No, This Wasn’t ‘Robbery’: Why the Pope Incident Differs from Sánchez and the Gyökeres Comparisons

Outrage is loud, but the Laws are clear. The weekend incident involving Nick Pope is being lazily equated with last week’s Robert Sánchez red and a separate Gyökeres flashpoint. They’re not the same play-types. Contact is not automatically a foul; force, point of contact, and control define outcomes. VAR intervenes only on clear, objective error—not to re-referee borderline judgment calls. In Pope’s case, the keeper plays the ball first, sets his line, and the follow-through lacks reckless or excessive force. By contrast, Sánchez’s contact was high-risk and careless. Conflating them fuels inconsistency claims but ignores IFAB Law 12’s nuance.

Primary discourse originated from @AFCAMDEN’s post asserting inconsistent PGMOL standards, citing Sánchez “touching the ball” yet being penalized versus a non-penalized play with Pope. Replies included:

• @Dax_LFC disputing any penalty and labeling the attacker’s actions as simulation.
• @swxrby and @OneNilToAFC alleging double standards, referencing “Pope” comparisons.
• @gunnergoral and @YSS449 alleging corruption and bias at PGMOL.
• @_AdamE_ emphasizing difference in endangerment between incidents.
• @eillo21 pointing out Sánchez was outside the box and reckless.
• Multiple users invoked VAR, “follow-through” fouls, and called for consistency and transparency from Howard Webb and PGMOL.

Last week Sanchez got a touch on the ball but it was still a red card and foul. We get consistently robbed by the PGMOL.

@AFCAMDEN

Impact Analysis

Stripping away the emotion, three frames matter: the nature of the challenge, the location/context, and VAR’s threshold. Under IFAB Law 12, a challenge is penalized if it’s careless, reckless, or uses excessive force; merely “touching the ball” is not an immunity card. With Robert Sánchez, the key factors were: outside the area (no “double jeopardy” mitigation), late body line relative to the opponent’s path, and a follow-through that endangered the opponent—hallmarks of at least careless, arguably reckless play. That cocktail supports a direct free kick and red for denying an obvious goal-scoring opportunity without a genuine attempt to play the ball safely.

Contrast that with the Pope incident. The goalkeeper establishes a set position, makes first contact on the ball, and the residual contact is a foreseeable but not inherently reckless consequence of a fair challenge. The attacker’s trajectory and initiation of secondary contact—cutting across the keeper after the ball is played—further shifts responsibility. In such 50–50s, unless there is clear evidence of undue force, Law 12 favors “play-on.”

Finally, VAR. Protocol demands a “clear and obvious” on-field error. This was a gray, judgment-based scenario where angles can mislead—precisely the type VAR should leave alone. Drawing equivalence with a continental clip involving Gyökeres conflates dissimilar mechanics: point of contact and force profile there were demonstrably different. The outrage stems from optics; the Laws hinge on mechanics and thresholds.

Reaction

The thread split into predictable camps. Arsenal-leaning users voiced fatigue with PGMOL, invoking words like “robbery,” “agenda,” and calling for accountability from Howard Webb. Several, including @LongJeff_ and @afcmark1, escalated to claims of systemic bias. Others, such as @_AdamE_ and @eillo21, pushed back, highlighting how Sánchez’s scenario involved reckless force outside the area, whereas Pope’s was a ball-first intervention with incidental contact. Rival-fan voices like @Dax_LFC dismissed penalty claims entirely and labeled the attacker’s behavior as theatrical.

There was also meta-frustration over consistency—users @sf_ninerz49 and @Declankalli98 demanded uniform standards and cited a potential “tap-in” if play continued. Commentary about a non-existent handball on Gabriel (flagged by @gunnergoral) fed into the narrative that players now lobby aggressively, muddying referee perception. The thread even featured unrelated brand chatter and meme responses, illustrating how quickly discourse dilutes into noise during flashpoints.

Notably, many equated incidents across different matches and competitions as if they were carbon copies. That’s the core flaw: fans compared outcomes but ignored the underlying mechanics—ball contact sequence, force, body line, and DOGSO context. The collective sentiment, however, is unmistakable: trust in officiating is low, and communication gaps let accusations of favoritism fill the void.

Social reactions

Honest mate, genuinely feels like there is an agenda . have another apology to issue. Howard Webb and his gang are either totally incompetent or corrupt.

AFC Mark (@afcmark1)

And where’s the yellow for player (Murphy) for asking for penalty on Gabriel when it only struck his midsection? The corruption and bias is beyond openly displayed. will never be unbiased. Until they’ve all been cleared out and held accountable, this will continue.

Dave 🇺🇸🇵🇱🇺🇦🌻 (@gunnergoral)

Robbery, what happened to “ he got the ball, but was fouled on the follow through tackle” even if he touched the ball before gyokeres he still fouled him on the follow through tackle , no ? 😂✌️

𝑅𝐸𝐴𝑃𝐸𝑅 (@dayyaantheking)

Prediction

Expect PGMOL to address the incident in its next broadcast review segment, releasing the VAR audio to show why the threshold for intervention wasn’t met. That clarity will diffuse some of the anger but won’t placate those convinced of bias. Clubs will submit formal questions seeking definitions around “follow-through” after a ball-first challenge and how that interacts with DOGSO and “careless vs reckless” gradations

Referee coaching emphasis will likely shift toward pre-contact positioning for goalkeepers and clearer arm/leg profiles to reduce the optics of heavy contact. We’ll also see updated explainer clips for broadcasters, standardizing language around “instigator of contact.” The IFAB guidance won’t change mid-season, so outcomes for similar 50–50s will continue to hinge on force and point-of-contact analysis, not ball touch alone.

For supporters hoping for retroactive action, don’t. The on-field call will stand; VAR’s high bar protected it. The longer arc is education and transparency, not rewrites and replays.

Latest today

• Wojciech Szczęsny embraces ‘secondary’ role: Juventus veteran vows to stay ready in Di Gregorio era Wojciech Szczęsny embraces ‘secondary’ role: Juventus veteran vows to stay ready in Di Gregorio era
• Barcelona poised to strike on 2026 expiries: Guéhi, Upamecano and Vlahović headline smart shortlist Barcelona poised to strike on 2026 expiries: Guéhi, Upamecano and Vlahović headline smart shortlist
• Szczęsny reveals Barça’s goalkeeper plan: Joan García targeted as Ter Stegen’s heir Szczęsny reveals Barça’s goalkeeper plan: Joan García targeted as Ter Stegen’s heir
• Szczęsny: Lamine Yamal should enjoy football — with passion and professionalism he can be the best Szczęsny: Lamine Yamal should enjoy football — with passion and professionalism he can be the best

Conclusion

The crowd sees two moving bodies and a tumble; the Laws see sequencing, force, and risk management. Pope’s action fits within a goalkeeper’s right to play the ball and hold a set line, and the ensuing contact does not automatically escalate to a foul. Sánchez’s moment, by contrast, ticked the boxes for carelessness and endangerment outside the area—therefore punishable independent of any initial ball touch. Equating them erases nuance and mistakes mechanics for conspiracy.

Consistency does not mean identical outcomes for superficially similar pictures; it means identical application of principles to distinct facts. VAR didn’t re-referee because it shouldn’t. If the game wants fewer flashpoints, the path is clearer communication and better literacy around Law 12—by officials, coaches, and broadcasters—so fans judge incidents on criteria, not volume.