| Still struggling with that penalty decison Saturday 09:10 - Oct 28 with 6788 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 10:21 - Oct 28 with 1883 views | artsbossbeard |
| Still struggling with that penalty decison Saturday on 10:15 - Oct 28 by vinceg |
So if he continues fouling him all the way through the penalty area but doesn't fall over until he's out of play behind the goal, is that a goal kick to us? Very confusing rule.
So basically if you feel you're being fouled get yourself into the box before you fall over |
Exactly! This my somewhat sh1t argument here.
If I'm getting my shirt pulled out of the area, it's in my interest to keep going 'til I reach the penalty area before falling into a heap...the take here is that the contact outside of the area wasn't a foul, but it developed into a foul in the area and yet there's no VAR mechanism in place that calls for the ref to have a look at the monitor to confirm, should VAR tell him that it wasn't a foul outside the area and the offence took place inside. Which sounds ludicrous. | |
| 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 10:25 - Oct 28 with 1846 views | tractorboy1978 |
| Still struggling with that penalty decison Saturday on 10:21 - Oct 28 by artsbossbeard |
Exactly! This my somewhat sh1t argument here.
If I'm getting my shirt pulled out of the area, it's in my interest to keep going 'til I reach the penalty area before falling into a heap...the take here is that the contact outside of the area wasn't a foul, but it developed into a foul in the area and yet there's no VAR mechanism in place that calls for the ref to have a look at the monitor to confirm, should VAR tell him that it wasn't a foul outside the area and the offence took place inside. Which sounds ludicrous. |
I guess the argument is if you are still moving forwards into the penalty area despite being held/fouled, an advantage is being played by the referee until the point you go down or lose the ball. |  | | |
| Wouldn't have been surprised if ref had given it first off on 10:25 - Oct 28 with 1844 views | Dyland |
And would've been calling for it had teams been reversed.
It's the VAR intervention that's galling, but they saw it as a clear on field error... and that's the problem cos it's still completely subjective. VAR really does suck. |  |
| |
| Still struggling with that penalty decison Saturday on 10:26 - Oct 28 with 1840 views | LegendofthePhoenix |
| Still struggling with that penalty decison Saturday on 09:42 - Oct 28 by tractorboy1978 |
Where the foul started isn't the law though. If it continues into the box it is a penalty. [Post edited 28 Oct 2024 9:42]
|
If the foul starts outside the box, then two bodies have become entangled. Their momentum carries them into the box, and the entanglement is quite likely to become more so. It is illogical if the foul commenced outside the box to then argue that "it continued" into the box and is therefore a penalty. Of course it continues, but the pertinent point is that the foul commenced outside the box - what happens after is pretty inevitable once legs and arms are already entangled. |  |
| |
| Still struggling with that penalty decison Saturday on 10:27 - Oct 28 with 1834 views | ITFC_Forever |
| Still struggling with that penalty decison Saturday on 09:44 - Oct 28 by Steve_M |
Yes, what the fk else would have happened to that ball for their second had Clarke not slid in there. |
Muric had saved it, so it would have rolled along the six yard line. |  |
| |
| Still struggling with that penalty decison Saturday on 10:32 - Oct 28 with 1781 views | ibbleobble |
I barely think it’s a foul. If he pulls him back it is but he gets his arm across him after a slight jostle and they go into a tussle before collapsing in a heap. I’d give them a free kick and a yellow if need be at best but a penalty was farcical especially on the back of the reversed decision last week. [Post edited 28 Oct 2024 10:34]
| | | |
| Still struggling with that penalty decison Saturday on 10:38 - Oct 28 with 1743 views | Vegtablue |
| Still struggling with that penalty decison Saturday on 10:26 - Oct 28 by LegendofthePhoenix |
If the foul starts outside the box, then two bodies have become entangled. Their momentum carries them into the box, and the entanglement is quite likely to become more so. It is illogical if the foul commenced outside the box to then argue that "it continued" into the box and is therefore a penalty. Of course it continues, but the pertinent point is that the foul commenced outside the box - what happens after is pretty inevitable once legs and arms are already entangled. |
My understanding has for a long time been that the continuation of a foul to inside the box means a penalty should be awarded (unless a goal is scored through advantage being played), but I've never checked the rulebook to confirm if this is right. | | | |
| Still struggling with that penalty decison Saturday on 10:40 - Oct 28 with 1737 views | Swansea_Blue |
| Still struggling with that penalty decison Saturday on 10:21 - Oct 28 by tractorboy1978 |
Not really that confusing at all.
"If a defender starts holding an attacker outside the penalty area and continues holding inside the penalty area, the referee must award a penalty kick". |
That seems to be aimed at holding in the box at corners and free kicks. Does it apply in this case? If it does, then yes it's very clear and the main issue with people not understanding is that they don't understand the rules. I wasn't aware of that. I thought free kicks should be given from where the offence first took place, but that obviously isn't now the case. |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Still struggling with that penalty decison Saturday on 10:45 - Oct 28 with 1711 views | tractorshark |
We may not like it but it was 100% a foul outside the box and it carried on into the area, where the Brentford player promptly fell over.
It's a penalty by the laws of the game.
No one stood over the free-kick and Clarke got caught on his heels. He's clearly got hold of his shirt throughout, I'm not sure what the case for the defence is.
If he had let go before the edge of the area, Lewis-Potter would have fallen over and the foul would have been given outside the box.
But because Clarke keeps hold of the shirt, the foul continues into the box.
It's not a red card because we had a defender in the vicinity that could potentially have covered a goalscoring opportunity.
If this had happened at the other end, we would have wanted a penalty.
It was naive defending by Clarke and, as I said on Saturday, that is crippling us at the moment.
Every week we're finding new ways to get punished for a silly error and, unlike the Championship, the Premier League does punish you. | | | |
| Still struggling with that penalty decison Saturday on 10:48 - Oct 28 with 1698 views | rickw |
I'm ok if it continues into the area it's a penalty - I guess the rules changed at some point on that. However I'm not sure it's a foul, Clarke got him arm across and was stronger, but if that was against us I would have wanted it (but we wouldn't have got it!!)
Even more than this though I didn't think it was a foul for their quick free-kick that lead to this chance.
Obviously it looks like Clarke got the ball for his second yellow so shouldn't have been a foul, I think it's a flaw in VAR where they're not allowed to get involved in 2nd yellow's - they have just as much affect on the game as a red card....
I also don't understand why Clarke was given the own goal when Wissa's shot was going in, someone had it in for Clarke Saturday!! |  |
| |
| Still struggling with that penalty decison Saturday on 10:49 - Oct 28 with 1701 views | Trequartista |
I kept hearing "continuation of the foul inside the box" spoken as though its a guideline to be followed that results in a penalty. Not sure if this is true, its just the way pundits are saying it.
I'm more curious about the second yellow. The ball is clearly played but by whom? If it is Clarke, then I don't understand why we hardly protested the decision. |  |
| |
| Still struggling with that penalty decison Saturday on 10:56 - Oct 28 with 1658 views | Swansea_Blue |
| Still struggling with that penalty decison Saturday on 10:49 - Oct 28 by Trequartista |
I kept hearing "continuation of the foul inside the box" spoken as though its a guideline to be followed that results in a penalty. Not sure if this is true, its just the way pundits are saying it.
I'm more curious about the second yellow. The ball is clearly played but by whom? If it is Clarke, then I don't understand why we hardly protested the decision. |
Yeah, it is in the interpretation of the laws of the game document, as Tractorboy quotes further up the thread: "If a defender starts holding an attacker outside the penalty area and continues holding inside the penalty area, the referee must award a penalty kick". Automatic yellow card as well. | |
| |
| Still struggling with that penalty decison Saturday on 11:12 - Oct 28 with 1590 views | WestStanderLaLaLa |
| Still struggling with that penalty decison Saturday on 10:27 - Oct 28 by ITFC_Forever |
Muric had saved it, so it would have rolled along the six yard line. |
It was still going in |  |
| |
| Still struggling with that penalty decison Saturday on 11:18 - Oct 28 with 1570 views | Steve_M |
| Still struggling with that penalty decison Saturday on 11:12 - Oct 28 by WestStanderLaLaLa |
It was still going in |
Yeah, that was my view too. |  |
| |
| Still struggling with that penalty decison Saturday on 11:22 - Oct 28 with 1532 views | Swansea_Blue |
| Still struggling with that penalty decison Saturday on 11:12 - Oct 28 by WestStanderLaLaLa |
It was still going in |
Very much looked like it was heading into the far corner didn't it. Maybe we'd have cleared, but there was also one of theirs attacking the back post.
It should be their goal not an OG. | |
| |
| Still struggling with that penalty decison Saturday on 11:23 - Oct 28 with 1509 views | DanTheMan |
| Still struggling with that penalty decison Saturday on 09:44 - Oct 28 by Steve_M |
Yes, what the fk else would have happened to that ball for their second had Clarke not slid in there. |
There was almost no talk from the commentators on the second but I thought he'd very clearly won the ball and then clipped the other player as he went past and was a bit baffled as to why they didn't seem to question it. |  |
| |
| Still struggling with that penalty decison Saturday on 12:56 - Oct 28 with 1392 views | stonojnr |
| Still struggling with that penalty decison Saturday on 09:31 - Oct 28 by bobbyramsey |
The offence continued inside the box. |
And has never been awarded as a penalty before.
The foul is awarded to the initial contact and the play is pulled back to there. | | | |
| Still struggling with that penalty decison Saturday on 13:06 - Oct 28 with 1375 views | Vic |
Only just seen it, but got to say I think it;s a pen. Initial contact is outside, but it definitely continues inside and that's where he goes down. We'd be apoplectic if that had been Delap and wasn't given. |  |
| |
| Still struggling with that penalty decison Saturday on 13:12 - Oct 28 with 1353 views | Rozz |
| Still struggling with that penalty decison Saturday on 12:56 - Oct 28 by stonojnr |
And has never been awarded as a penalty before.
The foul is awarded to the initial contact and the play is pulled back to there. |
If you read the thread, the exact opposite is true in the FA rules. What you're saying appears to be a common misconception.
https://www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/lawsandrules/laws/football-11-11
I think normally the offending player lets go on the edge, or the momentum takes both into the box after a challenge, in which case it's brought back. Harry doesn't let go and the foul continues into the area. |  | | |
| Still struggling with that penalty decison Saturday on 13:13 - Oct 28 with 1347 views | Vic |
| Still struggling with that penalty decison Saturday on 09:38 - Oct 28 by Reuser_is_God |
VAR is awful.
How they can’t review second yellow cards is beyond me.
Now you’ve got all these awful social media account laughing at Clarke for being the second player to score an own goal, concede a penalty & be sent off on their full debut in the PL - totally ignoring the fact it wasn’t a penalty, wasn’t a second yellow & wasn’t an own goal. |
I didn't think it was an OG in real time, but watching it back Muric saved the shot and the ball was rolling parallel to the goal, only for the sliding in Clarke to collect it on his arm and pull it towards the goal. Another really good save by Muric and really unlucky for Clarke. | |
| |
| Still struggling with that penalty decison Saturday on 13:22 - Oct 28 with 1320 views | Wickets |
We did get on Ref watch when we didn't get the obvious penalty at Man City but we were told that VAR don't like to over rule the Ref !! |  | | |
| Still struggling with that penalty decison Saturday on 13:28 - Oct 28 with 1291 views | JammyDodgerrr |
I don't really have an issue with the penalty, think Clarke was just an idiot on that one. The red is incredibly questionable, though. |  |
| |
| Still struggling with that penalty decison Saturday on 14:05 - Oct 28 with 1232 views | bobbyramsey |
| Still struggling with that penalty decison Saturday on 10:15 - Oct 28 by vinceg |
So if he continues fouling him all the way through the penalty area but doesn't fall over until he's out of play behind the goal, is that a goal kick to us? Very confusing rule.
So basically if you feel you're being fouled get yourself into the box before you fall over |
Yes, but only if you're still actually being fouled in the box.... |  | | |
| Still struggling with that penalty decison Saturday on 15:03 - Oct 28 with 1172 views | Wickets |
| Still struggling with that penalty decison Saturday on 10:04 - Oct 28 by artsbossbeard |
God, you're tiresome. |
And getting worse ! | | | |
| Still struggling with that penalty decison Saturday on 15:35 - Oct 28 with 1123 views | OldFart71 |
Take away humans and their bias and you might get a fair decision every time. That is if the programmer doesn't put bias into his computer program. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
