Not a Penalty: Why the Pope–Gyokeres Collision Was Correctly Given Against the Attacker

The viral Pope–Gyokeres clip has split timelines, but the laws—not emotions—decide these. The goalkeeper makes an initial, consequential touch that diverts the ball away from the attacker’s path. As Gyokeres extends his leg through the challenge, contact follows—initiated as much by the attacker as by the keeper. That sequence fits Law 12’s plain reading: playing the ball first doesn’t excuse reckless follow-through, but it equally means an attacker can’t force contact after losing the ball. The on‑field call of an attacking foul is supportable and, crucially, far from “clear and obvious” to overturn via VAR. No penalty, no DOGSO. Correct restart.

Primary debate sourced from tweet by @AFCAMDEN and replies from multiple accounts discussing the Pope–Gyokeres incident, comparisons to the Saliba–Joao Pedro clash last season, and claims about advantage and DOGSO.

Doesn’t matter if Pope gets a slight touch on the ball - Gyokeres is going to get that ball if he is not brought down by Pope. It’s a foul!

@AFCAMDEN

Impact Analysis

Strip away the noise and the incident’s impact becomes clearer on three fronts: the match narrative, the officiating conversation, and team behaviours. First, match narrative: when supporters believe a “stonewall” penalty was denied, outrage is inevitable. Yet the referee’s sequence—keeper’s touch alters the ball’s direction, attacker then initiates/continues contact—legally supports an attacking foul. Because the non‑penalty hinges on the original on‑field judgment, VAR’s “clear and obvious” threshold was never met. That immediately reframes the discourse: it’s not bias, it’s protocol.

Second, officiating trust. The corner-vs-free‑kick argument is frequently misunderstood. If the referee judges a foul by the attacker prior to the ball going out, the proper restart is a defensive free‑kick, not a corner, even if the keeper last brushed the ball. That aligns with Law 5 (referee decisions) and Law 12 (order of offences). Claims that Saka’s follow‑up was denied advantage ignore that advantage is not typically applied to the defending side inside their own area once the foul is against the attacker; the whistle is immediate to prevent further conflict.

Third, team behaviours. Attackers will study this: once the goalkeeper meaningfully diverts the ball, forcing through-leg contact is a high-risk gamble likely to be called against them. Goalkeepers, conversely, will note that credible initial contact plus a compact body shape remains the safest route—both technically and in the eyes of VAR.

Reaction

Social sentiment leans heavily toward outrage, with several strands. One group insists “touching the ball isn’t a free pass,” arguing that Pope impeded Gyokeres from a tap‑in and that DOGSO should apply (see @PaulTheFace_, @ArsenalHotTakes, @schneidermike). Another group cites “consistency” and historical grievances—referencing last season’s Saliba–Joao Pedro head clash and claiming similar contact was called the other way (@AStott12, @Mo__MR90__).

A third thread fixates on restarts and advantage: if Pope touched it, where’s the corner, and why stop when Saka could score (@CCoules16, @Batchzor, @GOLFHO2025). There’s also predictable tribal crossfire—accusations of simulation and bias, with some alleging corruption or preferential treatment for rivals, while others mock Arsenal fans for “crying.”

Yet there’s a quieter, rules‑literate minority pointing out that attacker‑initiated or shared contact after the ball is diverted often goes against the attacker, and VAR won’t elevate a subjective tangle into a “clear and obvious” error. In short: the timeline of events—and the burden of proof on VAR—matters more than the slow‑motion optics circulating on social feeds.

Social reactions

😂😂😂😂😂😂

Feliz Solo 🏁🏁 (@FemzLondon)

Had he stayed on his feet, he scores, but decided to dive. Justice.

Obby (@PaulPaulbrien)

So if a player 'is going to get the ball' but they're tackled legitimately and fall over in the process.. that makes it a foul?? 😂😂

Romario (@Romario__Bebeto)

Prediction

Expect PGMOL to address this in a weekly briefing or training tape rather than a dramatic mea culpa. The most likely talking points: 1) initial, credible contact by the goalkeeper that meaningfully alters the ball’s direction; 2) attacker’s through‑leg extension producing or sharing responsibility for the collision; 3) restart logic when a prior foul is identified before the ball goes out; and 4) why VAR support the on‑field decision absent a clear and obvious threshold.

Clubs will quietly submit their clips and questions, but don’t anticipate a retrospective upgrade to penalty/DOGSO. If anything, we’ll see guidance clips circulated to broadcasters—“ball played first does not equal immunity,” but neither does “any contact equals a foul.” That nuance will be the headline.

Tactically, attackers may adjust: cut across earlier to invite undeniable contact before the keeper’s touch, or take the touch wider to remove doubt. Keepers will double down on arriving first with a low, controlled block and hands to ball. On field, referees will blow earlier for attacking fouls in the area to extinguish messy second phases and quell the endless ‘advantage to the defenders’ arguments.

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 law is unglamorous, but it is consistent when applied in sequence. The keeper’s first, consequential touch diverts the ball; the attacker then continues into contact with an extended leg. That’s textbook grounds to penalize the attacker or, at minimum, to uphold the on‑field call as not clearly wrong. The corner complaint collapses once you accept the prior offence; the advantage complaint ignores that you don’t play advantage to the defending team inside their box in these scenarios.

Comparisons to the Saliba–Joao Pedro clash are apples and oranges: different body shapes, lines of movement, points of contact, and—crucially—the order of events. Broadcast slow‑mo encourages certainty where only judgement exists. VAR’s job is not to re‑referee grey incidents; it is to rescue black‑and‑white misses. This wasn’t one. The unpopular truth is often simple: by the book, the non‑penalty stands.