How can that not be a penalty?

BobendBert said:
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.
Click to expand...
He wasn't playing in a dangerous manner though. Certainly not conclusively enough to say for definite. Controlling the ball isn't dangerous and it didn't stop the attacker from challenging for the ball. Macallister chose to challenge with his chest and not his own foot, that's not Doku's fault. Macallister was playing in a dangerous manner as much by putting himself in danger with the way he went for it.
 
He sunk his studs in to his chest. If you can’t play the ball without doing that then don’t play it.

It’s a penalty all day long.
 
Paulroddam7 said:
He sunk his studs in to his chest. If you can’t play the ball without doing that then don’t play it.

It’s a penalty all day long.
Click to expand...
Ha. No he didn't. Doku is only short, Macallister was leaning down, chest first to the ball and there was barely any contact anyway.
 
No penalty for me either. Macallister charges into the challenge with his chest puffed out and Doku firmly concentrating on clearing the ball which he did. Yes he is entitled to challenge for the ball but he wasn’t fouled.
 
Not a penalty for me either, the defender made a measured, albeit high, challenge for the ball and McAllister saw the high foot and threw himself at it, these things happen in the heat of the moment and people see it in different ways.
 
Can see both sides to it. Certainly sufficient doubt for VAR not have given it.

I'd probably lean towards it not being one, but can see why people think it is.

Big factor for me is that it's Mcallister who initiated contact and it wasn't an inevitable movement that Doku could have anticipated.

So probably just an unfortunate coming together IMO.
 
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.

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.
Click to expand...

If you've been reffing for 30 years, then you would clearly be able to establish the difference in fact versus opinion versus interpretation.

There are no facts here, only opinions and interpretations.
 
Chris_Boro said:
If you've been reffing for 30 years, then you would clearly be able to establish the difference in fact versus opinion versus interpretation.

There are no facts here, only opinions and interpretations.
Click to expand...

"If you've been reffing...."

Why do people go on like this?

Of course there are facts.
 
Not a pen for me, high boot no doubt, though contact looked minimal - certainly not enough for McAlister to lay on the ground as long he did.
 
BobendBert said:
I think I’ve heard it all now. It was Macallister’s fault? He was playing dangerously by having the audacity to challenge for the ball?

You’ve given me a good laugh if nothing else.
Click to expand...
No. I was taking the ****. There was nothing dangerous from either player. Macallister was never in danger because there was none but as a referee you will know that a player endangering themselves is a foul and it is just as likely that he endangered himself as it was that Doku endangered him.

There are facts but the "fact" that Doku played in a dangerous manner is not a fact but a subjective opinion that clearly not everyone shares with you.
 
Looked like a penalty to me, but can understand why VAR didn't see it as a clear and obvious error. If the ref had given it they probably wouldn't have overturned it either.
 
Nano said:
No. I was taking the ****. There was nothing dangerous from either player. Macallister was never in danger because there was none but as a referee you will know that a player endangering themselves is a foul and it is just as likely that he endangered himself as it was that Doku endangered him.

There are facts but the "fact" that Doku played in a dangerous manner is not a fact but a subjective opinion that clearly not everyone shares with you.
Click to expand...
Disagreeing with something doesn't render it any less factual. Some people think the world is flat :)

Just kidding. People are entitled to whatever opinion they like but this is just so clear to me as a question of fact. The guidance to referees says this:

"Playing in a dangerous manner is defined as any action that, while trying to play the ball, threatens injury to someone (including the player himself). It is committed with an opponent nearby and prevents the opponent from playing the ball for fear of injury.

Playing in a dangerous manner involves no physical contact between the players. If there is physical contact the action becomes an offence punishable by a direct free kick or a penalty kick."

The incident is here: https://www.skysports.com/football/...-jeremy-doku-challenge-on-alexis-mac-allister

(i) any action that threatens injury to someone: it seems obvious to me that having your foot chest high is an action that threatens injury. The fact is that such an action has caused injury and did cause injury in this case.

(ii) It is committed with an opponent nearby: well, it happened in a crowded area with lots of players and one in particular trying to legally challenge for the ball. Difficult to argue otherwise.

(iii) prevents the opponent from playing the ball for fear of injury: you can see on the replays that Macallister, contrary to the narrative on here, clearly commits to challenging for the ball well before Doku's foot is raised. He actually gets there and then has to pull out of the challenge because of the height of the foot.

So which part of that offence has not been met here? Forget carelessness, recklessness, intent and anything else subjective.
 
BobendBert said:
Disagreeing with something doesn't render it any less factual. Some people think the world is flat :)

Just kidding. People are entitled to whatever opinion they like but this is just so clear to me as a question of fact. The guidance to referees says this:

"Playing in a dangerous manner is defined as any action that, while trying to play the ball, threatens injury to someone (including the player himself). It is committed with an opponent nearby and prevents the opponent from playing the ball for fear of injury.

Playing in a dangerous manner involves no physical contact between the players. If there is physical contact the action becomes an offence punishable by a direct free kick or a penalty kick."

The incident is here: https://www.skysports.com/football/...-jeremy-doku-challenge-on-alexis-mac-allister

(i) any action that threatens injury to someone: it seems obvious to me that having your foot chest high is an action that threatens injury. The fact is that such an action has caused injury and did cause injury in this case.

(ii) It is committed with an opponent nearby: well, it happened in a crowded area with lots of players and one in particular trying to legally challenge for the ball. Difficult to argue otherwise.

(iii) prevents the opponent from playing the ball for fear of injury: you can see on the replays that Macallister, contrary to the narrative on here, clearly commits to challenging for the ball well before Doku's foot is raised. He actually gets there and then has to pull out of the challenge because of the height of the foot.

So which part of that offence has not been met here? Forget carelessness, recklessness, intent and anything else subjective.
Click to expand...

(i) any action that threatens injury to someone: it seems obvious to me that having your foot chest high is an action that threatens injury. The fact is that such an action has caused injury and did cause injury in this case.

This is the bit that we disagree on because having your foot chest high doesn't automatically threaten injury. If he had a straight leg it would, if he was kicking at the ball it would but he had his foot raised to control a ball. If Macallister wasn't there the ball would have been brought down under control and that requires a fairly delicate motion (otherwise you'd see the ball flying away). He's contacted Macallister with the same force used to control a ball. Macallister claiming an injury and there being an injury are not the same things. You seem to be completely forgetting that these players are trying to win penalties.

Parts 2 and 3 become irrelevant if part 1 does not happen.
 
Nano said:
(i) any action that threatens injury to someone: it seems obvious to me that having your foot chest high is an action that threatens injury. The fact is that such an action has caused injury and did cause injury in this case.

This is the bit that we disagree on because having your foot chest high doesn't automatically threaten injury. If he had a straight leg it would, if he was kicking at the ball it would but he had his foot raised to control a ball. If Macallister wasn't there the ball would have been brought down under control and that requires a fairly delicate motion (otherwise you'd see the ball flying away). He's contacted Macallister with the same force used to control a ball. Macallister claiming an injury and there being an injury are not the same things. You seem to be completely forgetting that these players are trying to win penalties.

Parts 2 and 3 become irrelevant if part 1 does not happen.
Click to expand...

So your assertion is that having a foot raised to chest height does not threaten injury? Or at least only threatens injury if it is raised in a certain way?
 
BobendBert said:
"If you've been reffing...."

Why do people go on like this?

Of course there are facts.
Click to expand...

A decision is made up from interpretations of evidence seen and laws around them. All in a split second. Using "facts" in this context is erroneous.

The "if you've been reffing" comment is about, that as a ref, you should understand what goes into making a decision on the pitch and the application of thresholds.

I can see why he didn't give the penalty, I could also understand why if he did. Hence opinions and interpretations. The is no factually right or wrong answer here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top