| Still struggling with that penalty decison Saturday 09:10 - Oct 28 with 6784 views | artsbossbeard |
Initial contact/foul out of the area (as given by the ref) yet VAR gets involved, sees the same initial contact/foul out of the area and recommends a penalty.
No pushback from the collective TV pundits over the weekend, so guess I'm out of touch with things now.
Suspect little ol' Ipswich won't be part of Sky's Ref Watch at 11...
|  |
| Please note: prior to hitting the post button, I've double checked for anything that could be construed as "Anti Semitic" and to the best of my knowledge it isn't. Anything deemed to be of a Xenophobic nature is therefore purely accidental or down to your own misconstruing. | | Poll: | Raining in IP8 - shall I get the washing in? |
| |  |
| Still struggling with that penalty decison Saturday on 16:17 - Oct 28 with 475 views | Europablue |
| Still struggling with that penalty decison Saturday on 09:20 - Oct 28 by tractorboy1978 |
It’s definitely a penalty. Clarke still fouling him as they hit the line of the box. Most annoying element of that incident for me was that we didn’t stand on the ball to stop the quick free kick. |
Continuing a foul is not a thing. Either the foul was committed outside or inside the box. Alternatively, the ref waves play on and there is a secondary foul in the box. |  | | |
| Still struggling with that penalty decison Saturday on 16:19 - Oct 28 with 466 views | Europablue |
I'm still struggling to see the foul for the second yellow... | | | |
| Still struggling with that penalty decison Saturday on 16:20 - Oct 28 with 467 views | MK1 |
Let it go. |  |
| |
| Still struggling with that penalty decison Saturday on 16:21 - Oct 28 with 465 views | Europablue |
| Still struggling with that penalty decison Saturday on 09:30 - Oct 28 by IPS_wich |
After a bit of time to get over the immediate emotions of the game - and repeated watches of the incident I can understand the decision now.
Clarke and Lewis-Potter (LP) 'make contact' outside the area, and Clarke's arm goes over the shoulder of LP whilst they are still outside the area. LP is about half a yard ahead of Clarke and as they move into the area Clarke starts to fall forward and because he has his arm over LP's shoulder it's this motion that starts to drag LP down. By the time LP starts to fall he's a good two yards in the area. It's different to one of the cases where the player is tripped outside the area and falls into the box - in those cases it should be a free kick - because the action that brings LP to ground doesn't start until they are in the box.
I have a far bigger grievance against the second yellow, because at least three of the angles clearly show Clarke touched the ball before he touched the player. [Post edited 28 Oct 2024 9:31]
|
VAR needs to be applied to second yellow cards. | | | |
| Still struggling with that penalty decison Saturday on 16:28 - Oct 28 with 458 views | Radlett_blue |
| Still struggling with that penalty decison Saturday on 16:17 - Oct 28 by Europablue |
Continuing a foul is not a thing. Either the foul was committed outside or inside the box. Alternatively, the ref waves play on and there is a secondary foul in the box. |
Not so. According to the laws, even if a defender starts holding or obstructing a player outside the penalty area& continues inside the penalty area, a penalty kick should be awarded. That's what the VAR decided.
Clarke did initially obstruct the player outside the area with his arm, there was then some grappling & the Brentford player went down in the penalty area. Like the referee, I thought there was an initial foul outside the area & afterwards it looked more like general grappling, but obviously I'm biased. |  |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
