Point of contact ?
Was it a penalty?
- Thread starter tentan
- Start date
The outside of his foot/boot will always be facing away from him. That's just human anatomy. That's why it's called the "out" side. I thought you were a doctor?
Which side of his foot is the one pointing at the ball and is leading his body in the direction of movement?
True. The gullible nature of the refs and VAR team show that it’s worth asking a question. If Dumfries mirrors Kane’s reaction, it would’ve fed the view that it was a coming together with equal contact and consequence for both players.
If you can’t make the sole of your foot face away from you then you need to see a doctor.
The point you’ve been repeatedly avoiding here is that “studs up” challenges happen when the studs point towards someone at point of contact. Not downwards. The clue is in the phrase. Dumfries doesn’t make a studs up challenge. He tries to block a shot with the outside of his foot. Kane then kicks the side/bottom of his boot.
You can still argue that he endangers Kane by challenging for a ball that high off the ground. Which will always create the possibility of someone kicking studs but what else is he supposed to do? Not try to block the shot at all?
Last edited:
Man, you're having an absolute mare. What has that got to do with what you said? Who said that he (me/anyone) can't make his sole face away from him?
Are you doing a Biden on us?
Dumfries studs are facing to the side and Kane kicks him in the studs. I don't give a feck about the call at this point, but Kane kicks Dumfries foot. You can very reasonably argue that Dumfries foot shouldn't be their and award a pen for that, but Dumfries is not lunging at Kane with his studs up.
Very good. Topical gag. Hilarious. Read my edit.
To the side of what, mate? Because it's obviously angle and movement dependent, no?
Look at that very large picture on this page. Dumfries studs are facing to the side line. Kane is in a 90 degree angle to that. Kane kicks the ball, and since he has a knee joint his foot ends on Dumfries' studs. I'm not saying it's not a penalty (though I still think it's 50-50 at best), but Kane kicks Dumfries' in the studs. Dumfries wasn't lunging at Kane studs up, he was trying to block a shot. Clumsily, because he is Dumfries, but it's an extremely (un)fortunate collision. I also think that if Dumfries emulates Kane's play acting some refs give him a free kick, but he didn't and it was a penalty and England won.
Bygones.
Hard no. A studs up challenge is one where a player is leading with his studs in his direction of movement. Dumfries is moving his leg towards where the ball is, not Kane. And he's clearly leading with studs in his attempt to get to the ball.
Ah, by that definition, then yes, it's studs up, but I was also thinking Pogue's definition.
Bottom line, it's a risky move.
Dumfies studs are not aiming at the sideline, mate. You might as well have said his studs are facing towards Melbourne, it's a pointless point of reference. He's not moving towards the sideline.
Dumfries is going for/moving towards the ball. Which part of his body is leading in his direction of movement?
You're looking at this picture and you're telling me that Kane (who got to the ball) is the one kicking Dumfries not the other way round
All these pictures show Dumfries going in with his studs raised which is what you are not allowed to do as it endangers an opponent. I don`t think he was trying to hurt anyone and was going for the ball but his studs are raised so it has to be a foul.
Eh, yes? Very clearly? Dumfries foot is going from side to side and Kane kicks into it's trajectory. Not saying it's not a foul, but Dumfries's studs are not moving into Kane.Dumfies studs are not aiming at the sideline, mate. You might as well have said his studs are facing towards Melbourne, it's a pointless point of reference. He's not moving towards the sideline.
Dumfries is going for/moving towards the ball. Which part of his body is leading in his direction of movement?
You're looking at this picture and you're telling me that Kane (who got to the ball) is the one kicking Dumfries not the other way round
Excerpts from the laws of the game, for clarity:
'He has a right to try and block the shot?' is not a defence. He has a right to try and block the shot in line with the rules of the game. If he hasn't put himself in a position to do it legally, he doesn't get carte blanche to do it illegally instead.
Is it a kick? Yes. His foot makes physical contact with the opponent, and that's the only criterion.
Is it careless? Yes, because the outcome is that the hard sole and studs of his boot hits Kane's foot in a way that could cause injury. He can see Kane throughout so he can't claim ignorance of the risk he took.
Is it reckless? No, not for me, because although it could injure Kane I'd say there's an almost zero chance of it seriously injuring him.
'He isn't studs up': There's no reference to 'studs up' anywhere in the laws of the game, so that's irrelevant. His studs hit Kane's foot in a way that could cause injury.
'Kane kicks him too': Kane kicks the ball, then makes contact with Dumfries as part of the same movement. Dumfries fails to kick the ball, so can only be described as kicking Kane.
'There's no intent to kick Kane': There doesn't need to be. The rules cited above don't mention intent.
'He has a right to try and block the shot?' is not a defence. He has a right to try and block the shot in line with the rules of the game. If he hasn't put himself in a position to do it legally, he doesn't get carte blanche to do it illegally instead.
Is it a kick? Yes. His foot makes physical contact with the opponent, and that's the only criterion.
Is it careless? Yes, because the outcome is that the hard sole and studs of his boot hits Kane's foot in a way that could cause injury. He can see Kane throughout so he can't claim ignorance of the risk he took.
Is it reckless? No, not for me, because although it could injure Kane I'd say there's an almost zero chance of it seriously injuring him.
'He isn't studs up': There's no reference to 'studs up' anywhere in the laws of the game, so that's irrelevant. His studs hit Kane's foot in a way that could cause injury.
'Kane kicks him too': Kane kicks the ball, then makes contact with Dumfries as part of the same movement. Dumfries fails to kick the ball, so can only be described as kicking Kane.
'There's no intent to kick Kane': There doesn't need to be. The rules cited above don't mention intent.
How is this thread still going 
This seems fair enough.
His studs are not facing Harry Kane. I doesn't matter, we're in the final, but it wasn't a pen.Point of contact ?
Are you suggesting Harry Kane's foot isn't part of Harry Kane? That's an argument I've not heard before.
Harry Kane's foot moved towards his boot.
Yeah, that's what I keep seeing. So many people analysing Dumfries movement relative to Kane's torso and not relative to the ball or Kane's foot behind it.
Simply, Dumfries is reaching for the ball with his studs. On the other side of the ball, is Harry Kane's foot kicking the ball. They are kicking the ball from opposite angles, but one is leading with his studs while the other with his laces. And the one trying to kick with his laces gets there first. So Dumfies studs inevitably end up on Kane's laces as both player's movement carries them through.
And Dumfries boot didn't move to wards Kane's foot? Is that what you're arguing?
They're feet came together in a clash both with forward momentum, it's not an argument of did Kane kick Dumfries or did Dumfries kicked Kane, the two aren't mutually exclusive.
It's a penalty though as Dumfries caught Kane and not the ball and did so in a way that could cause injury. Maybe he should have tried to use his body to block the shot rather than his foot.
It's a penalty though as Dumfries caught Kane and not the ball and did so in a way that could cause injury. Maybe he should have tried to use his body to block the shot rather than his foot.
His foot doesn't change direction Kane's does. I've seen this hundreds of times before and not seen a pen for it.And Dumfries boot didn't move to wards Kane's foot? Is that what you're arguing?
A comical decision.
And Dumfries boot didn't move to wards Kane's foot? Is that what you're arguing?
That's actually an awful challenge by Dumfries.
Anyone who thinks Kane was playing acting is out of their mind. That shit hurts like a mofo.
When you see it like that. He's led with the wrong foot, he should be going with his left foot to block it.
Still not a penalty for me, if that's the standard for a penalty in that game alone Holland should have had two.
Yes I see, Dumfries right foot is stationary throughout that whole 1 second clip. /s
If you're going for the ball with your studs, which is what Dumfries is doing, you'll meet the other players foot with your studs when the other player gets to the ball first. That's Dumfries fault for reaching with his studs and getting there second. It's a horrible challenge.
Your anecdotal evidence on how many times you've seen it not given has nothing to do with it. Most I've seen it it's a yellow and sometimes even a red.
Yet you have people arguing it's not a foul. It's not only a foul, it's a clear yellow. It's closer to a red than "not a foul", in fact.
I agree, I was shocked to see people think he was playing it up, it looked fecking painful.
Some people have too much time to kill! Honestly as if it really matters anymore!How is this thread still going
It needs a poll
Nah. Its borderline a foul and you would probably get it outside the box but its weak for a penalty.
The reason is that its Kane's momentum that flies into Dumfries boot which itself doesnt have much momentum and intention behind it. Its up to block and not advancing at Kane to catch him standing.
When you see bad tackles and reds for a challenge with studs its because the foot has plenty of momentum going straight into the player, not taking up a space in the air where he hopes he can block the ball. Again its Kane's through swing of his volley that carries through onto Dumfries foot where it does catch his studs and why you can argue for a penalty.
Have you seen the gif on the previous page? Genuinely don’t understand how people can say it’s the follow through that hits the other player. The ball leaves his foot and before any follow through whatsoever Dumfries late block hits him.
It doesn't have to be a potential red to make it a pen.
It's really poor technique for a block attempt.
No, Kane's follow through hits Dumfries foot. Dumfries doesnt get the ball you're quite right. But Kane gets hit because of his own action, moving his own feet at thrice the velocity of Dumfries foot
In effect it isnt far off when attacking players leave their leg out and simulate that a defender has taken them out. They did it. The difference is that Kane hasnt done that on purpose, he's played the ball and then theres contact. But like that scenario its the attacker who has caused the contact, not the intention of the defender who was just trying to block the ball
If you searched "England penalty" on Twitter the top 26 posts that had an opinion said "no pen", took 27 to find someone who thought it was a pen.
Doesn't get more definitive than that.
Doesn't get more definitive than that.
So Kane shouldn’t shoot the ball? I don’t understand. Watch the gif on the previous page and tell me how Kanes follow through initiates the contact?
What action do you think Kane should do to avoid contact?
I am not passionate about this, I’m not sure if I think it was a pen or not.