German pundits like Schweinsteiger thought it's a penalty
Was it a penalty?
- Thread starter tentan
- Start date
Yeah, one of the problems these days is that the referee ALWAYS seems to reverse his decisions / follow VAR whenever he gets called to the screen. I've not (or rarely) seen someone stick with his on-field decision after he went to look at the video. So you basically know as soon as he gets called that the reverse decision will be taken, and that sucks. Refs should still have room for interpretation, nothing wrong with saying to the VAR "thanks but it is how I thought it was on the field and it's not a penalty for me".
Dutch pundit on Belgian TV mentioned that these kind of small fouls get VAR'd much more often in the Bundesliga than in other European leagues, so no surprise to see it get given by a German referee. Might be one of the problems with VAR in a tournament that it's applied differently in almost every country by now.
In that respect, also not a surprise that people like Carragher thought it was a ridiculous decision and people like Schweinsteiger think it's a penalty.
Kane had already taken the shot. Not a penalty. Plus Kane follow through was the reason of contact.
If we start giving those kind of penalties then each game we will 3-4 penalties at least
If we start giving those kind of penalties then each game we will 3-4 penalties at least
Never a pen for me, he doesn't make a challenge, he jumps to block the ball and Kane kicks his foot. Looked way worse in slo-mo, as usual. Those types of things are basically never given as pens either, defender and attacker meet after clear shot has been taken by attacker. Weird one.
Nah not a pen for me.
Last edited:
A bit torn. It's a typical VAR penalty. There's definite contact, but Kane kicks Dumfries. Dumfries leg however is too high up and Kane theatrics compel VAR a bit as well of course.
I'm more confused why the var didnt look at what looked like a handball from Saka just before.
I'm more confused why the var didnt look at what looked like a handball from Saka just before.
Now that's a valid complaint. Could argue the ball bounces from his chest, which at some point in the wild history of handball rules meant no handball, but it looks like he moves his arm to control the ball
On ITV, McCoist, Dixon, Neville and Keane all thought it was never one. Wright tried to make a half-fisted attempt to justify it but even he was torn between his emotional side and the rational situation in front of him.
It's an odd one. When I saw it live it didn't look like a penalty. And none of the commentators on the telly reacted either.
For me it's 50/50. Both decisions make sense. The ball isn't particularly high, nor does the defender come in with excessive force. But he does hit Kane with his studs and that makes a difference.
For me it's 50/50. Both decisions make sense. The ball isn't particularly high, nor does the defender come in with excessive force. But he does hit Kane with his studs and that makes a difference.
Never a pen. Hope we don’t see things like this in football again. I fear for the future of the game.
On a side note, thanks for the penalty, much appreciated
On a side note, thanks for the penalty, much appreciated
Don't care. It was given. Looked like a foul, Netherlands guy didn't make contact with the ball and led with his studs. Come on England!
Not a penalty for me in a million years. But I’ll take it!
Forgetting the studs for a minute: what are the rules for high kicks? Surely if you can shoot from a certain height then you must be allowed to block from the same height? Otherwise it's not fair (again: studs not included in the equation).
It's a penalty and it's okay to say it is. You stick you foot out like that, at that height and you catch someone, you deserve whatever you get.
It's bizarre to hear people saying it was Kane's momentum that carried the shot into the defender therefore no foul? Have you ever seen a player shoot a ball and then immediately stop dead after? Of course there is a certain follow through on every pass or shot. Doesn't negate the foul.
It's like when a defender plants his foot behind the ball just as another player is swinging his foot to shoot. When the defender is inevitably kicked it's still a foul on him even though the attacker swinging his leg had no intention to kick the man.
People are only able to block a studs high challenge legally if they don't connect and even then it can be deemed dangerous play. Kane might have made a meal of it, but in todays VAR age it's a pen all day long.
It's like when a defender plants his foot behind the ball just as another player is swinging his foot to shoot. When the defender is inevitably kicked it's still a foul on him even though the attacker swinging his leg had no intention to kick the man.
People are only able to block a studs high challenge legally if they don't connect and even then it can be deemed dangerous play. Kane might have made a meal of it, but in todays VAR age it's a pen all day long.
It's only a talking point because half the time refs don't give them when they should.
Yeah this is true, which is why I kind of understand the decision, even if it feels very harsh.
I seem to be in a minority but I thought, and still do think it was a penalty.
That's a scenario you've created in your head so that you can be upset about it. If anything, it's the exact opposite. The vast majority of English fans and pundits were saying it wasn't a penalty, whilst a lot of foreign (probably not the Dutch) ones seem to think it was. It's especially bizarre to say only the English think it was a penalty when it was given by a German team of officials.
The consistency is the issue here. You get a pen for this 1 out of 20 times. In this Competition alone you didnt get one, even though there were plenty of similar incidents.
An English ref wouldnt give it, a German one would, as more is getting penalised there. Usually for me this is a 50/50 one, and VAR doesnt get involved if the decision is not a mistake. So for VAR to get involved, they saw it as a 100% pen, which again in Germany probably is a pen more often than not.
An English ref wouldnt give it, a German one would, as more is getting penalised there. Usually for me this is a 50/50 one, and VAR doesnt get involved if the decision is not a mistake. So for VAR to get involved, they saw it as a 100% pen, which again in Germany probably is a pen more often than not.
In a German stadium close to the Dutch border packed with Dutch fans. Seen someone call the ref a homer for the decision
Studs first, knee height, it's a clear penalty, no idea how anyone can think otherwise.
Never a pen. I'd be furious if that was given v United or Scotland.
Soft pen but these kind of challenges are foul outside of the box 100% of the time.
nothing controversial about it.
nothing controversial about it.
I don't see a handball anywhere, what is it with people manifesting arguments like this. It either hits his thigh or his stomach, as it rolls up the ball doesn't move at all from it being clipped by a hand. Absolute nonsense.
For the English fans. It's a pen.
For the normal mouthbreathers. No
For the normal mouthbreathers. No
There aren’t any. I’m not altogether sure where stands still and tries to block a shot is covered. These are the rules for direct free kicks and penalties:
A direct free kick is awarded if a player commits any of the following offences against an opponent in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force:
- charges
- jumps at
- kicks or attempts to kick
- pushes
- strikes or attempts to strike (including head-butt)
- tackles or challenges
- trips or attempts to trip
- Careless is when a player shows a lack of attention or consideration when making a challenge or acts without precaution. No disciplinary sanction is needed
- Reckless is when a player acts with disregard to the danger to, or consequences for, an opponent and must be cautioned
- Using excessive force is when a player exceeds the necessary use of force and endangers the safety of an opponent and must be sent off
- a handball offence (except for the goalkeeper within their penalty area)
- holds an opponent
- impedes an opponent with contact
- bites or spits at someone on the team lists or a match official
- throws an object at the ball, opponent or match official, or makes contact with the ball with a held object
If only this tournament had some kind of technology which could be used to work out if a ball has hit a hand or not. Something like the snickometer in cricket? Oh well.
Isn't it irrelevant if it comes off another part of the body first though?
Certainly wasn’t when a penalty was given against Lisandro Martinez last season. VAR has made handball such a total mess, so feck knows. But it looks as though he uses his hand to control the ball. Which is a nailed on handball, by any definition, surely?
How is it studs first? He’s side on to Kane.
That was surprisingly open to interpretation.
I feel that the attackers are going to be prioritised in these cases. I can't imagine the defender being awarded a free kick or a goal disallowed if Kane's leg follows through with force and hits the defender in his thigh. But that could be equally painful.
I also don't think that it should count as dangerous play every time the studs are shown. The attempted block last night is a good example of that. At least if "dangerous play" implies risk of serious injury.
Surely you are joking right? Or are you just blind? His right hand literally moves when the ball hits it and it takes the momentum out of the ball. You can argue if it “counts” or not, but saying you can’t see it hitting the hand is some next level coping.
Impressive that you are able to use the internet while not beeing able to see…
Yes, German commentators and fans alike have a huge bias towards England
That's because one of you is imagining stuff and it's not you.