What 30-year-old Wolves player did just before Luton’s penalty should concern O’Neil – opinion

The penalty decision that went against Wolves against Luton Town on Saturday has received a lot of attention.

Wanderers led 1-0 thanks to a magnificent strike by Pedro Neto, but were level after referee Josh Smith awarded a penalty kick for ‘handball’ against Joao Gomes.

Because the ball ricocheted off the Brazilian’s thigh and into his outstretched arm, the ruling was contentious.

His arm was deemed to be in an abnormal position, which is why the decision was affirmed.

It’s quite aggravating.

Gary O’Neil vented his rage immediately following the game.

However, the Wolves manager must now concentrate on developing his team. And it’s probable he’ll be worried about anything that transpired immediately before Smith handed down the penalty…

Jose Sa made another questionable decision on Saturday

Moments before the penalty was awarded by Smith, Wolves actually had the ball.

Jose Sa had it in his grasp, and everyone was pushing out. But the Portuguese made a really strange decision to throw the ball to Mario Lemina in midfield.

The Gabon international was not in the best position to receive it, and Marvelous Nakamba was able to pick his pocket.

The ball was then played out wide to Issa Kabore, who then played the ball off Gomes.

Maybe Lemina could have done better.

But Sa could have held the ball for longer and picked out a safer option.

Sa rashness comes to the fore again

Finally, Gomes should not have been penalized for his block. It is absurd that a penalty can be imposed for this.

However, it was given and is what it is.

But perhaps we wouldn’t be having this debate if Sa hadn’t been foolish and passed the ball to Lemina, who was marked.

This followed his decision against Liverpool last week to try to locate Pedro Neto with a long kick. Sa botched his kick, allowing the Reds to score.

Overall, Sa is an excellent goalie. His shot stopping is great, and he frequently commands his area well.

However, the 30-year-old’s distribution decisions are concerning and should be addressed.