| It's not a penalty 20:17 - Jul 10 with 9129 views | Garv |
The sad thing is it's not surprising.
But football is absolute bobbins now. Other sports must be laughing at it. |  |
| |  |
| It's not a penalty on 11:35 - Jul 11 with 1185 views | SE1blue |
| It's not a penalty on 10:25 - Jul 11 by bluejacko |
What’s the bother? The ref said penalty (dodgy😉)so let’s just take it and move on👍 |
I also feel like we’ve had so many moments in major tournaments go against us for more debatable stuff, let’s embrace the good fortune this time. |  |
| |
| It feckin' was a penalty on 11:37 - Jul 11 with 1170 views | WeWereZombies |
| It's not a penalty on 11:26 - Jul 11 by Europablue |
If you play it is super slow motion, you can see that the defender moved slightly towards Kane's foot as Kane swung at pace towards him. That is the thread that they are hanging the decision on. I can see how it technically could be considered a penalty, but it is still an extreme decision. The Germany penalty against Demark was never a penalty, then the one that was not given against Spain was 10 times worse than the Denmark one. If there were a clear and consistent rule and associated guidance, there wouldn't be such variation on those decisions. The England penalty favours the attacker way too much. |
I think Kane swung at the ball rather than towards the defender (who wasn't in the same position as the ball at the start of the incident.) There again, if you play it in extra super slow motion you can see that it all happens on a grassy knoll... [Post edited 11 Jul 2024 16:25]
|  |
| |
| It's not a penalty on 11:37 - Jul 11 with 1172 views | Europablue |
| It's not a penalty on 11:32 - Jul 11 by PhilTWTD |
Defender went for the ball, failed to get it and kicked Kane. I can see why it was looked on as harsh but those are the facts. |
A bit selective with facts there. Kane kicked the defender very hard with his follow through, the defender moved his foot towards Kane without much velocity. It was a split second that could not reliably be picked up by the naked eye. To me that can't be a penalty because in my understanding the failure to award a penalty is supposed to be a clear error. Is that not the case? Is the new rule that the referee just double checks every potential penalty? |  | | |
| It's not a penalty on 11:38 - Jul 11 with 1165 views | vilanovablue |
If we need a dodgy penalty to win I'll take it. I watched the hand of god on TV as a 16 year old, be denied by a post in 1990 semi-final. Gazza not being an inch taller in 96. You sometimes need a bit of luck. Sometime it's not about how you win but winning itself. |  | | |
| It's not a penalty on 11:50 - Jul 11 with 1105 views | Tractor_Boy333 |
I always think had the been decision been given against us would I be upset and yes I’d have been fuming.
I do think we were the better team though. But are we falling into the same trap as Portugal have with Ronaldo by keep starting Kane….perhaps I’m being harsh but just not sure he offers much apart from the odd tap in, watch him score the winner against Spain now from outside the box. | | | |
| It's not a penalty on 11:56 - Jul 11 with 1094 views | gordon |
| It's not a penalty on 21:41 - Jul 10 by Swansea_Blue |
Kane kicked the defender, so it’s the complete opposite |
Kane kicked the ball; the defender missed the ball and kicked Kane. It's irrelevant what Kane was doing when the defender kicks him! |  | | |
| It's not a penalty on 11:57 - Jul 11 with 1091 views | gordon |
| It's not a penalty on 11:26 - Jul 11 by Europablue |
If you play it is super slow motion, you can see that the defender moved slightly towards Kane's foot as Kane swung at pace towards him. That is the thread that they are hanging the decision on. I can see how it technically could be considered a penalty, but it is still an extreme decision. The Germany penalty against Demark was never a penalty, then the one that was not given against Spain was 10 times worse than the Denmark one. If there were a clear and consistent rule and associated guidance, there wouldn't be such variation on those decisions. The England penalty favours the attacker way too much. |
The defender launches himself towards Kane/the ball going for the block, his other foot is off the ground, and his momentum takes him from the edge of the six yard box towards the edge of the penalty area. | | | |
| It's not a penalty on 12:22 - Jul 11 with 1050 views | SouthBucksBlue |
Just heard from someone who was watching the game in Spain and the Spanish commentators all thought it was a penalty because the defender tried to block the shot by blocking Harry’s shin/foot and not the ball. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| It's not a penalty on 13:02 - Jul 11 with 1023 views | crouchendyachtclub |
| It's not a penalty on 11:32 - Jul 11 by Europablue |
Exactly, VAR is not used anywhere else on the pitch! |
It was studs up so there could be an argument that it might be considered serious foul play and the only reason why that wasn't considered is that the penalty was awarded. | | | |
| It's not a penalty on 13:13 - Jul 11 with 991 views | BseaBlue |
| It's not a penalty on 13:02 - Jul 11 by crouchendyachtclub |
It was studs up so there could be an argument that it might be considered serious foul play and the only reason why that wasn't considered is that the penalty was awarded. |
Ian Wright nailed it when he said it was 'Wreckless' I completey agreed with him. The defender goes in high, with his studs showing, inside his own box. It is a penalty all day long in my book, whether he meant the contact or not. |  | | |
| It's not a penalty on 13:15 - Jul 11 with 986 views | Radlett_blue |
| It's not a penalty on 11:37 - Jul 11 by Europablue |
A bit selective with facts there. Kane kicked the defender very hard with his follow through, the defender moved his foot towards Kane without much velocity. It was a split second that could not reliably be picked up by the naked eye. To me that can't be a penalty because in my understanding the failure to award a penalty is supposed to be a clear error. Is that not the case? Is the new rule that the referee just double checks every potential penalty? |
If VAR is to check for every potential penalty, they can surely award one after virtually every corner kick, although referees prefer to ignore holding be the defenders and give a cheap free kick to the defence for an infringement by an attacker. |  |
| |
| It's not a penalty on 13:15 - Jul 11 with 985 views | Ryorry |
| It's not a penalty on 11:38 - Jul 11 by vilanovablue |
If we need a dodgy penalty to win I'll take it. I watched the hand of god on TV as a 16 year old, be denied by a post in 1990 semi-final. Gazza not being an inch taller in 96. You sometimes need a bit of luck. Sometime it's not about how you win but winning itself. |
'Hand of God' against us trumps everything else - that being given makes last night's 'luck' (even if it was that) for us seem no more than a tiny sliver of recompense! |  |
| |
| It's not a penalty on 13:25 - Jul 11 with 954 views | Ryorry |
| It's not a penalty on 13:15 - Jul 11 by Radlett_blue |
If VAR is to check for every potential penalty, they can surely award one after virtually every corner kick, although referees prefer to ignore holding be the defenders and give a cheap free kick to the defence for an infringement by an attacker. |
What really annoyed me last night was one of the Dutch players trying to floor one of ours (Bellingham?) by literally strangling him in or near the box in the last few minutes - then when the ref carded him, trying to feign a "who, me, what?" innocence after he'd made no attempt to play football whatsoever, just employ a dangerous hold (which I doubt is allowed even in WWW?). | |
| |
| It's not a penalty on 13:30 - Jul 11 with 945 views | BloomBlue |
| It's not a penalty on 11:38 - Jul 11 by vilanovablue |
If we need a dodgy penalty to win I'll take it. I watched the hand of god on TV as a 16 year old, be denied by a post in 1990 semi-final. Gazza not being an inch taller in 96. You sometimes need a bit of luck. Sometime it's not about how you win but winning itself. |
Not forgetting Lampard's goal against Germany in the 2010 World Cup which crossed the line by 3 feet, which would have made the score 2-2 at that stage |  | | |
| It's not a penalty on 13:38 - Jul 11 with 933 views | Trequartista |
| It's not a penalty on 22:55 - Jul 10 by Garv |
This is as accurate a description of the situation as you're going to see. Well put.
People trying to say it's a foul anywhere else on the pitch so it's a penalty inside the box, it's only valid in a VAR context, therefore effectively making it invalid. |
Thank you.
I think we have to start re-assessing what a foul is now that we have moved to applying the letter of the law.
Why do we have fouls? Surely it is to prevent one player illegally impeding the progress of another. So why do we need to call foul if a shot has been struck cleanly? Kane wasn't impeded. You could still give a card if a late tackle that doesn't impede is dangerous. Why should fouls be given if a player is impeded after they have lost control of the ball and are never going to get it? This was another unwritten law used discretionally that disappeared way before VAR. |  |
| |
| It's not a penalty on 13:45 - Jul 11 with 914 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| It's not a penalty on 13:38 - Jul 11 by Trequartista |
Thank you.
I think we have to start re-assessing what a foul is now that we have moved to applying the letter of the law.
Why do we have fouls? Surely it is to prevent one player illegally impeding the progress of another. So why do we need to call foul if a shot has been struck cleanly? Kane wasn't impeded. You could still give a card if a late tackle that doesn't impede is dangerous. Why should fouls be given if a player is impeded after they have lost control of the ball and are never going to get it? This was another unwritten law used discretionally that disappeared way before VAR. |
The main reason we have fouls is to top people being injured, surely?
I think I read historically that rules were brought in because people were getting killed playing 'football'! |  |
| |
| It's not a penalty on 13:47 - Jul 11 with 908 views | gordon |
| It's not a penalty on 13:38 - Jul 11 by Trequartista |
Thank you.
I think we have to start re-assessing what a foul is now that we have moved to applying the letter of the law.
Why do we have fouls? Surely it is to prevent one player illegally impeding the progress of another. So why do we need to call foul if a shot has been struck cleanly? Kane wasn't impeded. You could still give a card if a late tackle that doesn't impede is dangerous. Why should fouls be given if a player is impeded after they have lost control of the ball and are never going to get it? This was another unwritten law used discretionally that disappeared way before VAR. |
Right OK, you don't want late tackles to count as fouls anymore? | | | |
| It's not a penalty on 13:47 - Jul 11 with 906 views | itfcjoe |
| It's not a penalty on 13:38 - Jul 11 by Trequartista |
Thank you.
I think we have to start re-assessing what a foul is now that we have moved to applying the letter of the law.
Why do we have fouls? Surely it is to prevent one player illegally impeding the progress of another. So why do we need to call foul if a shot has been struck cleanly? Kane wasn't impeded. You could still give a card if a late tackle that doesn't impede is dangerous. Why should fouls be given if a player is impeded after they have lost control of the ball and are never going to get it? This was another unwritten law used discretionally that disappeared way before VAR. |
We often see free kicks given if a defender clears the ball and the attacker tries to block it and catches him. |  |
| |
| It's not a penalty on 13:53 - Jul 11 with 888 views | OldFart71 |
We all know the current rules for pens and offside is just absurd. We can complain, moan, gesticulate, get frustrated or whatever. Some go for us, some against. Until the powers that be realise that football is a contact sport and that a toe nail shouldn't be conceived as offside we are stuck with it. Players are as much to blame as the authorities. Diving and rolling around like you have been hit with a baseball bat started with the Italians and has spread worldwide. But then there's so much at stake in football and if you don't fall over at the slightest touch or claim handball or a foul in the penalty area you can bet that your opponent will. Cricketers have been banned for several years for ball tampering and yet footballers cheat all the time. The authorities are to blame for allowing it to creep into the game and refs allow themselves to be endlessly conned. | | | |
| It's not a penalty on 13:56 - Jul 11 with 884 views | Exiled2Surrey |
There was some fella (a journalist from Scotland I think) on social media earlier who was saying that it was actually handball by Saka that led to the ball getting to Kane - surely it must be worth going down that rabbit hole... | | | |
| It's not a penalty on 13:59 - Jul 11 with 869 views | Europablue |
| It's not a penalty on 13:45 - Jul 11 by The_Flashing_Smile |
The main reason we have fouls is to top people being injured, surely?
I think I read historically that rules were brought in because people were getting killed playing 'football'! |
Avoiding injury is the secondary reason. The main reason is to reward skill by punishing brute force. | | | |
| It's not a penalty on 14:14 - Jul 11 with 837 views | SE1blue |
| It's not a penalty on 13:15 - Jul 11 by Ryorry |
'Hand of God' against us trumps everything else - that being given makes last night's 'luck' (even if it was that) for us seem no more than a tiny sliver of recompense! |
It’s on a BBC sport thread right now but it’s also kind of payback for Koeman and what he did in the 1994 World Cup qualifier, when he hauled down Platt and only got a yellow when a clear red. Koeman then scored minutes later.
No sleep being lost here. | |
| |
| It's not a penalty on 14:15 - Jul 11 with 832 views | Trequartista |
| It's not a penalty on 13:45 - Jul 11 by The_Flashing_Smile |
The main reason we have fouls is to top people being injured, surely?
I think I read historically that rules were brought in because people were getting killed playing 'football'! |
I would have thought the caution and dismissal were there to prevent injuries. | |
| |
| It's not a penalty on 14:17 - Jul 11 with 827 views | Trequartista |
| It's not a penalty on 13:47 - Jul 11 by gordon |
Right OK, you don't want late tackles to count as fouls anymore? |
I would think most late tackles do impede so would still be fouls. As I said, those that don't can still be punishable by cards if endangering an opponent. | |
| |
| It's not a penalty on 14:26 - Jul 11 with 797 views | Trequartista |
| It's not a penalty on 13:38 - Jul 11 by Trequartista |
Thank you.
I think we have to start re-assessing what a foul is now that we have moved to applying the letter of the law.
Why do we have fouls? Surely it is to prevent one player illegally impeding the progress of another. So why do we need to call foul if a shot has been struck cleanly? Kane wasn't impeded. You could still give a card if a late tackle that doesn't impede is dangerous. Why should fouls be given if a player is impeded after they have lost control of the ball and are never going to get it? This was another unwritten law used discretionally that disappeared way before VAR. |
Similarly with offside. We've lost the plot. Go back to why is it an infringement in the first place? To stop goal-hanging which hugely detract from the unique balance of a football match.
The amount of defenders needed to stay onside was reduced from 3 to 2 to encourage more attacking play. Then level=onside was introduced for the same reason. Now there is no such thing as level with VAR. Change it to daylight between attacker and defender to be offside. Then if your celebrations are doused, you can't really complain. Would this change compromise the reason offside exists? Of course not. [Post edited 11 Jul 2024 14:28]
| |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
