| It's not a penalty 20:17 - Jul 10 with 8620 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 14:38 - Jul 11 with 954 views | HighgateBlue |
| It's not a penalty on 22:45 - Jul 10 by Trequartista |
The issue here is that there is no referee's discretion left in the game.
a) If that incident happens outside the area it's a free-kick.
b) A referee uses his discretion to award penalties, i.e. If a striker gets a clean shot in, it doesn't usually matter if he gets caught afterwards. Furthermore, a foul in the area has to be stronger that one outside it to avoid 5 or 6 penalties per game.
Neither of those reasons in b) are in the laws of the game of course, they are "unwritten" discretionary rules. As VAR comes in, more and more discretion is removed, and you will end up with what we saw given as a penalty more often. |
It's a penalty if it's a foul. I don't want the rule to be that the referee can deem it to be a foul but not give a penalty out of "discretion". Neither do I want a pen to be awarded if it is not a foul. So I do not want the referee to be able to have discretion on any issue other than whether it's a foul. It's never been a rule that he does.
Imagine if the attacking team's captain asks the ref why it wasn't a pen, and the ref says "yes I agree it was a foul, but I have decided not to give a penalty because in my discretion I am not giving a penalty". That seems to be what you're advocating. Which I find absurd. The rules are quite clear as to when a penalty has to be avoided. Asking a ref to pretend that that is not the case is asking him not to referee by the rules. Is the ref allowed not to give a pen because it's already 2-0 and he wants to make a game of it? What criteria does he use to decide? The rules are clear - he decides if it's a foul or not. That's literally it. Which other rules can he ignore in his discretion?
The referee in the semi-final had total discretion as to whether it is a foul - he got to look at the monitor and decide.
Some agree with the ref (Ian Wright and ex strikers). Some do not (Gary Neville and ex defenders). That would be the case whether the ref looks at the monitor or not.
I see the issue that when things get slowed down you start to see contact as more serious than it was. A ref needs to be alive to that.
But I don't see why the ref has any less discretion just because someone asks him to look at a monitor rather than the real time incident. He still decides - it is not automated, or taken out of his hands.
For what it's worth, I don't think it was a penalty, and I think it's pretty depressing for football if defenders cannot defend like that. Many players from most of our childhoods would be astonished. |  | | |
| It's not a penalty on 14:46 - Jul 11 with 931 views | Blueschev |
| 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! |
The 'hand of god' goal was the result of terrible goalkeeping. |  | | |
| It's not a penalty on 14:53 - Jul 11 with 901 views | Trequartista |
| It's not a penalty on 14:38 - Jul 11 by HighgateBlue |
It's a penalty if it's a foul. I don't want the rule to be that the referee can deem it to be a foul but not give a penalty out of "discretion". Neither do I want a pen to be awarded if it is not a foul. So I do not want the referee to be able to have discretion on any issue other than whether it's a foul. It's never been a rule that he does.
Imagine if the attacking team's captain asks the ref why it wasn't a pen, and the ref says "yes I agree it was a foul, but I have decided not to give a penalty because in my discretion I am not giving a penalty". That seems to be what you're advocating. Which I find absurd. The rules are quite clear as to when a penalty has to be avoided. Asking a ref to pretend that that is not the case is asking him not to referee by the rules. Is the ref allowed not to give a pen because it's already 2-0 and he wants to make a game of it? What criteria does he use to decide? The rules are clear - he decides if it's a foul or not. That's literally it. Which other rules can he ignore in his discretion?
The referee in the semi-final had total discretion as to whether it is a foul - he got to look at the monitor and decide.
Some agree with the ref (Ian Wright and ex strikers). Some do not (Gary Neville and ex defenders). That would be the case whether the ref looks at the monitor or not.
I see the issue that when things get slowed down you start to see contact as more serious than it was. A ref needs to be alive to that.
But I don't see why the ref has any less discretion just because someone asks him to look at a monitor rather than the real time incident. He still decides - it is not automated, or taken out of his hands.
For what it's worth, I don't think it was a penalty, and I think it's pretty depressing for football if defenders cannot defend like that. Many players from most of our childhoods would be astonished. |
I'm not saying don't give a penalty for a clear foul. But as we can tell from this thread, a foul is often not a black-and-white decision. Some people think a foul, some not. The discretion is not giving a penalty unless a clear foul. It's not absurd because it is the de facto way football has been refereed for years. (Apart from Barry Knight, but he was very much the outlier)
This is for examples where a player has been impeded. The fact Kane got his shot away and was not impeded is a separate issue. [Post edited 11 Jul 2024 14:56]
|  |
| |
| It's not a penalty on 15:00 - Jul 11 with 890 views | vilanovablue |
| It's not a penalty on 13:30 - Jul 11 by BloomBlue |
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 |
If I am honest there is an essay of disappointments I could call upon but just through in a few examples of where we have been a little hard done by. |  | | |
| It's not a penalty on 15:33 - Jul 11 with 855 views | Ryorry |
| It's not a penalty on 14:14 - Jul 11 by SE1blue |
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. |
Think I missed most of the '94 WC as I was living on the Orkney Islands at the time, & TV there didn't exactly give much coverage to English football 
Will have a look for it tho, ta.
Can't find the BBC thread but not surprised others feel similarly. |  |
| |
| It's not a penalty on 21:27 - Jul 11 with 756 views | SE1blue |
| It's not a penalty on 15:33 - Jul 11 by Ryorry |
Think I missed most of the '94 WC as I was living on the Orkney Islands at the time, & TV there didn't exactly give much coverage to English football
Will have a look for it tho, ta.
Can't find the BBC thread but not surprised others feel similarly. |
Sorry, I should have said which one.
Apparently, that incident features heavily in the documentary about Graham Taylor called 'The Impossible Job'. You can hear Taylor questioning the German official 'What's happening here?" and there was a very heavy bias towards the Netherlands in that match.
I remember the foul very clearly, but I couldn't remember which Koeman brother it was, as it didn't stick with me like Maradona's handball or Ronaldo winking. England was so poor that qualifying campaign, they'd have never done well in the USA anyway. |  |
| |
| It's not a penalty on 22:02 - Jul 11 with 709 views | MK1 |
It's a penalty for me. It's a foul anywhere else on the pitch, so a foul in the box. Studs up make it a penalty. It just does. |  |
| |
| It's not a penalty on 22:29 - Jul 11 with 669 views | redrickstuhaart |
| It's not a penalty on 22:02 - Jul 11 by MK1 |
It's a penalty for me. It's a foul anywhere else on the pitch, so a foul in the box. Studs up make it a penalty. It just does. |
Its not a foul anywhere.
There is a massive difference between putting up a stud to catch someone, and simply being there when another player has a big swipe and follows through, hitting your foot. |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| It's not a penalty on 22:43 - Jul 11 with 640 views | azuremerlangus |
| It's not a penalty on 20:26 - Jul 10 by Garv |
The threshold for a penalty is different to that of a foul on halfway. Rightly so. |
Why?
A foul is a foul where ever it is on the pitch? |  |
| |
| It's not a penalty on 06:28 - Jul 12 with 565 views | Churchman |
| It's not a penalty on 13:53 - Jul 11 by 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. |
I think cheating has reached new levels of awfulness in this tournament. It’s blighting the game yet the pundits and commentators don’t want to tell it as it is and the football authorities are embracing it. If they wanted to do anything about it they easily could.
As to the Kane penalty decision, I watched the first half yesterday (missed it Weds) and in my view it was a penalty. I don’t think the Dutch player was too fussed whether he got the ball or the player. Studs up, high, he missed the ball and could have easily busted Kane’s foot.
In fact, I’d have liked to have seen the player sent off for that, just to see the look on Koeman’s spanked ars@ face and justice for 1993!
Back to the point, I get the Dutch annoyance - it’s a marginal one. But I can also understand why it was given. |  | | |
| It's not a penalty on 08:42 - Jul 12 with 518 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
| 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. |
Just because it is important to speak truth unto power....you're wrong Phil, Kate kicked him.  |  |
| |
| It's not a penalty on 08:46 - Jul 12 with 509 views | RobTheMonk |
I don't think it was a penalty. I think Kane initiates the contact with his momentum and kicks the foot of Dumphries.
Can't believe that constitutes as a foul these days. |  | | |
| It's not a penalty on 08:54 - Jul 12 with 498 views | RadioOrwell |
| It's not a penalty on 08:46 - Jul 12 by RobTheMonk |
I don't think it was a penalty. I think Kane initiates the contact with his momentum and kicks the foot of Dumphries.
Can't believe that constitutes as a foul these days. |
Kane kicks ball.
Dumphries is late, misses ball and kicks Kane with studs up.
Penalty every day of the week. It's dangerous play. |  | | |
| It's not a penalty on 08:55 - Jul 12 with 499 views | TheMover |
| It's not a penalty on 08:42 - Jul 12 by BanksterDebtSlave |
Just because it is important to speak truth unto power....you're wrong Phil, Kate kicked him. |
If Kane hadn't taken the shot and the Dutch player had lunged in with his foot high and studs showing would it have been a free kick, assuming it was not in the box? | | | |
| It's not a penalty on 09:15 - Jul 12 with 474 views | RobTheMonk |
| It's not a penalty on 08:54 - Jul 12 by RadioOrwell |
Kane kicks ball.
Dumphries is late, misses ball and kicks Kane with studs up.
Penalty every day of the week. It's dangerous play. |
I think it's all about the momentum. I just can't justify to myself a penalty being given for a striker kicking a players foot (that's how I see it anyway).
I'd say that from this thread it looks like a 75/25 split not in favour of a penalty being given.
Not an easy decision to make for the officials though and the type that will always bring about a debate. | | | |
| It's not a penalty on 09:44 - Jul 12 with 440 views | Radlett_blue |
| It's not a penalty on 09:15 - Jul 12 by RobTheMonk |
I think it's all about the momentum. I just can't justify to myself a penalty being given for a striker kicking a players foot (that's how I see it anyway).
I'd say that from this thread it looks like a 75/25 split not in favour of a penalty being given.
Not an easy decision to make for the officials though and the type that will always bring about a debate. |
It's a really good example of the problem with VAR. It's arguably a foul, but by no means clear cut, so should VAR be intervening? I don't think so; the purpose of VAR should be to over-rule obvious mistakes on big decisions e.g. that's why it can be sued to over-rule red cards, not yellow cards. VAR isn't going away so the authorities must draw up some better parameters. |  |
| |
| It's not a penalty on 09:48 - Jul 12 with 427 views | wkj |
| It's not a penalty on 09:44 - Jul 12 by Radlett_blue |
It's a really good example of the problem with VAR. It's arguably a foul, but by no means clear cut, so should VAR be intervening? I don't think so; the purpose of VAR should be to over-rule obvious mistakes on big decisions e.g. that's why it can be sued to over-rule red cards, not yellow cards. VAR isn't going away so the authorities must draw up some better parameters. |
This is kind of where I am on it - to me, it is a penalty. What is controversial is the VAR interjection |  |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
