We all love the controversy in football don't we?

The talk in the office first thing on a Monday morning, the debate, the different opinions.

Every week there are a myriad of talking points from the weekend's action.

This weekend was no different.

We asked out sports reporters from Trinity Mirror in the south east to give their thoughts on the big areas of discussion from the weekend just gone.

First up, should West Ham have had a penalty in the lunchtime game with Tottenham? At 0-0 Marko Arnautovic strode into the area where he was denied by a brilliant tackle from Serge Aurier. But the Frenchman had a lot of the Austrian's shirt, should Michael Oliver have awarded a penalty?

Serge Aurier battles for the ball with Marko Arnautovic

Lee Wilmot (Head of Sport)

It pains me to say it, as a Tottenham fan, but yes, this should have been a penalty. Don't get me wrong, it's a fabulous tackle by Aurier, who would later go on to be completely brainless in being sent off, but he is helped by the fact that he has a huge handful of Arnautovic's shirt. I don't care if he didn't go down, tried to stay on his feet, it's a penalty and would have had a huge bearing on the overall result were it given.

Phil Spencer (QPR reporter)

I think the referee made the correct call. If referees were to give a foul every time a shirt got pulled then there'd be more stoppages than an American Football game, and nobody wants that! However it's worth mentioning that if Arnautovic had gone down to ground it's more likely the penalty would have been awarded, which isn't fair, but unfortunately it is the way the game seems to be at the moment.

Clive Youlton (Charlton Athletic reporter)

Yes, in my opinion it should have been a penalty purely because the referee had no excuse not to give it as he must have seen the shirt pulling from where he was positioned. It is always the case that the player being impeded tries to make a meal of it, which he probably did, but my theory is it was because it was early in the match and referees tend to give more later on in matches, so he bottled the decision.

Tom Moore (Brentford reporter)

We don't have video technology so West Ham did not deserve to have a penalty when Serge Aurier was battling Marko Arnautovic. The Austrian was leaning on the Spurs full back and trying to knock him over with Aurier able to get back and clear, while holding his shirt. However, if the penalty was given then the Tottenham man could have few complaints with the decision. From the referee's angle that was not a clear obvious decision and it would be one for the extra officials you see behind the goal to give.

Tim Street (Digital Football Writer)

Yes. When the footage is slowed down, you can see clearly that Aurier had a handful of Arnautovic's shirt. Whether or not it put the Hammer off his shot, or the Spurs man got anything else on the ball, there's no denying the shirt was pulled.

The second question for debate surrounds Leicester City's game with Liverpool. After Jamie Vardy missed a penalty, the ball was worked out to the right where Demarai Gray attempted to play the ball back into the box, but his cross hit Emre Can on the arm. Penalty?

Emre Can in action for Liverpool against Leicester City

Lee Wilmot

I think this would have been very harsh. First and foremost Vardy should have converted the penalty and we wouldn't be having this debate. But Gray gets to the byline and attempts to get the ball across and yes, Can is a little bit canny in throwing his head towards the ball when he's clearly never going to head it, but I don't see any real movement of the arm towards the ball, it just hits him, he can't really get out of the way.

Phil Spencer

There's no way you can give that as a handball. The waters surrounding this issue are pretty murky, but as the cross comes in from Demerai Gray there's no movement whatsoever from Emre Can to move towards the ball, as he's purely trying to head the ball clear. It's impossible to move out of the way of the ball from two yards away and if they awarded a penalty it would have been particularly harsh.

Clive Youlton

Yes, definitely a penalty. How can the assistant referee not see that the player deliberately blocked the ball with his arm? The look on Can's face afterwards told the story. He couldn't believe he had gotten away with it. The referee probably didn't want to give Leicester a second penalty so quickly. Which is totally wrong.

Tim Street

No. It looked ball to arm rather than the other way around, and Can seemed to keep his arm by his side and try to head the ball. The linesman on that side also had a perfect view, although you do wonder if the ref may have given it had Leicester not just had a penalty.

Tom Moore

The defender could have cleared the ball without using his arm as he leaned into it. For me, that was a penalty. I know some will say ball to hand but there appeared to be sufficient time to either get the hand out of the way or make a better clearance. The Foxes can count themselves unlucky and Liverpool fortunate but the real culprit in the whole piece was Jamie Vardy. Had he scored his spot kick, the incident certainly would not have happened.

Our third topic of debate this week surrounds Chelsea and Marcos Alonso. The wing-back had a real tussle with Stoke's Mame Biram Diouf and committed two fouls in quick succession, firstly on Joe Allen, then on Diouf. Should he have seen red?

Marcos Alonso in action against Stoke City

Lee Wilmot

When you commit a foul and get booked, then fly into another one moments later, you're asking for trouble. That's exactly what Alonso did on Saturday and I think he should have been sent off. The first foul was a case of him losing possession and trying to get it back frustratedly. The second, having felt he was elbowed by Diouf minutes earlier (which he wasn't), he flew in trying to win the ball and Diouf got his body in front and Alonso kicked him in the back of the leg. It was stupid and he could, and in my view should have gone.

Tom Moore

Would Marcos Alonso have any justifiable complaints if Mike Dean had sent him off? Not in the slightest. The Chelsea full back fully deserved his first yellow card for going through Joe Allon and even the fans who watch games with the most blue tinted glasses available will find little to argue about. The tackle on Mame Biram Diouf was a yellow card challenge as well but there was less intent behind the tackle. It was certainly one where, if he hadn't been booked, he certainly would have been. I can see why Dean opted for a final warning, rather than a second yellow, as the two fouls weren't severe incidents but would he have done the same if roles were reversed and the game was at Stamford Bridge?

Clive Youlton

The Chelsea man had just got an elbow in the face from Diouf moments before. He clattered into one tackle and got a booking in sheer frustration afterwards. Then sought retribution on Diouf. I am sure he wouldn't have gone in like that if it had been another player. His intention was to go through the back of the player. Red card. Again, referee bottled the decision.

Phil Spencer

I think it would have been harsh to send Alonso off. Alonso was clearly riled after receiving an elbow to the head from Diouf, and the two fouls that followed were certainly reckless. In my opinion, sending him off for those two challenges would have been harsh, but he was asking for trouble going in for petty challenges like that.

Tim Street

The first challenge seemed more a frustrated lunge at having lost the ball and was clearly a booking. The second I felt was a genuine attempt for the ball but a horribly mistimed one, and you get the feeling it would have led to another yellow had he not been booked already.