| Let’s talk about the penalty incident from Saturday… 10:45 - Oct 21 with 5213 views | SitfcB |
Just wanted to get some other views/opinions of it?
I after watching the replays and MOTD yesterday I have to agree with what McKenna said (below) yes JC kicked DMcN’s leg but he only kicked it because he came in and blocked him off, it wasn’t one of those ‘coming together’ kicks nor do I think it’s the exact replica of the Burn/DCL one from a few weeks back.
But forgetting all that, it wasn’t a clear and obvious error and the refs call should’ve been used.
“My view of it was exactly as I saw it at the time and I find it inexplicable how it can be overruled, it’s inexplicable how you could debate the penalty,” McKenna said when asked how he saw the incident.
“At the time, it looked like a penalty, it felt like a penalty. Of course, I’m seeing that through an Ipswich lens, but Jack dribbles a couple of players into the box, he’s about to shoot, there’s every chance it’s a goal, and Dwight McNeil lunges across the line of the ball right when he’s on his back-swing.
“Of course, you can say then that Jack’s foot is what strikes Dwight McNeil, but Dwight McNeil lunges across the line of the ball in the penalty area, which I don’t think you can do as a defender. He hasn’t touched the ball, he probably hasn’t even made an attempt to play the ball, he’s stopped Jack taking his shot.
“I think it’s a penalty, I understand how it’s one you could possibly debate but what I can’t understand is how all the directives we’ve had and everything that I’ve experienced so far are that unless it’s a clear an obvious error, then it won’t be reviewed, the referee’s decision on field will stand for a good reason because the referee has the best view and the referee can also feel the action at full speed.
“I think it’s a really poor decision for that to be identified as a clear and obvious error. I spoke to Michael downstairs on it, we had a respectful conversation”
To be honest, he saw it as I saw it, it’s a debatable action. We both agreed that Dwight O’Neil stepped across the line of the ball as Jack Clarke’s about to shoot and he agreed that I’ll think it’s a penalty and [Everton manager] Sean [Dyche] probably won’t think it’s a penalty, but it’s at least a debatable decision, so it doesn’t fall in the category of a clear and obvious [error and] so I don’t understand why it’s been [overruled].
“I think it’s disappointing and I think everyone who knows me knows I very rarely speak about referees, I don’t want to spend much of the season talking about VAR. It’s one thing I am conscious of at the club because I don’t do it, it can’t stand against the club, as against other clubs and other teams who do speak about it a lot.
“That’s the only thing I’m conscious of at the moment but I think we had a really poor one go against us today.”
McKenna agreed that referees should have the strength to stand by their decisions: “That would be my perspective. I spoke to Michael about it downstairs and his reflection was that it’s very difficult when you’re hearing in your ear, ‘OK, this is what we’re seeing, Jack Clarke has struck the back of Dwight [McNeil’s leg]’, he said when that’s being fed into your ear, it’s very difficult to go against that, but he still agreed it was a debatable decision.
“So in that instance, for me, again it’s not something I’ve too much interest in talking about apart from protecting the club, but I think it’s one where he shouldn’t be putting that decision by the VAR.
“I think he felt the right decision in the game from a good position at full speed and there’s nothing that I’ve seen, and I’ve watched a lot of replays and a lot of angles, that you could tell me that it’s clear that it was the wrong decision.”
|  |
| |  |
| Let’s talk about the penalty incident from Saturday… on 12:53 - Oct 21 with 572 views | textbackup |
| Let’s talk about the penalty incident from Saturday… on 12:50 - Oct 21 by SitfcB |
Oh totally agree and said the same.
Should’ve at least been hitting the target there.
Someone did point out that had he scored it would’ve probably been ruled out though due to Delaps position in front of Pickford. |
FCK VAR! |  |
| |
| Let’s talk about the penalty incident from Saturday… on 12:54 - Oct 21 with 568 views | leftback |
Wholeheartedly agree with McKenna on this, whether it is a penalty or not is debatable which by its own definition the original decision can’t be a clear and obvious error, so should not be overruled.
Same incedent Had he not originally given it and then it got checked and Oliver was encouraged to look at it again he would have given it! VAR is bonkers innit |  | | |
| Let’s talk about the penalty incident from Saturday… on 13:02 - Oct 21 with 543 views | Vic |
| Let’s talk about the penalty incident from Saturday… on 11:22 - Oct 21 by HighgateBlue |
Personally I don't think the defender "impedes an opponent with contact", which seems to me to be the closest part of the law to the situation (although those who argue that it was a penalty seldom seem to make their point by reference to the actual law).
I think Clarke kicks him. Not Clarke's fault, clearly, but I think he kicks him. I don't think the defender impedes him with contact, I think he stops his progress simply by being somewhere that Clarke would rather he wasn't.
I'm surprised nobody has argued that it's an indirect freekick. The distinction between an indirect free kick and a penalty in "impeding" situations turns on whether the offence is committed with contact. For my money, Clarke is the one who causes the contact, and therefore no penalty for me. But if the defender has already impeded him, one could argue indirect freekick. This would depend on whether the ball is within playing distance or not. See law 12 in all its glory. For my money, no pen, and no free kick to Town.
I think this portion of the law is relevant:
"A player may shield the ball by taking a position between an opponent and the ball if the ball is within playing distance and the opponent is not held off with the arms or body. If the ball is within playing distance, the player may be fairly charged by an opponent."
I think the ball is in playing distance for both players when the defender's foot goes down. I think he takes a position between Clarke and the ball. I don't think he commits any offence.
Obviously I wish we'd got a penalty, scored, and won, but that's not the question. |
Exactly how I saw/see it. How is it a foul against us if their player legally shields the ball - which I believe thier player does in this situation. There is no doubt in any one’s mind, is there, that Clarke kicked the other player, not vice versa. |  |
| |
| Let’s talk about the penalty incident from Saturday… on 13:02 - Oct 21 with 544 views | bsw72 |
| Let’s talk about the penalty incident from Saturday… on 12:46 - Oct 21 by Ftnfwest |
it was no different to putting your foot/leg across someone and tripping them |
I think that is two different things, stepping across someone and tripping someone.
Players frequently step across the ball / player to get their leg in front of the opponents and either win the ball or the free kick as the opposition player makes contact with their out-stretched leg, which is what happened on Saturday.
This is different to a trip which 9/10 times is caused by a player trying to win the ball from a disadvantaged position, and in turn making contact with the opposition player's leg / body first.
If the contact had been initiated by the Everton defender, I think the penalty would have been awarded, however in this case contact was make by Clarke's foot striking the Everton defender.
The argument over consistency and whether VAR should have got involved is less clear, but unfortunately I think the correct decision was made. |  | | |
| Let’s talk about the penalty incident from Saturday… on 13:04 - Oct 21 with 536 views | townblue |
Pen imo. He may have kicked his leg, but why was his leg between the man and the ball? |  | | |
| Let’s talk about the penalty incident from Saturday… on 13:08 - Oct 21 with 525 views | bsw72 |
| Let’s talk about the penalty incident from Saturday… on 12:42 - Oct 21 by Illinoisblue |
Seen chappers score so many from that sort of range after that kind of move the last couple years. Still not sure on J Clarke. Good trickery and footwork to almost win a penalty but drifts out of the game for long periods. Looks so slight, too. |
Not sure Chaplin's little legs would have got him there in time, versus Clarke's giraffe like steps across the savannah we called Portman Road.
Unfortunately I think you are right, Chaplin would probably have hit the target, although he did have a good chance to do similar late in the 2nd half and mishit the ball into the ground and the keeper's arms.
I *really* want Clarke to do well, but has a tendency to look a little lost and confused at times, as in he makes a great run and then kind of forgets where he was going or what he meant to do.
Without doubt the higher quality of defending in the PL is seperating those who can do from the those who cannot currently, both from a physical aspect (speed/muscle etc) or mental aspect (position / gamesmanship). We need our big championship signings to learn to adapt quicker than they are.
[edited last line to make a little more sense] [Post edited 21 Oct 2024 13:10]
| | | |
| Let’s talk about the penalty incident from Saturday… on 13:11 - Oct 21 with 511 views | stonojnr |
It didn't look like a pen to me from 100metres away. I didn't speak to anyone after the game, even those in the north who thought it was either.
For me the issue was the length of time it took to reach that decision via var, as soon as it went to var it was clear cut the decision would be overturned.
Instead we waste 5mins umming and aahring about it which makes everyone think it's too close to call or much more dubiously overturn. Should have been instant.
We wouldn't have scored it anyway, remember preseason | | | |
| Let’s talk about the penalty incident from Saturday… on 13:12 - Oct 21 with 511 views | Ftnfwest |
| Let’s talk about the penalty incident from Saturday… on 13:02 - Oct 21 by bsw72 |
I think that is two different things, stepping across someone and tripping someone.
Players frequently step across the ball / player to get their leg in front of the opponents and either win the ball or the free kick as the opposition player makes contact with their out-stretched leg, which is what happened on Saturday.
This is different to a trip which 9/10 times is caused by a player trying to win the ball from a disadvantaged position, and in turn making contact with the opposition player's leg / body first.
If the contact had been initiated by the Everton defender, I think the penalty would have been awarded, however in this case contact was make by Clarke's foot striking the Everton defender.
The argument over consistency and whether VAR should have got involved is less clear, but unfortunately I think the correct decision was made. |
Would agree if they're making contact with the ball at the same time and winning possession and agree at least with the initiation of the challenge although all of that assumes the everton player is in possession which i'm not sure he was.
VAR itself, well yes regardless of anything else what works quite well in cricket is the umpires decision on marginal calls and here there didn't seem any reason to overrule what was a subjective decision but there we go.
Anyway after 20 years plus of being dreadful before 2022 i'm still enjoying it tbh! |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Let’s talk about the penalty incident from Saturday… on 13:40 - Oct 21 with 486 views | Vic |
| Let’s talk about the penalty incident from Saturday… on 13:04 - Oct 21 by townblue |
Pen imo. He may have kicked his leg, but why was his leg between the man and the ball? |
Doing what good defenders do - getting something in where it’s likely to hurt to stop the oppo scoring.
What I haven’t seen anyone definitively show is whether he was legally allowed to put his leg between ball and players foot without touching either. Back in the day it would have been lauded as a great piece of defending - but now? No one seems sure of the rules! | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
