How can that not be a penalty?

Notwithstanding my earlier post re: being a boro fan rather than a football fan I actually saw the last few minutes of this game.

Duko on Mac Allister looks like Mac ran into the boot after Duko had cleared the ball, 6 of 1 half a dozen of the other.
To me, if you give that as a penalty then every time a keeper rushes out & makes contact with the ball & then clatters into the forward that should be a penalty as well, so Man City should've had one earlier in the half when Foden was smacked into.
 
Last edited:
I'd say that's a pen. Although it's definitely not a patch on Braithwaite assaulting Fry.

Also strangely a none pen 🙄
 
All of the things mentioned here (running into the boot/eyes on the ball/not looking at Macallister) completely irrelevant to the offence.
 
BobendBert said:
All of the things mentioned here (running into the boot/eyes on the ball/not looking at Macallister) completely irrelevant to the offence.
Click to expand...
He had his foot up to control the ball. He wasn't wildly kicking at it. The contact was caused by the other player running into him. There was no intent to foul and there was nothing reckless. It looked bad on the super slow mo where you just see the foot at chest height but I think they did well and got the decision correct.
 
Nano said:
He had his foot up to control the ball. He wasn't wildly kicking at it. The contact was caused by the other player running into him. There was no intent to foul and there was nothing reckless. It looked bad on the super slow mo where you just see the foot at chest height but I think they did well and got the decision correct.
Click to expand...
Intent and recklessness completely irrelevant.
 
BobendBert said:
Intent and recklessness completely irrelevant.
Click to expand...
Intent isn’t a requirement any more. But recklessness is one of the three. it is certainly a sufficient condition if not a necessary one.

The other two are carelessness and excessive force. And Nano covered them too. The defender played the ball in a controlled and reasonable manner. The other player then caused the contact. So he didn’t “carelessly” kick an opponent or use excessive force.
 
You’re wrong.

An offence is committed when a player kicks an opponent carelessly, recklessly or with excessive force. Recklessness and intent are therefore irrelevant. The minimum standard to be awarded a direct free kick is carelessness. His foot is high and makes contact with an opponent’s chest. So he definitely as a matter of fact kicks him. The next question is whether it was careless.

Careless is when a player shows a lack of attention or consideration when making a challenge or acts without precaution.

To argue that’s not careless is frankly ridiculous.

But actually that isn’t the offence that was committed anyway, which is why in fact carelessness, recklessness and intent are all completely irrelevant. It was “playing in a dangerous manner” meaning a penalty kick because contact was made.

I’ve been reffing for over 30 years. It was a pen.
 
Last edited:
BobendBert said:
You’re wrong.

An offence is committed when a player kicks an opponent carelessly, recklessly or with excessive force. Recklessness and intent are therefore irrelevant. The minimum standard to be awarded a direct free kick is carelessness. His foot is high and makes contact with an opponent’s chest. So he definitely as a matter of fact kicks him. The next question is whether it was careless.

Careless is when a player shows a lack of attention or consideration when making a challenge or acts without precaution.

To argue that’s not careless is frankly ridiculous.

It also fits the description at a minimum of “playing in a dangerous manner” meaning an indirect free kick would have to be awarded had he not made contact. Since he did though it is a direct free kick and therefore a penalty kick.

I’ve been reffing for over 30 years. It was a pen.
Click to expand...
Your dictionary has a different definition of “irrelevant” to mine if you think recklessness is irrelevant. It is one of the three conditions in the law. It is directly relevant. It is a sufficient condition for the offence to be committed. As I said, it is not a necessary one. But if you want to avoid being misunderstood, you should be considerably more precise in your language.

I think we probably agree about the excessive force point as well.

So the debate is over carelessness in kicking an opponent. And perhaps even over whether he kicked an opponent at all on the plain English meaning of the word since the contact between the torso of the opponent and his foot was caused primarily by the actions of the opponent. I think there is enough room for debate there for VAR to rule it wasn’t a clear and obvious error not to give a penalty. I think with the foot where it was you would struggle to argue that it wasn’t the indirect free kick offence, but the VAR protocol doesn’t allow them to give that.

So on balance, I think VAR got this right.
 
FishofContemplation said:
Your dictionary has a different definition of “irrelevant” to mine if you think recklessness is irrelevant. It is one of the three conditions in the law. It is directly relevant. It is a sufficient condition for the offence to be committed. As I said, it is not a necessary one. But if you want to avoid being misunderstood, you should be considerably more precise in your language.

I think we probably agree about the excessive force point as well.

So the debate is over carelessness in kicking an opponent. And perhaps even over whether he kicked an opponent at all on the plain English meaning of the word since the contact between the torso of the opponent and his foot was caused primarily by the actions of the opponent. I think there is enough room for debate there for VAR to rule it wasn’t a clear and obvious error not to give a penalty. I think with the foot where it was you would struggle to argue that it wasn’t the indirect free kick offence, but the VAR protocol doesn’t allow them to give that.

So on balance, I think VAR got this right.
Click to expand...
You’re wrong. It’s as simple as that. My language is perfectly precise.

As I said above, you’re focussing on the wrong offence. But if you insist on talking about the offence of kicking an opponent then the question of whether it was reckless is irrelevant as to whether a penalty is awarded as it is not a requirement and represents a higher hurdle than the minimum required. It would only be relevant to the question of whether it was cautionable. As I said, all that has to be shown for a penalty to be awarded is that it was careless, which it clearly was.

But that isn’t the offence that was committed anyway. The offence committed was “playing in a dangerous manner”. Clear penalty.
 
BobendBert said:
You’re wrong. It’s as simple as that. My language is perfectly precise.

As I said above, you’re focussing on the wrong offence. But if you insist on talking about the offence of kicking an opponent then the question of whether it was reckless is irrelevant as to whether a penalty is awarded as it is not a requirement and represents a higher hurdle than the minimum required. It would only be relevant to the question of whether it was cautionable. As I said, all that has to be shown for a penalty to be awarded is that it was careless, which it clearly was.

But that isn’t the offence that was committed anyway. The offence committed was “playing in a dangerous manner”. Clear penalty.
Click to expand...

If you’re saying the offence committed was “playing in a dangerous manner” then that’s not a clear penalty at all. Playing in a dangerous manner is an indirect free kick offence. If it’s committed in the penalty area, it’s still an indirect free kick. If you really have been refereeing for 30 years, I think it’s time you stopped.
 
FishofContemplation said:
If you’re saying the offence committed was “playing in a dangerous manner” then that’s not a clear penalty at all. Playing in a dangerous manner is an indirect free kick offence. If it’s committed in the penalty area, it’s still an indirect free kick. If you really have been refereeing for 30 years, I think it’s time you stopped.
Click to expand...
Wrong again.

Playing in a dangerous manner is an offence that involves no contact. If there is contact it automatically becomes a direct free kick offence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top