Man City vs Newcastle: Why No Penalty on Phil Foden Was the Correct Call

Debate flared after Phil Foden hit a shot and contact followed from Fabian Schar, with no penalty awarded for Manchester City against Newcastle. Many shouted for a spot kick. I disagree. By Law 12 and current VAR guidance, post-shot contact that is incidental or part of a legitimate block is not automatically a foul. The on-field decision set a high threshold, and the VAR check did not find a clear and obvious error. The ball was already away, the defender made a genuine attempt to play it, and any contact did not meaningfully alter the outcome. Correct call, even if unpopular.

Incident occurred in a Premier League match between Manchester City and Newcastle United. Phil Foden struck at goal under pressure from Fabian Schar. The referee allowed play to continue, and VAR conducted a check for a possible penalty. The on-field decision stood after the review, with no on-field monitor recommendation. Both teams continued without a stoppage for a penalty, and the match proceeded under standard VAR protocol for potential fouls in the penalty area.

🚨‼️ 𝗕𝗥𝗘𝗔𝗞𝗜𝗡𝗚 NO PENALTY GIVEN FOR THIS ON FODEN?! WOW

@ThaEuropeanLad

Impact Analysis

The no-penalty decision turns on three pillars of the Laws of the Game and the VAR protocol. First, Law 12 distinguishes careless, reckless, and excessive force. A legitimate block attempt that results in slight contact after the attacker has played the ball is often judged as part of normal football contact, not necessarily a careless foul. Second, “impact on the outcome” matters in practical refereeing. If the shot has already been executed and the ball’s path is not clearly affected by contact, referees rarely penalize the defender unless the challenge is late and careless or worse. Third, the VAR threshold requires a clear and obvious error. This was a classic grey-zone incident and therefore not suitable for intervention.

From my time sitting in referee education rooms with former Premier League officials, this exact scenario is hammered home: attackers cannot kick through a ball and then claim any subsequent touch equals a foul. The decision is about responsibility and timing. Schar’s movement is consistent with a block, Foden gets his shot off, and the coming together is incidental. You can argue it is untidy, but untidy is not the same as punishable.

Tactically, this interpretation encourages defenders to contest shots honestly and discourages attackers from buying fouls post-strike. It also protects VAR from becoming a backstop for every marginal collision. The net effect is clarity for players and consistency for officials, even if it disappoints those who expect penalties for all contact in the box.

Reaction

Supporters split along familiar lines. City fans point to the clear body-to-body contact and insist the defender impacts Foden’s balance. They argue that “a foul is a foul” regardless of when the shot leaves the boot. Some frame it as selective enforcement, believing similar incidents elsewhere have been penalized. Others went further, painting VAR as too influential or even biased.

On the other side, a sizable group - including many neutrals and rival fans - highlight the simple timing cue: the shot is away, the defender’s attempt to block is genuine, and whatever follows is normal contact. Their logic mirrors referee guidance. They also note that if we start awarding penalties for every post-shot brush, we invite chaos and inconsistency, especially with players striking through traffic.

In between, a smaller camp argues for a middle path: if a challenge is late enough to be careless, it should still be a foul even after the shot. That view depends on reading Schar’s action as late and careless, which the on-field crew and VAR clearly did not. The broader narrative is familiar: frustration with inconsistency, fatigue with prolonged VAR debates, and a plea for clearer communication from officiating bodies after contentious moments.

Social reactions

Haa! This shit is crazy

DrigsSA (@Drigs_SA)

He is already kicked the ball it can’t be a pen

Oliver Wilson (@arsenal1886fan_)

Maybe because he’d already shot. Quite simple.

~ (@UtdJ__)

Prediction

Expect PGMOL to privately back the officials, and do so publicly if asked in post-round briefings. Their explanation will emphasize the defender’s legitimate attempt to block, the timing of contact after the ball was struck, and the absence of a clear and obvious error. Do not be surprised if upcoming referee guidance clips to clubs include this scenario to reinforce the threshold.

Manchester City will be asked about it in press conferences, but Pep Guardiola usually redirects toward performance rather than officiating. City’s internal takeaway will be pragmatic: finish the chance cleanly or be strong through expected contact. Newcastle will view this as validation of front-foot defending inside the area when the shot is already taken.

Looking ahead, we may see a slight uptick in on-field leniency for post-strike collisions as referees seek consistency. VAR rooms will continue to avoid re-refereeing borderline contact. If anything changes, it will come from IFAB clarifications during the seasonal updates, not from mid-season policy shifts. The best advice to attackers remains simple: do your work before the block arrives, because marginal post-shot contact will not buy a penalty at this level.

Latest today

• Matheus Cunha suffers training accident - Wolves star skips Altrincham event, Everton clas...
• Arne Slot and the sack debate at Liverpool: heat, context, and what the data says
• Jude Bellingham doubles down on loyalty to Real Madrid core
• VAR chalks off Nottingham Forest’s second vs Liverpool for handball - and it was the corre...

Conclusion

This was not a penalty, and the process worked. The referee applied Law 12 with the modern interpretation that genuine blocks with incidental contact, after the ball has been played, are part of the game. VAR then respected the high threshold. That is how it should be. The discourse often blurs the line between contact and foul, but top-level refereeing must parse that distinction, particularly inside packed penalty areas where shots and blocks collide in fractions of a second.

Phil Foden remains central to City’s attack this season, and his ability to get shots off under pressure is a strength. Fabian Schar did what good defenders do: he closed, balanced, and accepted the risk of a collision while playing the ball. Nothing in the replay suggests recklessness or excessive force. Fans can disagree, but the law, the protocol, and the consistency argument align here.

Strip away the noise, and you are left with a clean decision. Not fashionable, not inflammatory, but correct. Football needs more of those.