How can that not be a penalty?

Chris_Boro said:
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.
Click to expand...

You said there were no facts here. That is untrue.

You implied that you didn’t believe that I had been a referee for as long as I have in order to score a cheap point and to belittle.

I’m not interested in talking to people that do that.
 
BobendBert said:
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?
Click to expand...
Yes. A high foot is not automatically dangerous. Kicking out for example would be dangerous. Straight leg coming straight on would be dangerous. I don't think Doku does either of those things.

It was a subjective decision and so no penalty is a valid decision. Giving a penalty would have also been valid but you can have a situation which is borderline where both decisions are acceptable.
 
It clearly isn't just a fact that it was a penalty or two Premier League referees with 20 years of refereeing experience, presumably at a much higher level than you yourself have refereed, would have both immediately decided it was a penalty.
Neither did.

It was a subjective decision that you disagreed with.

If he'd given it as a penalty, I'd have understood why, but I don't think it was one.
 
Nano said:
Yes. A high foot is not automatically dangerous. Kicking out for example would be dangerous. Straight leg coming straight on would be dangerous. I don't think Doku does either of those things.

It was a subjective decision and so no penalty is a valid decision. Giving a penalty would have also been valid but you can have a situation which is borderline where both decisions are acceptable.
Click to expand...
Interesting. Thanks for the chat. I enjoyed it. We will just have to agree to disagree I think.
 
TeaCider said:
It clearly isn't just a fact or two Premier League referees with 20 years of refereeing experience, presumably at a much higher level than you yourself have ever refereed, would have both immediately decided it was a penalty.
Neither did.

It was a subjective decision that you disagreed with.
Click to expand...
I was not saying that my interpretation was a fact. Rather that there are facts here to which the law is applied. The argument put forward was that there were no facts, which isn't true.
 
BobendBert said:
You said there were no facts here. That is untrue.

You implied that you didn’t believe that I had been a referee for as long as I have in order to score a cheap point and to belittle.

I’m not interested in talking to people that do that.
Click to expand...

No I never, I'm challenging your opinions based on that you've been reffing for 30 years, not if you have.

If you also read my response, you'll understand that I'm not stating facts don't exist, I'm stating the outcome isn't factual. Whether or not someone is deemed to potentially put someone at risk of injury is an interpretation not a fact.
 
I think this is quite an interesting thread so I’ve just looked at it again and I still think it was a clean challenge with little follow through and nowhere near his head. The Liverpool player made a lot of it. Not seeing this dangerous play angle at all, but good discussion 👍
 
BobendBert said:
Interesting. Thanks for the chat. I enjoyed it. We will just have to agree to disagree I think.
Click to expand...
Well at least you agree now that there is sufficient doubt that at least half this thread and the professionals on the day say that it wasn't a penalty and it wasnt clear cut.

Not a penalty for me either.
 
Zoophonic said:
Well at least you agree now that there is sufficient doubt that at least half this thread and the professionals on the day say that it wasn't a penalty and it wasnt clear cut.

Not a penalty for me either.
Click to expand...
I don't agree. In my view it is really clear cut. I just accept that others have different views.
 
The Card Cheat said:
So the Liverpool player is at fault for running into the Man City players boot with his chest?
Mein Gott.
Click to expand...

As daft as it sounds for me yes he is. How many times do you see a foul given for an attacking player catching the defender just as he’s cleared. A fair few, this is the same situation for me, if anything Macallister made a late challenge, he barely made contact with him anyway, but there was no movement towards Macallister from Doku the movement was from Macalllister to Doku.

I will add that I despise Liverpool, I have a strong almost irrational dislike. So any 50/50 or controversial decision in my opinion should always go against them. The smug glory fans growing up in 80s locally did them for me. Anyone but Liverpool in English football for me.
 
Last edited:
BobendBert said:
I don't agree. In my view it is really clear cut. I just accept that others have different views.
Click to expand...
Thats clear. My point was that you spent the early part of the thread incredulous at the thought that others had a different opinion - which you at least have softened on.
 
Priv said:
As daft as it sounds for me yes he is. How many times do you see a foul given for an attacking player catching the defender just as he’s cleared. A fair few, this is the same situation for me, if anything Macallister made a late challenge, he barely made contact with him anyway, but there was no movement towards Macallister from Doku the movement was from Macalllister to Doku.

I will add that I despise Liverpool, I have a strong almost irrational dislike. So any 50/50 or controversial decision in my opinion should always go against them. The smug glory fans growing up in 80s locally did them for me. Anyone but Liverpool in English football for me.
Click to expand...
I understand how this decision can be argued either way, but I can't see how it can be argued that Macallister was late as surely he touches the ball before Doku.

Penalty for me but accept that it is debatable.
 
Zoophonic said:
Thats clear. My point was that you spent the early part of the thread incredulous at the thought that others had a different opinion - which you at least have softened on.
Click to expand...
Yes - I have out of necessity! I am genuinely surprised that people don't think this is a penalty and so was pretty incredulous to be honest. That view has softened with the evidence in front of me that there is seemingly a 50/50 split.

Who#d be a ref?
 
Priv said:
I will add that I despise Liverpool, I have a strong almost irrational dislike
Click to expand...

Oh trust me....... you are not being irrational in the slightest with your dislike :ROFLMAO:

As per pen or not - can see it either way,
But if you apply the 'careless criteria' what about the Liverpool keeper who wiped out Foden ?
(stands back and waits)
 
1finny said:
Oh trust me....... you are not being irrational in the slightest with your dislike :ROFLMAO:

As per pen or not - can see it either way,
But if you apply the 'careless criteria' what about the Liverpool keeper who wiped out Foden ?
(stands back and waits)
Click to expand...
Careless isn't a part of the offence I think was committed but do you mean the one where Foden hits the bar?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top