Ref again — tackle on Latte

in real time I was convinced it was a penalty.

Seeing the highlights this morning (about 10 times) I dont think it was.

Its close, but I think Latte got his shot away fractionally before the contact from the defender. I think the defender was entitled to challenge, albeit from behind and a bit "robustly".

I would have been pi$$ed off to concede a penalty in that situation.
 
Billy69_uk said:
in real time I was convinced it was a penalty.

Seeing the highlights this morning (about 10 times) I dont think it was.

Its close, but I think Latte got his shot away fractionally before the contact from the defender. I think the defender was entitled to challenge, albeit from behind and a bit "robustly".

I would have been pi$$ed off to concede a penalty in that situation.
Click to expand...

If he's got a pass off in the middle of the park and was then wiped out without the defender getting anywhere near the ball, it would have been a foul and a yellow card.

It's no different in the box.
 
Last edited:
I’m convinced that referee treated the lack of VAR as basically a night off. Felt like the game repeatedly went whole stretches where he was just giving nothing to anyone. Particularly the second half.

On the Latte Lath challenge I didn’t think it was a penalty tbh. At the very least I could see why nothing would be given in real time, that’s the type of challenge I think needs VAR for it to be looked at and even then maybe not.

The handball was the type of thing I think most people here would otherwise be calling a ridiculous decision to give it if it had happened in a game that we weren’t in and been given.
 
Jonathan said:
The handball was the type of thing I think most people here would otherwise be calling a ridiculous decision to give it if it had happened in a game that we weren’t in and been given.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Not mentioned yet on here, but the ball deflected off another part of his body before hitting his hand if I'm not dreaming.
 
Paulroddam7 said:
A foul is a foul regardless of where the ball is going or what you intend to do with it. It wasn’t just a daft foul either, it was a desperate, studs up challenge which injured our player. Red card.
Click to expand...
If that's the case how did we get away with zero fouls in the second half?

Contact was made by our players after the ball had been played a number of times with nothing given. It happens countless times in every game of football.
 
Corcaigh_the_Cat said:
If that's the case how did we get away with zero fouls in the second half?

Contact was made by our players after the ball had been played a number of times with nothing given. It happens countless times in every game of football.
Click to expand...

Because the referee was poor and was giving nothing.

Coburn was ragged about repeatedly and play was waved on, Matt Crooks was body slammed and hurt by it and nothing was given.

We'll 100% have made fouls in the second half, he'll just have missed them.
 
Jonathan said:
On the Latte Lath challenge I didn’t think it was a penalty tbh. At the very least I could see why nothing would be given in real time, that’s the type of challenge I think needs VAR for it to be looked at and even then maybe not.

The handball was the type of thing I think most people here would otherwise be calling a ridiculous decision to give it if it had happened in a game that we weren’t in and been given.
Click to expand...
Watching the LL "challenge" I didn't think it was a penalty at the time but I'm convinced it would be given as one if VAR was in use. That said I would still rather do without the nonsense of VAR rather than have the penalty.

The "handball" I would be fuming if that was given against us and it does seem to bounce up and onto his arm with no attempt to control the ball. Perhaps VAR would give it, perhaps not.

Ironic that it was Poch advising his players to remember that there was no VAR and that they would need to play accordingly when VAR would actually have benefitted us. Still hate VAR with a passion.
 
Not even close to a penalty. ELL gets his shot off and is no longer in possession of the ball and isn't in a situation to get the ball back because the keeper has held it. It's just a last ditch challenge from the defender that before VAR was introduced, no one ever considered it to be close to a foul.
 
mbg42 said:
Not even close to a penalty. ELL gets his shot off and is no longer in possession of the ball and isn't in a situation to get the ball back because the keeper has held it. It's just a last ditch challenge from the defender that before VAR was introduced, no one ever considered it to be close to a foul.
Click to expand...

You don't need to be in possession of the ball to be fouled.

Again, anywhere else on the pitch, that's a foul and a yellow card.

It was a penalty.
 
mbg42 said:
Not even close to a penalty. ELL gets his shot off and is no longer in possession of the ball and isn't in a situation to get the ball back because the keeper has held it. It's just a last ditch challenge from the defender that before VAR was introduced, no one ever considered it to be close to a foul.
Click to expand...
This is spot on. Every coach, too many fans are screaming for free kicks, penalties and cards. There's an 'always the victim' mentality that has crept in to the game. It's becoming more and more evident on this board.
 
I can see why there’s so many arguments about late tackles and why’s and wherefore’s on what really constitutes a yellow or red card. However, in the broad light of day Latte ends up on the deck and injured because of a sliding tackle which took out the player. The basic laws of the game deem that a foul after the ball has been played — it’s kind of that simple.

A more simple example is the law of tackling from behind when you have no chance of getting the ball. These offenses have been outlawed for similar reasons on protecting the ball carrier. Players now are for more restrained from the tackle from behind due to the high percentage of injuries caused by them.

The tackle on Latte was no different, it being cold and calculated to take the player out. Ok maybe I’m being cynical here but the defender was well beaten by Latte from the initial sprint for the ball, so he was always going to have to take evasive action.

If Latte scores the defender gets booked for his foul — the referee bottled it.
 
Last edited:
Late tackle = foul = penalty. It's that simple.

The player has also gone to ground and there was a lack of control - reckless endangerment? The fact Latte was injured would suggest there was.

The referee made some very strange decisions last night, the foul on Crooks being one and the way Coburn was allowed to be fouled all night.
 
Latte Lath shoots & the defender dives in to block the ball but doesn't get anything on it, he then clatters in to Latte Lath's foot/ankle while the ball is still "live". Penalty.
1704908197377.png

Likewise Palmer shoots & Glover dives in to block the ball but doesn't get anything on it, he clatters into Palmer's midriff & knocks him to the floor.

"You are the ref" would that be an indirect kick because the ball is already out of play?

edit...

IFAB Law 12:
Direct and indirect free kicks and penalty kicks can only be awarded for offences committed when the ball is in play.

4. Restart of play after fouls and misconduct
If the ball is out of play, play is restarted according to the previous decision"

Palmer misses so its a goalkick, Palmer's fouled but it doesn't count as the ball's out of play, so its a goalkick.

Have I got that right?

1704908630124.png 1704908830708.png
 
Last edited:
It seems to be accepted if you try to block a shot, get there late and take the player out - no penalty.

They are almost never given.

But if you try to block a pass or a clearance and get the player - freekick and yellow card for being recklessly late.

So it is a definite penalty by laws of the game - but consistent with normal practice.

Glover one was probably a pen as well if you give the Lath one. (Although it is possible the ball is out of play before the contact in the case of Glover/Palmer)
 
newusername said:
Latte Lath shoots & the defender dives in to block the ball but doesn't get anything on it, he then clatters in to Latte Lath's foot/ankle while the ball is still "live". Penalty.
View attachment 70091

Likewise Palmer shoots & Glover dives in to block the ball but doesn't get anything on it, he clatters into Palmer's midriff & knocks him to the floor. "You are the ref" would that be an indirect kick because the ball is already out of play?
View attachment 70092 View attachment 70093
Click to expand...
Can't give a free kick while the ball is out of play - so you probably book glover, but still goal kick
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top