Yeah, but Kane can't retract his foot after shooting to prevent a follow through.
I think it's a penalty, soft one, but still a penalty. Anywhere else on the pitch is a freekick and nobody would disagree
Was it a penalty?
- Thread starter tentan
- Start date
I think it's a penalty, soft one, but still a penalty. Anywhere else on the pitch is a freekick and nobody would disagree
Me neither. The only case you could have is that contact was made after the shot was already taken, and the ball was shot clearly and missed the target. But foul was made while the ball was still in play, contact was clear to see, studs up challenge. Clear pen imho.
Never 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!
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!
Clear pen going by the rules
One of those ones you know is a definite pen as soon as it gets reviewed but looks soft as feck
One of those ones you know is a definite pen as soon as it gets reviewed but looks soft as feck
People are saying reckless and studs up, therefore penalty?! Lift your leg and stick it in a direction to block something - of course the bottom of your shoe is showing! The terms "studs up" or "studs showing" aren't literally just that and therefore dangerous and card worthy (although these half-witted officials clearly feel that).
So either football let's defenders block, or it doesn't. If a defender follows through strongly with a clearance, that's a foul too, but if an attacker does it they get fouled.. It's all nonsense. Nobody is getting hurt from these challenges.
Never a penalty in a million years. Nobody on TV thought it was, nobody in the England team thought it was, nobody watching thought is was.
So either football let's defenders block, or it doesn't. If a defender follows through strongly with a clearance, that's a foul too, but if an attacker does it they get fouled.. It's all nonsense. Nobody is getting hurt from these challenges.
Never a penalty in a million years. Nobody on TV thought it was, nobody in the England team thought it was, nobody watching thought is was.
It reminds me of the penalty that Romreo’s gave away for Spurs when he got sent off. Obviously, his was worse but a foul everywhere on the pitch.
Just because it might be a foul outside the box, doesn't mean it should be one inside the box.
I can see why people think it's a penalty here, but these type of decisions are basically never given, so it's just annoying to see it now. Especially when you consider that Kane rolling around afterwards played a part in the refs reviewing it.
I can see why people think it's a penalty here, but these type of decisions are basically never given, so it's just annoying to see it now. Especially when you consider that Kane rolling around afterwards played a part in the refs reviewing it.
Why not?
You are straight up lying. Saka and Foden are clearly outraged by the challenge and, please look at the footage again.
End thread
Cause there should be a higher bar to give a 80% goal chance. I feel like everyone knows this, at least subconsciously. If there was a penalty for every outside-the-box foul, most corners or crosses would result in a penalty the minute the defender tussles with the attacker.
It’s one of the most ridiculous decisions I’ve ever seen given at that level, no wonder so many people were perplexed.
When you whittle it down Kane has basically got a shot off at goal, kicked the defender on the follow through, did his usual stop, drop and roll act, and been awarded a penalty for it with the defending being carded too. It was an absolute farce.
When you whittle it down Kane has basically got a shot off at goal, kicked the defender on the follow through, did his usual stop, drop and roll act, and been awarded a penalty for it with the defending being carded too. It was an absolute farce.
Come on man... This was never a penalty right.. His leg wasnt stretched, he didnt come in high speed, there was no attempt to hit Kane, only to block the ball.. He did what every defender would do.. If defenders cannot make such a black attemt anymore, risking the attacker touching them after their shot.. What kind of game would football become... Absolutely horrific decision.. Even worse as the VAR corrected the original decision not to give a pen.. I thought the rule was the VAR would only intervene if the ref made a very clear obvious mistake, which was never ever the case..
Joke of a decision..
Joke of a decision..
Why?
Also the 'he got his shot off so no foul' makes no sense to me. If Kane shoots and then Dumfries jumps in at his knee and snaps him in two 'trying to block' is that no foul?
Poor man's post.
No doubt about the penalty and isn't worth debating.
No doubt about the penalty and isn't worth debating.
But in the rules, that's not the case is it?
So what about the penalty Onana conceded for clattering into (whoever it was) when the ball was crossed in. Similar example imo, obviously its a penalty and obviously last nights foul was a penalty.
Exactly.
Call it soft all you want, and that's maybe fair, but to claim it wasn't a pen because it was a soft foul inside the box?
Agreed. If the shoe was on the other foot I'd have felt hard done by too, but I really don't see why some seemingly can't believe it was a pen. Even at the time, before the replay, it looked like it could be in the cards.
Only the English think it’s a pen.
If that had been given to the Dutch there would have been a outcry about the “match fixing” ref.
If that had been given to the Dutch there would have been a outcry about the “match fixing” ref.
If its not a handball on Saka, its a pen imo. Soft, but still a pen. I dont get the whole ”how can you block the shot without showing studs” thing. Why does it matter, if you dont get the ball, but the players foot instead its a foul.
'Losing Fans in Outrage Shocker!!'
You have my sympathies but if a player catches an opponent and gets nowhere near the ball then it's a foul all day long. It wasn't a clip either, he fully studs through Kanes foot. I immediately was calling for a penalty, if the contact was softer then I'd agree with you, but you can't lunge towards a shot with your studs up and your momentum follows through the opponents foot like that all because you got nowhere near the ball.
Care to explain this?
I said at the time never a pen, it was a challenge that had to be made, even after watching it many times I still don’t think it was a pen or even a foul.
On saying that VAR decided it was and it was studs up and instructed the ref to review it , he very quickly said yes, maybe he did not see it when it happened.
My gut is still no pen and if against us I would be fuming.
Fix fixing post on all SM are rife.
On saying that VAR decided it was and it was studs up and instructed the ref to review it , he very quickly said yes, maybe he did not see it when it happened.
My gut is still no pen and if against us I would be fuming.
Fix fixing post on all SM are rife.
The point I made is, had that happened after whatever player had gotten a clear shot away the foul against Onana wouldnt have been awarded.
Dont remember the incident on question but its something that constantly happens and isnt awarded, where a players catches the attacker with their follow through after the shot is gone. Its never really awarded.
A stupid award and if penalties start being awarded for that you may as well not challenge anymore in the box.
Wasn’t given in real time and due to the very mixed reaction its quite subjective so it’s definitely not a clear and obvious error so it shouldn’t have been given.
Rare to see them given, would be annoyed if it was against me, but happier for that to be a penalty compared to some handball decisions that are given.
The history books say it was. But if it had been given against England, you can imagine the uproar.
Very very harsh in my view.
Very very harsh in my view.
Not var. It was the referee who made the decision.
Agree. A studs up challenge is a foul. If it had happened outside the box there wouldn't have been a murmer that i wasn't a foul.
Never a penalty for me.
If that's the bar being set for what is and isn't penalty in that game alone Holland should have had 2. One when 2 England players combined to take the Dutch player out on the edge of the box and one for when Walker kicked through the back of Ake.
If that's the bar being set for what is and isn't penalty in that game alone Holland should have had 2. One when 2 England players combined to take the Dutch player out on the edge of the box and one for when Walker kicked through the back of Ake.
Correction - two footballers claimed for it apparently (Still never a penalty in a million years)
Just went to to find the Saka "handball"
I am not sure how it is called in English exactly, the translation from my language would be something like "underlay". It is a typical foul when someone puts their foot in a position to be kicked instead of the ball and it was always given in practice or in matches ever since I trained in an academy 20 years ago.
So yea, it is a penalty for me.
So yea, it is a penalty for me.
This 100%. VAR being used not for what it was intented, and it sucks.
Even though it might be a penalty under current rules and whatnot, I don't think it should be one. Kane got the shot off, ball was gone, yeah there's contact on the follow through of the defender but so what, it's a contact sport; not every contact should result in a penalty for me. There's a referee for a reason and he didn't think there was enough in it, fair enough and move on. VAR was brought in to erase most of the discussions about fouls, penalty's and so on but if anything there's more discussion about those things now than before.
But did var not ask the ref to review his no pen call ? Well that’s what I thought at the time.
Don't understand how they could have possibly seen it as a 'clear and obvious' error for VAR to review.
It's more nuanced than 'high foot = penalty' or 'gets shot away = no penalty'. There's always been a convention in football that it's more of the latter which respects the crowded nature of busy penalty boxes and there are always lots of minor fouls going on.
Here Dumfries has attempted to block the ball in his own space (i.e. between him and the ball). Kane has struck the ball and has followed through onto Dumfries' foot. Dumfries has not followed through into Kane's space and his challenge stops there, in his own space.
Now there's a difference if Dumfries goes through Kane in his space - where that challenge could become dangerous. But he didn't. And Kane isn't entitled to extra 'follow-through' space to complete his full range of motion. Because that quickly becomes absurd where the attacker gets a full yard extra room to complete a shot in case they get caught on the follow-through.
It was a ridiculous decision and no surprise that 90% of the pundits - who understand how the game has been refereed - all agreed.
Here Dumfries has attempted to block the ball in his own space (i.e. between him and the ball). Kane has struck the ball and has followed through onto Dumfries' foot. Dumfries has not followed through into Kane's space and his challenge stops there, in his own space.
Now there's a difference if Dumfries goes through Kane in his space - where that challenge could become dangerous. But he didn't. And Kane isn't entitled to extra 'follow-through' space to complete his full range of motion. Because that quickly becomes absurd where the attacker gets a full yard extra room to complete a shot in case they get caught on the follow-through.
It was a ridiculous decision and no surprise that 90% of the pundits - who understand how the game has been refereed - all agreed.