I’ve read opinions on the Brighton pen from four different refs. Unsurprisingly its two for, two against.
They haven’t got a fudging clue what they’re supposed to be doing.
I've not seen those views, but I think there is a problem with any rule that relies on judging 'intent'. You just can't have rules to be judged/applied by human beings where 'intent' is supposed to be judged.
In terms of that penalty, the ball was in play, the defender tried to kick the ball, Welbeck got there first and knicked the ball away. Whilst I wouldn't claim he had the ball under control as a result, it was in play, he was on his feet in the area, and therefore a consequent goalscoring opportunity was possible. Instead the player kicked his foot, causing him to lose his footing and go down, and any opportunity was lost. It's a foul, and a foul in the box equals penalty. Why should the defender get the benefit of any doubt here, and the attacking team suffer?
Same with handball. A defender is on the line, he jumps to head the ball, the ball hits the crossbar, richochet's down and lands on his forearm, that is slightly perpendicular, as a result of gravity in coming down from the jump, and it deflects away from the goal. Completely accidental, no intent, but it hit his hand, and it would otherwise have possibly bounced onto the ground and then angled into the goal, or been in play such that an attacking player could still have had an attempt on goal. You have to give a penalty for handball. It might be unfair on the defender, but its just as unfair on the attacker. So handball need to be unambiguous, did it hit the part of the body 'deemed' to be handball or not? If yes = penalty.
