Argentina 🇦🇷 v Egypt 🇪🇬 kick off 1700 ITV 1

Nano said:
There's a 0% chance that should have been a penalty. There was a shirt pull but the player was 10 yards from the ball and had no chance of being near it and he then dived. The shirt pull didn't cause him to fall. There was just nowhere near enough of anything to be given a penalty. If the ball was 1 yard away there would be a question but it wasn't. If that was a penalty then we'd have a penalty every 30 seconds for every single off the ball incident.
Click to expand...
That’s the reality for that one. It obviously should be a foul because “there was a shirt pull” but the level of tolerance of that sort of thing now is so great that I wouldn’t ever expect it to be given, never mind seen as a clear and obvious error when it isn’t given. And it’s yet another different type of incident. Which is why it’s facile to talk about consistency.

For what it’s worth, I wouldn’t have referred any of them, but for three different reasons. The one above should be a foul in my view but isn’t in the game as it stands at present. The one on Salah isn’t a foul at all and nor should it be. The defender plays the ball, there is some contact subsequently, and the defender comes away with it. Contact is allowed in the tackle as long as it’s not careless, reckless or using excessive force. It clearly wasn’t either of the latter two, and winning the ball initially negates the former there for me. The incident for the Egypt goal was a foul, because the defender trod on the attackers foot without playing the ball, and that was the sole reason the defender came away with it and started the attack. But it doesn’t pass for clear and obvious in my book.

In the end, though, three different incidents, justifying different conclusions, without the need for any conspiracy. Possibly an element of the big club/ country getting the rub of the green in 50/50s, which we all suspect happens, but that’s about it.
 
FishofContemplation said:
That’s the reality for that one. It obviously should be a foul because “there was a shirt pull” but the level of tolerance of that sort of thing now is so great that I wouldn’t ever expect it to be given, never mind seen as a clear and obvious error when it isn’t given. And it’s yet another different type of incident. Which is why it’s facile to talk about consistency.

For what it’s worth, I wouldn’t have referred any of them, but for three different reasons. The one above should be a foul in my view but isn’t in the game as it stands at present. The one on Salah isn’t a foul at all and nor should it be. The defender plays the ball, there is some contact subsequently, and the defender comes away with it. Contact is allowed in the tackle as long as it’s not careless, reckless or using excessive force. It clearly wasn’t either of the latter two, and winning the ball initially negates the former there for me. The incident for the Egypt goal was a foul, because the defender trod on the attackers foot without playing the ball, and that was the sole reason the defender came away with it and started the attack. But it doesn’t pass for clear and obvious in my book.

In the end, though, three different incidents, justifying different conclusions, without the need for any conspiracy. Possibly an element of the big club/ country getting the rub of the green in 50/50s, which we all suspect happens, but that’s about it.
Click to expand...
The only bit I disagree with is the Egyptian foul.

I think the foot contact makes no difference and Martinez had already lost the ball and was falling over before the Egyptian contact on his foot. (Rendering it similar to the Salah incident

But don't feel that strongly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top