| Surely not a pen on 00:19 - Jul 12 with 984 views | bsw72 |
Yup, never looked right to me. |  | |  |
| Surely not a pen on 00:28 - Jul 12 with 896 views | Ftnfwest |
Only mbappe gets those |  | | |
| Surely not a pen on 00:30 - Jul 12 with 884 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
Very surprised Spence didn't get booked for that. As well as initiating the contact, he threw himself over very obviously. |  |
| |
| Surely not a pen on 00:32 - Jul 12 with 872 views | pointofblue |
| Surely not a pen on 00:30 - Jul 12 by Nthsuffolkblue |
Very surprised Spence didn't get booked for that. As well as initiating the contact, he threw himself over very obviously. |
Think that would have been harsh as there was contact. |  |
| |
| Surely not a pen on 00:33 - Jul 12 with 850 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
| Surely not a pen on 00:32 - Jul 12 by pointofblue |
Think that would have been harsh as there was contact. |
Contact caused by Spence initiating it in order to try to get the penalty!
Happy it wasn't given as a dive but I am a bit surprised. | |
| |
| Surely not a pen on 08:50 - Jul 12 with 649 views | rkc123 |
| Surely not a pen on 00:33 - Jul 12 by Nthsuffolkblue |
Contact caused by Spence initiating it in order to try to get the penalty!
Happy it wasn't given as a dive but I am a bit surprised. |
I don't think it could be a dive as there was contact, even if initiated by Spence.
I think it was the right decision, but I would say in defence of Spence because he's run it down to the byline and is running away from goal, he does need to move in front of the defender to position himself to shoot. I think it was probably done in an unnatural way to initiate contact, so don't think it was a pen, but if the attacking player is ahead of a defender it shouldn't automatically not be a foul just because the attacker changes their running line and moves in front of the defender - if done in a genuine attempt to get into a position to shoot then I feel it is their prerogative to do so as they have beaten the defender. | | | |
| Surely not a pen on 08:53 - Jul 12 with 636 views | backwaywhen |
| Surely not a pen on 08:50 - Jul 12 by rkc123 |
I don't think it could be a dive as there was contact, even if initiated by Spence.
I think it was the right decision, but I would say in defence of Spence because he's run it down to the byline and is running away from goal, he does need to move in front of the defender to position himself to shoot. I think it was probably done in an unnatural way to initiate contact, so don't think it was a pen, but if the attacking player is ahead of a defender it shouldn't automatically not be a foul just because the attacker changes their running line and moves in front of the defender - if done in a genuine attempt to get into a position to shoot then I feel it is their prerogative to do so as they have beaten the defender. |
Spence intentionally wrapped his leg around defenders legs to initiate a fall …..No pen . | | | |
| Surely not a pen on 08:58 - Jul 12 with 614 views | rkc123 |
| Surely not a pen on 08:53 - Jul 12 by backwaywhen |
Spence intentionally wrapped his leg around defenders legs to initiate a fall …..No pen . |
Yes I agree, it was clear he was aiming to win a penalty, but the chat afterwards all seemed to suggest that the law is now if the attackers changes their line to move in front of the defender then it isn't a foul, but that doesn't seem right. I think if Spence had moved in front of the defender with a genuine attempt to then wrap his foot around the ball and shoot, then he probably still gets contact from the defender, so would it not have been a pen because he moved in front of the defender? I may have misunderstood it but I thought that is what the referee expert was saying. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Surely not a pen on 09:04 - Jul 12 with 588 views | backwaywhen |
| Surely not a pen on 08:58 - Jul 12 by rkc123 |
Yes I agree, it was clear he was aiming to win a penalty, but the chat afterwards all seemed to suggest that the law is now if the attackers changes their line to move in front of the defender then it isn't a foul, but that doesn't seem right. I think if Spence had moved in front of the defender with a genuine attempt to then wrap his foot around the ball and shoot, then he probably still gets contact from the defender, so would it not have been a pen because he moved in front of the defender? I may have misunderstood it but I thought that is what the referee expert was saying. |
Watch it back ….he deliberately hooks his right foot to get it behind the Norwegian legs/feet . | | | |
| Surely not a pen on 09:07 - Jul 12 with 578 views | Vic |
Sorry guys - I'm disagreeing here. I think it was a pen - Spence was in control of the ball and surely had every right to put his leg where he did to keep control of it. If not, is a player expected to just give up, let the other team have the ball? As it was it was his to defend and protect and Norway to try to get to it without fouling him. (Rather like if a player is protecting the ball in the corner the oppo are not allowed to kick the players legs to try to get the ball!
But if we were unlucky to have the pen disallowed then by the same token we were fortunate with their disallowed goal. Haarland was just too strong - and imo it wasn't a foul. |  |
| |
| Surely not a pen on 09:13 - Jul 12 with 536 views | BloomBlue |
| Surely not a pen on 08:53 - Jul 12 by backwaywhen |
Spence intentionally wrapped his leg around defenders legs to initiate a fall …..No pen . |
Spence is actually trying to protect the ball, thats how its taught from youth level upwards
Now I'm not saying its a pen but Spence isn't deliberately trying to gain the pen, he's trying to protect the ball, but his leg does go across the defender. |  | | |
| Surely not a pen on 09:17 - Jul 12 with 506 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| Surely not a pen on 09:07 - Jul 12 by Vic |
Sorry guys - I'm disagreeing here. I think it was a pen - Spence was in control of the ball and surely had every right to put his leg where he did to keep control of it. If not, is a player expected to just give up, let the other team have the ball? As it was it was his to defend and protect and Norway to try to get to it without fouling him. (Rather like if a player is protecting the ball in the corner the oppo are not allowed to kick the players legs to try to get the ball!
But if we were unlucky to have the pen disallowed then by the same token we were fortunate with their disallowed goal. Haarland was just too strong - and imo it wasn't a foul. |
I think it's one of those in the 'seen them given' camp, but would be very soft.
Haarland just too strong and wasn't a foul?!? You're having a laugh there. Haaland clearly shoves our man - having been warned by the ref moments before. |  |
| |
| Surely not a pen on 11:07 - Jul 12 with 336 views | Radlett_blue |
| Surely not a pen on 09:07 - Jul 12 by Vic |
Sorry guys - I'm disagreeing here. I think it was a pen - Spence was in control of the ball and surely had every right to put his leg where he did to keep control of it. If not, is a player expected to just give up, let the other team have the ball? As it was it was his to defend and protect and Norway to try to get to it without fouling him. (Rather like if a player is protecting the ball in the corner the oppo are not allowed to kick the players legs to try to get the ball!
But if we were unlucky to have the pen disallowed then by the same token we were fortunate with their disallowed goal. Haarland was just too strong - and imo it wasn't a foul. |
Well, Haaland pushed Anderson, but there was the usual amount of grappling going on in the box. The goal almost certainly would have stood if Anderson hadn't gone down. These situations are near unrefereeable; lucky this one went our way. |  |
| |
| Surely not a pen on 11:12 - Jul 12 with 321 views | bluelagos |
| Surely not a pen on 11:07 - Jul 12 by Radlett_blue |
Well, Haaland pushed Anderson, but there was the usual amount of grappling going on in the box. The goal almost certainly would have stood if Anderson hadn't gone down. These situations are near unrefereeable; lucky this one went our way. |
"These situations are near unrefereeable; lucky this one went our way. "
The most insightful comment I've seen on the match - agree absolutely.
FA have got a hell of a job this summer in trying to improve the current corners. |  |
| |
| Surely not a pen on 11:26 - Jul 12 with 294 views | berkstractorboy |
Here me out here.
Firstly I agree no pen as Spence initiates the contact placing his leg across the defender when he shouldn't.
However, defenders regularly get away with obstructing the opponent by putting legs and the body in the way when trying to defend the ball e.g. let the ball go out for goal kick or other situations. They are not playing the ball, but always moving the body (inc legs) in a way to impede the attacker getting the ball. This is kind of the equivalent of it but gets punished.
Just an observation for discussion (not ridicule) | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
