Whether or not it's a penalty (most of my friends growing up who played striker saw it as a dangerous studs-up challenge; most of my friends growing up who played as defenders saw it as a fair attempt at a block and an unfortunate coming together), I would be fascinated to hear what the referee initially thought he saw, and what he decided he had missed after just seconds at the screen.
Was it a penalty?
- Thread starter tentan
- Start date
-
Hello, Guest! We have four new competitions (with taglines and awards as prizes) starting.
A new Odds or Evens competition is starting now. Click here to read the rules and message Damien to submit your eight players by 14th September 2024
A new Carabao Cup prediction competition is starting now. Click here to enter to submit predictions for round 3 which begins 17th September.
A new Champions League prediction competition is starting now. Click here to enter to submit predictions for the first round which begins 17th September.
A new Europa League prediction competition is starting now. Click here to enter to submit predictions for the first round which begins 25th September.
For Odds or Evens you have until the 14th September to submit your players. Submissions will be open for the next 6 days, 10 hours, 50 minutes, 44 seconds, and will close on Sep 14, 2024 at 12:30. -
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) and Jamie (@Vault Dweller) get the depressing job of reviewing United's 3-0 loss at Old Trafford to Liverpool. They discuss what went wrong, Casemiro's day to forget, and the pressure now on Erik Ten Hag. They also take some time to give McTominay a proper farewell, and give their overall thoughts on the Summer Transfer Window.
Don't care if it was or wasn't. Maradona hand of god in 86. Koeman not getting sent off in 93. Beckham's soft sending off in 98. Sol Campbell disallowed goal in 2004. Lampard's goal that never was in 2010. Things go against you sometimes.
Last edited:
Very obvious penalty.
I don't think the "all attacking handballs are given" interpretation is still active. The laws 100% don't mention that, if you can find something saying it is, I'll reverse my position.
I can definitely respect that pov.
It was given, the rest doesn't matter
It’s one of those ones that football doesn’t have laws for.
Common sense would see no penalty but a yellow card. He kind of endangers a player by leading with studs. But it’s not a foul as the ball is long gone. He doesn’t affect the goal attempt.
But, it’s wreckless and is a foul everywhere else on the pitch. So a penalty by the fixed laws of the game. But stupid when that law is applied.
Common sense would see no penalty but a yellow card. He kind of endangers a player by leading with studs. But it’s not a foul as the ball is long gone. He doesn’t affect the goal attempt.
But, it’s wreckless and is a foul everywhere else on the pitch. So a penalty by the fixed laws of the game. But stupid when that law is applied.
And it’s nowhere near some of those in terms of bad decisions. It’s just a very soft penalty and somewhat sad part of what football has become.
I looked for it, but you're right, they changed it a bit. If you don't score yourself it's not always handball.
Still leaves the question, why was the Belgium goal ruled out.
Guessing you didn’t read the rest of my posts.
1) Kane had shot the ball by time Dumfries made contact
2) wasn't there a handball in the lead up to the penalty incident- surprised VAR didn’t take that into account
2) wasn't there a handball in the lead up to the penalty incident- surprised VAR didn’t take that into account
It’s a pen. But it “shouldn’t” even be a foul but that’s how it’s called these days anywhere on the pitch. Similar to the fouls that get called when a defender gets a clean tackle on the ball but his studies roll over the ball and into the player post tackle so it’s a foul and yellow.
Also Sol Campbell's disallowed goal in 98.
“Dumfries studs ended up on Kane’s laces” - you mean Dumfries standing there and Kane initiating the contact after taking the shot?
It wasn’t a clear error, it was a 50:50 where one player tried to block without lunging or sliding and the other one took the shot and caught him in the follow through. So many posters in this thread tried to break it down for you but you act like it was a stonewall.
Last edited:
Definitely a penalty. The argument that he got the shot away doesn’t hold water; his follow-through went right into Dumfries outstretched studs. Surely there has to be concern for a player’s safety in taking a shot. In the NBA, there is a rule that you cannot step into a shooter’s ‘landing area’ so that players can safely shoot without worrying about landing on a defender’s foot and breaking their ankle. Same idea applies here.
The Belgium one was viewed as a deliberate handball or possibly one which he could have avoided.
Using VAR to pull up that Saka "handball" after the ball had ricoched onto his hand would have been an even worse call than the penalty itself.
He had his arm in an almost 90 degrees angle. Not sure how that's more natural than what the Belgian player did mid-sprint. There's simply no consistency. And the funny thing is, we had consistency until 2023, where attacking handball was always handball. Was absolutely nothing wrong with that.
Bottomline, I think these are calls that are a bit easier to digest if they go in favor of you, and in my case it obviously didn't . Engurland won, we lost, the end.
Now go beat Spain.
Last edited:
If it wasn't given I wouldn't say it was the wrong decision. I don't think that sort of thing should be a penalty but then again I don't think plenty of things that are given as penalties should be. By the letter of the law, that is very much a penalty if the ref wants to give it.
Those are given all over the pitch any the people saying that Kane kicks the defender or "what else is he supposed to do there" are completely missing the point. If you can't make a tackle/block without studding the other guy then you risk giving away a foul. If you can't tackle cleanly then you have two options. Give away a foul or don't make the tackle. Its as simple as that. Thats the decision players are constantly making. Can I make a clean tackle. Should I try to tackle him. Thats why players on yellows suddenly aren't making low probability tackles. They are making a choice.
Those are given all over the pitch any the people saying that Kane kicks the defender or "what else is he supposed to do there" are completely missing the point. If you can't make a tackle/block without studding the other guy then you risk giving away a foul. If you can't tackle cleanly then you have two options. Give away a foul or don't make the tackle. Its as simple as that. Thats the decision players are constantly making. Can I make a clean tackle. Should I try to tackle him. Thats why players on yellows suddenly aren't making low probability tackles. They are making a choice.
Yes
The ball barely flicked his hand. It’s not enough to give a free kick for.
I think it had to be a pen once you put it slow motion and analyse it. The fact that Kane got a shot away is irrelevant as to whether a foul has been committed. If the player is on halfway, makes a pass, and someone goes in studs up, no one says oh it doesn’t matter he completed the pass.
All that said, VAR is always going to lead to this. No one would give a shit if we played on and never spoke about it again. It’s a subjective call that will never be black or white.
I do wonder, if Dumfries had gone down screaming like Kane, I think there's probably refs who whistle against Kane. Goes to show, always pretend you've broken a foot.
ok, now I'm really done with this thread. Stop it.
ok, now I'm really done with this thread. Stop it.
The Belgium handball made no sense. It was almost as though they just wanted to show off their latest bit of VAR feckery. That set a precedent though. There’s no way you can disallow that goal and allow the Kane penalty if VAR is being used fairly in this competition.
No chance for me.
Yes mate, Dumfries was definitely just standing there and not lunging towards Kane with a leg extended and studs showing.
This is definitely a man who's just "standing there"
Give your head a wobble, please
YepNever in a million years
VAR needs to not be allowed to show the slow mo unless there's doubt about contact or something. It looks a super intentional foul when slowed down but at full speed it's just a defender trying to block a shot and a striker rolling around to see if VAR falls for it.
I'll take it though!
Yes mate, Dumfries was definitely just standing there and not lunging towards Kane with a leg extended and studs showing.
This is definitely a man who's just "standing there"
Give your head a wobble, please
That clip also makes a lie of all the bollox in this thread about “studs up” challenges. You can clearly see that he attempts to block the shot with the outside of his foot, not the sole.
Never a penalty, its an attempted block and Kane kicks him. In fairness England just about deserved it anyway so right overall outcome.
I would say you could see why it was given after forensic analysis but it's definitely not a clear and obvious error that saw the referee's original interpretation being off the mark.
Even with VAR there's no clear argument that it definitely should be a foul. I think it speaks to a wider problem in that the VAR is being used in every single penalty box incident rather than how it should be, which is the VAR official saying to the ref "i think you've got that very wrong and need to take a look at the replay". Instead it's being used to make marginal calls.
I would also say there's a problem in that referees are not being encouraged to stick by their own on field decisions if VAR is inconclusive.
England were much the better side over the 90 minutes on Wednesday and deserved winners on the night but the penalty decision was a microcosm of how VAR is being used badly.
Even with VAR there's no clear argument that it definitely should be a foul. I think it speaks to a wider problem in that the VAR is being used in every single penalty box incident rather than how it should be, which is the VAR official saying to the ref "i think you've got that very wrong and need to take a look at the replay". Instead it's being used to make marginal calls.
I would also say there's a problem in that referees are not being encouraged to stick by their own on field decisions if VAR is inconclusive.
England were much the better side over the 90 minutes on Wednesday and deserved winners on the night but the penalty decision was a microcosm of how VAR is being used badly.
The big thing is that VAR was introduced to overturn clear and obvious mistakes. We are now getting offside for a toenail, goals being disallowed and penalties given for objective reasons.
'IF' the decision might be a fowl but is up for interpretation VAR shouldn't interfere. The whole reason was to overturn clear and obvious mistakes. They are now just trying to show how clever they are with snickometers and 3D modelling. It's an absolute farce.
'IF' the decision might be a fowl but is up for interpretation VAR shouldn't interfere. The whole reason was to overturn clear and obvious mistakes. They are now just trying to show how clever they are with snickometers and 3D modelling. It's an absolute farce.
nice cake
Not if you can possibly be serious, I don't see at any point he presents the outside of his foot.
Yeah, no. I don't see that at all. I can clearly see studs first in the direction his leg is moving and his momentum is carrying him.
Dirty Dutch cnut, should have been sent off.Yes mate, Dumfries was definitely just standing there and not lunging towards Kane with a leg extended and studs showing.
This is definitely a man who's just "standing there"
Give your head a wobble, please
Same, it's as studs up as you can be
Who was it that said Kane should have been more careful with the follow through?!Yes mate, Dumfries was definitely just standing there and not lunging towards Kane with a leg extended and studs showing.
This is definitely a man who's just "standing there"
Give your head a wobble, please
And he was facilitating the contactWho was it that said Kane should have been more careful with the follow through?!
Who was it that said Kane should have been more careful with the follow through?!
Exactly. There isn't any fecking follow through. Their legs clash mere centimeters away from the point where Kane's foot strikes the ball. Which also makes a complete mockery of the whole "he's only trying to block the ball" argument. Dumfries is very clearly trying to nick the ball with his studs and Kane beats him to it and their legs inevitably clash afterward. But because Kane was closer to the ball and got there first, while not leading with his studs unlike Dumfries, it's a foul and a yellow card for the latter.
Anything else is just copium at this point. Except Saka's handball which of course should have led to this whole incident being invalidated.
At point of contact he is clearly presenting the outside of his foot.
Dumfries is the guy with the orange shirt
The outside of the boot is the side facing away from him.