Manchester City saw three penalty claims waved away on Saturday as Newcastle United beat Pep Guardiola's side 2-1 at St James' Park.
Perhaps only Pep Guardiola wanted to see those penalties given more than the Sky Sports commentary and punditry team on the day, especially Jamie Redknapp who was adamant that Malick Thiaw handled the ball with his arms in an unnatural position.
The first penalty appeal was the one that we feel could have gone either way when Fabian Schar clattered Phil Foden in the box. Foden had already got his shot away, however, and it was deemed that the contact came as a natural consequence of momentum rather than being reckless.
The third appeal was a tussle between Ruben Dias and Fabian Schar during a corner. They're never given anyway.
Malick Thiaw's handball was never going to be given as a penalty
----------------------------------------------------------------
We'll come to the Schar challenge on Foden last, as that's the one that caused Jay Bothroyd to practically cry on [Sky Sports News this morning.](https://www.skysports.com/football/video/30998/13474780/ref-watch-should-man-city-have-been-awarded-three-penalties-vs-newcastle)
When it came to Malick Thiaw's handball that, yes, did hit his arm and that Jamie Redknapp was adamant was a penalty, Dermot Gallagher summed it up perfectly as to why it wasn't given.
> "If it doesn't strike his arm, it's going to strike his body anyhow. He hasn't made himself bigger."
Jay Bothroyd got very worked up this morning
--------------------------------------------
Now, Dermot Gallagher agreed with the referee and VAR's decision when it came to Fabian Schar's challenge on Foden, and even during his rant, Bothroyd said something in his argument that proved why it wasn't awarded.
> "That should definitely be given as a penalty. It is reckless because when you see the challenge, he's off the floor, his studs are up, that's reckless. What is the definition of reckless, if that isn't?
>
> "The reason why it did is because he got his shot off."
As Dermot Gallagher says after that statement, "100%, I agree."
Case closed.