Don’t mind me. I just had a massive brainfart and travelled forward through time to the final. In my messed up head, that penalty was awarded against Spain. With the Cucurella whistling fresh in my mind. Time for a coffee.
Was it a penalty?
- Thread starter tentan
- Start date
Don’t mind me. I just had a massive brainfart and travelled forward through time to the final. In my messed up head, that penalty was awarded against Spain. With the Cucurella whistling fresh in my mind. Time for a coffee.
Don't worry, enjoy the coffee
How is this even a discussion? It's clearly a foul that would have been given anywhere else on the pitch so of course it's also a penalty. Why do people try to make drama out of thin air? I havent seen any pundits arguing against it. It was simply an unnecessary and stupid foul. Nothing wild but a foul nontheless.
I just think the bar for giving a penalty should be, and is, a bit higher than giving a random foul in the middle of the pitch. And I think most people accept that, maybe without realising it or something, I'm not sure.
Must've missed Carragher and Neville then.
You literally can’t raise your leg without studs showing. Dumfries studs are towards the ball, not Kane.
It's not really any different to any time a defender boots it up the line and the attacker trying to block it catches the leg they have kicked the ball with coming in late. Always a free kick.
Also think the studs up played into it. Which is also often given as a freekick anywhere else on the pitch.
I dont thing that's a thing.
Absolutely not. It also proves there's only so much VAR can do when there are idiots looking at it.
That depends on the angle. It's of course possible to block a shot with the upper part of your foot. That is the most common way.
Dumfries' starting position/standing leg may have prevented him from doing this though.
I think that’s key. The ones you see given outfield are when someone has their studs over a foot that is kicking upwards, so the player kicking the ball kicks directly onto their studs. This was an attempt to kick sideways, so is different.
I think there are plenty of fouls that are given out the pitch, that would result in a lot of outrage if it was given as a penalty.
But your studs will be off the ground. Dumfries is attempting to block the ball with the side of his foot. He doesn’t point his studs towards Kane so therefore shouldn’t be a consideration in the decision.
You can block a shot without your studs up lunging at a player. Thats why it was a foul.
I'm not sure about it at all. Do you have an example. Whatever a foul is out of the box it should be in the box too.
And usually they come sliding in at pace. Dumfries does none of that. The only way to avoid what happened last night was to stand still and allow Kane to shoot without attempting to block it. If Lee Dixon doesn’t think it’s a penalty for England then you should have an idea of how biased you have to be to think that is clear cut.
Im grateful it was given but it shouldn’t be a penalty. It’s not a tackle but an attempt at a block and there wouldn’t be contact without the follow through.
The precedent here is a player can get a shot away without any interference then if there’s contact in the follow through, which is very common given you rarely won’t have a contested ball in that scenario, go down and wait for VAR.
The precedent here is a player can get a shot away without any interference then if there’s contact in the follow through, which is very common given you rarely won’t have a contested ball in that scenario, go down and wait for VAR.
You can’t raise your foot without raising your studs. The two players are coming at the ball from different angles. Dumfries does not lunge at Kane you lunatic.
What part of his body do you think hits Kane's foot?
Stop the video in OP at 3 secs.
That is true, but it's definitely possible to block in a manner where it's impossible to hit the attacker with the studs too. And had he done that then it would never have been a penalty, no matter how much Kane whines.
Oh the ref saw it alright, he knew he’d have to send Dumfries off if he called a foul so he let play go on.
I don't see Saka's blatant handball being mentioned, which makes it even more of a robbery. The ref really helped England as well second half. Was such a weird/frustrating watch.
Thought moaning at the ref was a yellow? How many yellows did Foden receive?
Football has a massive problem, not with the rules but with the terrible inconsistensies of implying the rules.
Thought moaning at the ref was a yellow? How many yellows did Foden receive?
Football has a massive problem, not with the rules but with the terrible inconsistensies of implying the rules.
I think we can all agree that Koeman should have started Smartburger instead of Dumbfries.
Penalties given if a player is fouled going away from goal, or the ball is going out of play as they had a poor touch, so your last point is moot
You do not need to be in possession of the ball to be fouled. It's a foul. It's in the box. It is therefore a penalty.
Just rewatched the highlights and changed my mind. It's definitely a pen, you can't lead with your studs at waist height and claim it isn't reckless. Although, I've no idea how else he could have got to the ball.
Yes you can, unless you have locked ankles. What a daft thing to suggest.
It is a penalty regardless of whether Kane had already kicked the ball before the contact. Onana was penalized for a similar incident, where he bumped into a striker after the ball was gone. This is clearly a penalty—he missed the ball completely with his studs out and kicked Kane.
Not a hope 
50/50. Some refs would give it, others wouldn’t.
The German's also hate the Dutch, and Schweinsteiger has played in England and is a club legend at Harry Kane's current employers.
This line irritates me. Not just from you (sorry)
but if a player in the middle of the pitch completes a pass and gets taken out after making that pass. It’s a foul.
it shouldn’t matter if any striker manages to get the shot off, they’re still caught late after the action so the same free kick should apply
i think it’s a penalty. A soft one. But we’ve certainly seen them given and he’s certainly been caught. Studs showing. Relatively high. Kane makes the most of it. As all players do
That is correct.
All I was saying was that the penalty decision was made by the referee.
Because Kane swings his foot towards it. Watch the video. Dumfries studs are aimed at the ball, not Kane. Dumfries is side on to Kane.
One thing we can all agree on; Harry Kane is an embarrassment, on the level of the great European/South American diving gimps.
So you can both have your studs on the ground and your foot in the air? Talking about daft things to suggest. Once you raise your foot your studs are showing somewhere. In this instance at the ball.
That is what football players do when they shoot, this wasn't exactly a surprise for Dumfries.
This is a freekick every single time everywhere else on the pitch - and even if @BD doesn't know, that means it should be a penalty.
Any defender making a tackle in the box, better make sure they get a big touch on the ball, if they don't then VAR will punish them!
It that right or wrong? does it matter, a professional athlete should be able to control there bodies inside the penalty area.
It that right or wrong? does it matter, a professional athlete should be able to control there bodies inside the penalty area.
And it shouldn’t be a surprise that a defender attempts to block the shot. There is nothing in the rules to say you can’t raise your leg to block a shot. Which part of the rules governing direct free kicks and penalties did Dumfries break?That is what football players do when they shoot, this wasn't exactly a surprise for Dumfries.
This is a freekick every single time everywhere else on the pitch - and even if @BD doesn't know, that means it should be a penalty.
Certainly not more than they hate the English, especially when there's a glimpse of potential English sucess