn't make any contact on the ball and that there is evidence that his contact with Hudson-Odoi has the consequence of tripping the attacker."

They also voted 5-0 that VAR should have intervened.

The panel was split 3-2 over the on-pitch decision over whether Forest should have been awarded a spot-kick when the ball hit Young's arm in the 44th minute, but all agreed VAR was correct not to intervene.

They argued it was a subjective call but "the majority considered this a dynamic situation where the arm was in a justifiable position, and with no clear action to deliberately handle the ball. In addition the close proximity from which the ball was played by the attacker was taken into account."

They also agreed, in a 5-0 decision, that Young's 24th-minute challenge on Reyna did not warrant a penalty and that VAR was correct not to step in.

The panel wrote: "The ball isn't played, there is contact by the defender on the attacker but any contact is minimal and is exaggerated by the attacker, and falls below the high threshold for a penalty."

 What is the background?

Forest are expected to face charges from the Premier League and Football Association following their social media post.

Last week the FA formally asked for observations from Forest, boss Nuno Espirito Santo, defender Neco Williams and Mark Clattenburg, the club's referee analysist, following their comments.

The Premier League is also investigating, saying it was "never appropriate to improperly question the integrity of match officials".

Forest have been allowed to listen to the audio recording of the officials' discussions after the incidents.

It follows Liverpool’s similar request when Luis Diaz’s goal was incorrectly disallowed in their 2-1 defeat at Tottenham in September.

Forest are one point above the Premier League's bottom three after Sunday's 2-0 defeat by Manchester City and travel to relegated Sheffield United on Saturday.

 .