ForssAwakens
Well-known member
where to start with this
‘Barely any contact’
‘With his head’ - heads have studs?
England Penalty
- Thread starter iamborome
- Start date
‘Barely any contact’
‘With his head’ - heads have studs?
Way_Out_West
Well-known member
There was movement both ways, Kane to the ball, defender to Kane's foot.
If he was just trying to block the shot he would have gone across the line instead of directly at Kane.
Look at the lines on the pitch from when he raised his leg to where his studs hit Kane. It moved a significant distance forward.
Studs on the top of your foot moving at pace hurts. That's why those type of challenges are not allowed.
Yes it was .
At knee height? Don't be silly. Plus a head in the foot is less dangerous than studs in the foot (to the foot!)
No, but when the defender challenges the striker, hits the striker and not the ball they will be.
Right decision
Jonny Ingbar
Well-known member
I think we are all a little bit guilty of judging penalty decisions to a different standard to fouls elsewhere on the pitch, with good reason I would add, because it's often seems to be the case that referees apply that principle too.
Would that have been a could anywhere else on the pitch? Pretty sure it would, far more often than not, so the fact it's in the box is irrelevant, or should be.
I did actually shout 'penaty' unreal time too, but maybe that was the supporter coming out in me.
Would that have been a could anywhere else on the pitch? Pretty sure it would, far more often than not, so the fact it's in the box is irrelevant, or should be.
I did actually shout 'penaty' unreal time too, but maybe that was the supporter coming out in me.
Acklam_Lad
Well-known member
The minute you go studs up in any situation on the pitch then its dangerous play regardless of contact being made.
the extra factor here is that the ball was played (by Kane) and the defender made no attempt to pull out of the tackle. (look at the Sun pics) He actually extends his leg to meet Kane's foot and he isnt even looking at the ball.
the extra factor here is that the ball was played (by Kane) and the defender made no attempt to pull out of the tackle. (look at the Sun pics) He actually extends his leg to meet Kane's foot and he isnt even looking at the ball.
Teesste
Well-known member
How many times do we see full backs in the corner going to clear the ball upfield and a forward comes in and just leaves a foot in for them to hit on their follow through... it's a free kick every time it happens as it is considered dangerous play.
This was exactly the same situation.. by allowing Kane to make contact with his studs he has given the referee (and VAR) a decision to make.
This was exactly the same situation.. by allowing Kane to make contact with his studs he has given the referee (and VAR) a decision to make.
Dermot Gallagher on "Ref Watch" often refers to a higher threshold in the penalty area. It seems to be something that has crept in through this season with so much scrutiny on VAR.
It's not in the laws but it seems as if PL referees are being guided this way
SpineyNorman
Well-known member
Saka actually handled the ball before Kanes shot. We got very lucky.
Way_Out_West
Well-known member
It clearly hits him on the body before deflecting onto arm. There is specific guidance that that is not considered handball.
ThePrisoner
Well-known member
On The Bob
Well-known member
I understand why people are saying it shouldn’t be a penalty - because we’ve watched these instances for years go without punishment. We’ve become accustomed to the fact that they aren’t given in England.
You hear it in the stands and in the commentary. “The Balls Gone” - which is crazy.
“He just went in with his studs and broke his leg”
“Balls gone mate, perfectly entitled to do it”.
By the letter of the law they should be given but never are in England. Like I said it’s been a frustration of mine for years that situations that occur in the box aren’t viewed in the same light as outside - when 100% of the time it’s a foul.
The Latte Lath one was a perfect example. Penalty all day long but “the ball had gone” so wasn’t. I’m also under no illusion that this would work against us at times too.
You hear it in the stands and in the commentary. “The Balls Gone” - which is crazy.
“He just went in with his studs and broke his leg”
“Balls gone mate, perfectly entitled to do it”.
By the letter of the law they should be given but never are in England. Like I said it’s been a frustration of mine for years that situations that occur in the box aren’t viewed in the same light as outside - when 100% of the time it’s a foul.
The Latte Lath one was a perfect example. Penalty all day long but “the ball had gone” so wasn’t. I’m also under no illusion that this would work against us at times too.
Way_Out_West
Well-known member
Worked perfectly, getting both calls right.
newusername
Well-known member
eh? It clearly does...
He clearly challenged for the ball & with his foot up leg extended there was contact with Kane. Kane was hobbling the rest of the game (& should've been taken off IMO once it became clear he couldn't run) it was at least careless.
If he doesn't challenge for the ball, Kane has more time and possibly scores.
Ravshoutsatbeck
Well-known member
Do the people saying it's not a penalty think players being late and catching the player when trying to block passes/clearances are not fouls?
I'd argue that is the majority of free kicks in the game.
Defender tries to get ball, other player gets there first, defender then hits player after they have played it.
Isn't that what always happens?!
Not given as often on shots for some reason.
I'd argue that is the majority of free kicks in the game.
Defender tries to get ball, other player gets there first, defender then hits player after they have played it.
Isn't that what always happens?!
Not given as often on shots for some reason.
Ref didn't think it was careless. He thought it was reckless 'cos he booked him.
changingman
Well-known member
The co-commentators really don't help on this though do they. Their primary focus should be to educate and by assessing each and every incident through their "opinion", rather than the laws of the game, they're supporting the "It's not a penalty because I don't think it's a penalty" line.
What was it Gove said about experts?
What was it Gove said about experts?
newusername
Well-known member
Missed that at the time.Ref didn't think it was careless. He thought it was reckless 'cos he booked him.
I think I could argue this one for or against. As soon as it's watched in slow motion it looks far worse, so when VAR got involved it had to be given.
If it was on a right back clearing it, then it would be a free kick to the defender. I wonder when the threshold for a penalty changed/ was made different. Similarly with pushes/ contact in the box at times. More favourable to the defending team.
If it was on a right back clearing it, then it would be a free kick to the defender. I wonder when the threshold for a penalty changed/ was made different. Similarly with pushes/ contact in the box at times. More favourable to the defending team.
If the penalty was a correct decision then it does not bode well for the game.
So, defenders have to be be mindful of an attackers possible fu.cking follow through action before making a challenge?
Tackling will be phased out. They seem determined to make the game non-contact. Even some of the England players are feigning 'agony' etc to get free kicks. Even when we played as kids we would grit our teeth and get on with it.
If the dutch had been awarded a penalty in those circumstances there would be uproar.
So, defenders have to be be mindful of an attackers possible fu.cking follow through action before making a challenge?
Tackling will be phased out. They seem determined to make the game non-contact. Even some of the England players are feigning 'agony' etc to get free kicks. Even when we played as kids we would grit our teeth and get on with it.
If the dutch had been awarded a penalty in those circumstances there would be uproar.