If those are going to start being given then there will be so many more penalties every season. So many times contact is made after shots are taken and the ball is gone. No way will that be a penalty most weeks.
Was it a penalty?
- Thread starter tentan
- Start date
Say Kane's shot rebounded back to him and he's in a perfect position for a tap in. He can't do that if he's been taken down by a studs up tackle can he? I thought it looked soft at first, but with the benefit of video replays, it's a foul all day long.
Would love to hear the conversations from the VAR refs when they made that decision.
Thats the only way that VAR can move on without the drama that it is creating. An explanation of why the decision has been made - otherwise we end up with these constant ‘was it - wasn’t it’ debates.
If that had been given against England I would have struggled to comprehend the decision. The other way around I can accept though.
Thats the only way that VAR can move on without the drama that it is creating. An explanation of why the decision has been made - otherwise we end up with these constant ‘was it - wasn’t it’ debates.
If that had been given against England I would have struggled to comprehend the decision. The other way around I can accept though.
This “it will be a foul anywhere in else on the pitch” argument is a red herring. There was a moment when I think it was a walker just pushed the Dutch lad clearly as ball was going out of play, in the box. It’s a foul anywhere else on pitch but accepted you don’t get those sort of things and defenders can do certain things (like play man not the ball to a degree) in the box.
It wasn’t a penalty, we don’t see them given because they aren’t penalties. We won’t see many or any given all season either.
That’s how I see it. If you get it, just take it, like the ITV lads, but if England go out to a penalty like that there’d be carnage in here.
Really? Other than Onana vs Wolves (and the 2nd time when he was penalized), I can't remember a similar incident from a United game this season.
Kane initiated the contact. Absolutely no way was it a penalty.
If that was given against England there would be outrage on the level of Frank Lampard’s ‘equaliser’ in 2010.
If that was given against England there would be outrage on the level of Frank Lampard’s ‘equaliser’ in 2010.
I remember watching Koeman get off on that red and subsequently score the goal in 93 game. I actually don’t think last nights penalty evens it up if I’m honest as that was just the worst. English fans shouldn’t bother arguing, enjoy the win and consider it payback instead of doing all sorts of gymnastics to legitimise that penalty.
I really dislike where the game is going. Sensor in the ball to detect hairline handball. Borderline pre cog fouls for possible fouls/injuries. Defenders have to staple their arms to their backs when blocking shots/crosses. If a defender brushes off an attacker in the box there’s a potential penalty regardless of contact impact.
It’s a joke , so many stupid penalties given, particularly against United, I really hate where the game is going. When the average fan or even former players, don’t really understand the rules and you have to quote some ambiguous, subjective rule, you know the games going the wrong way.
Surely the German's arent afraid of some English success, they won like 4 (or 5?) World cups.
I don't think afraid is the correct term, but from my impression they pretty much prefer England to be limited to 66. It's more Schadenfreude than actual rivalry if that makes sense
A few references to the Onana incident. The difference there is that Onana careered into and through the Wolves attacker with his full body weight. Here Dumfries stands his ground, stays in his space when he blocks the ball, and doesn't go through Kane. It's Kane who follows into Dumfries. There's a coming together of one blocking leg and one striking leg, both players side on (not two players crashing into each other).
The two incidents aren't remotely comparable.
The two incidents aren't remotely comparable.
Kinda like their relationship with us then
Apparently now the ball hit both of Saka's arms before dropping to Kane as well - which VAR supposedly didn't even look at/into. Not sure if remotely true though. On the penalty call itself, I don't think it was a "clear and obvious error" for VAR to have intervened for the reasoning @Gio explains above.
Would United have been awarded a penalty for that incident?
If that's a penalty, you could, and I guess should be giving out 5 penalties in every match. Similarly awful call to the Hojlund-Rodri incident last season at OT.
Was 100% a penalty, definitely. Absolutely no doubt. 1000 times out of 1000 that gets given. Such an obvious penalty. The commentators and everyone watching expected it to be given right away. No way it wasn't a penalty. Definitely, definitely a penalty. Ludicrous to suggest it shouldn't be a penalty. Because it was such a clear foul and not at all one of the worst decisions we've ever seen. Stonewall. Anyone who says otherwise must not be English
For me it's pretty clear, if Dumfries doesn't get a contact on the ball it's a clear penalty...
OP being dramatic.
Foot was raised, with studs showing and contact was made. Hardly the most scandalous decision we’ve seen on a pitch.
Foot was raised, with studs showing and contact was made. Hardly the most scandalous decision we’ve seen on a pitch.
I don't have a problem with this penalty, it is dangerous play by Dumfries. Anywhere else on the pitch it's an indirect free kick
Not sure VAR should have intervened though
IFAB needs to bring back some form of indirect free kick in the box
Not sure VAR should have intervened though
IFAB needs to bring back some form of indirect free kick in the box
You can make an argument that rules are inconsistently applied when it comes to penalties, but you can absolutely not make a logical argument that this isn't a penalty and a yellow based on the rules.
Dumfries challenged for a ball that was waist high, with leg extended and studs showing. That is a foul on its own, even if he gets the ball, because he's endangering the opponent. You don't go studs in that high, end of story. But on top of that, he got there second, missed the ball and his studs made contact with Kane's foot. That is a foul and a yellow all day long. And since it happened in the box, it's therefore a pen. There's no special rules about fouls needing to be stronger/harsher for them to be given inside the box.
Dumfries challenged for a ball that was waist high, with leg extended and studs showing. That is a foul on its own, even if he gets the ball, because he's endangering the opponent. You don't go studs in that high, end of story. But on top of that, he got there second, missed the ball and his studs made contact with Kane's foot. That is a foul and a yellow all day long. And since it happened in the box, it's therefore a pen. There's no special rules about fouls needing to be stronger/harsher for them to be given inside the box.
Definitely not. But they would have had a penalty awarded against them.
Two things makes it such an annoying call for me:
1: Penalties decided by VAR should be clear and obvious. Was this really clear and obvious? (Most people say it's not, so how can 2 or 3 professional referees in the booth think it is enough to warrant a call?)
2: My assumption is that VAR would never have made this call if it was for a lesser nation. As a dane, I've seen Denmark get fecked over by VAR like this by bigger nations (Sterling-dive in the last euros and the germany-handball pen kicked on the hand from 1 meter distance with full speed). Probably lots of lesser nations will be left with the same feeling that VAR favours the really big teams.
To me, VAR is biased and will lead to bigger nations advance more, which will lead to greater incomes for UEFA/FIFA whoever puts the guys in the VAR room. Switched the TV off at 1-1, just think it kills the game really. At this point you can't really tell if VAR is just biased to peer pressure or if it's corrupt - after all corruption have floated through every vessel of modern football governance the last 25 years at least.
1: Penalties decided by VAR should be clear and obvious. Was this really clear and obvious? (Most people say it's not, so how can 2 or 3 professional referees in the booth think it is enough to warrant a call?)
2: My assumption is that VAR would never have made this call if it was for a lesser nation. As a dane, I've seen Denmark get fecked over by VAR like this by bigger nations (Sterling-dive in the last euros and the germany-handball pen kicked on the hand from 1 meter distance with full speed). Probably lots of lesser nations will be left with the same feeling that VAR favours the really big teams.
To me, VAR is biased and will lead to bigger nations advance more, which will lead to greater incomes for UEFA/FIFA whoever puts the guys in the VAR room. Switched the TV off at 1-1, just think it kills the game really. At this point you can't really tell if VAR is just biased to peer pressure or if it's corrupt - after all corruption have floated through every vessel of modern football governance the last 25 years at least.
Studs up, missed ball, caught Kane ….penalty
Yeah ball definitely touches the hand then. Albeit, a difficult angle to see if it impacts the trajectory of the ball. Wasn't there a Belgium goal disallowed (Openda i think?) for a ball that barely touched the players arm as well? Anyhow, it's not like any of this is going to change the result.
I can’t see how it’s a penalty.
Can’t see how that’s a handball either though.
Can’t see how that’s a handball either though.
It's the studs up part that makes the difference here, isn't it? If he goes to block it and Kane follows through on basically any other part of his body, it would never have been called. But his studs are high, there is no denying that. There is a discussion to be had about when VAR should intervene, but once the referee was called to the screen I was 100% certain a penalty would be given.
Looks like Saka handball’s it twice
Football has to be become a no contact sport now if that’s a penalty. It has got to that stage. Dumfries didn’t put his studs into Kane, he tries to block it. Kane took the shot and hit Dumfries boot on the follow through. Not only Kane took his shot already without any foul or intervention from Dumfries but also hit Dumfries himself rather than Dumfries hitting him. Penalty? Yeah, right. Make football non contact sport, I’m all for it.
Who are these "most people" and why do they matter over the opinion of the referees and the rules?
The referees in the booth thought it was an obvious error. The referee on the ground agreed it was an obvious error once shown the replay. It's also a clear foul based on the rules. Finally, and not that it matters, but I see more people here arguing that it was a clear foul than not.
Never in a million years.
It's the kind of BS penalty that usually goes against United. I'd be fuming.
It's the kind of BS penalty that usually goes against United. I'd be fuming.
An almost identical scenario, with the foul given because of their new "snickometer" technology. Which doesn't seem to have been looked at here.
EDIT: This scenario is worse actually, because it looks like the final touch before the ball reaches Kane is off Saka's hand. In the Belgium one he ran down the pitch and crossed the ball after the ball skimmed his hand.
There's a claim it touches both his arms. At least it is undeniable that it touches his one hand. Second touch by his other arm? Not so clear.
But in England when VAR: 1 arm from a player of the scoring teams who gains the advantage = no penalty. No matter what little you touch it with your hands/arm.
Btw: It's so tiring that we have do digest everything according to rules and debate rules rather than football. We've just moved from feelings of the moment to a debate of inches and rules.
Last edited:
It’s a debate because it favoured England. We know this.
Too funny. Hits both his arms before going to Kane. Might as well have picked up the ball and put it down infront of Kane.Well, most sane people, who take a look at Saka touching the ball with his hand will be convinced by the rules that it isn't a pen. Even british people here saying it's soft if that was given against United. Soft = 50/50. 50/50 = not enough for VAR-room to take it up as it's not clear and obvious.
Anyways: You argue for the rules. The rules would have cancelled the penalty as Saka's arm touches the ball. 1 out of 2 handball touches from him is easy to be seen in the video above.
If you go for a 50%-50% ball with a high foot and studs showing, you're endangering the opponent and it's foul and a yellow whether you make contact with the player or not. Never mind coming second, missing the ball and your studs making contact with the opponent. Them's the rules and have been for a while.
Last edited:
I thought it was an obvious penalty. Kane strikes the ball, Dumfries is coming in with his foot in the air and his studs showing.
I don’t get why this is so controversial, he’s extended his leg in studs first and the ball is no longer there and he’s taken the player who’s played the ball. It’s always a foul.
And you think it’s a penalty because it favoured England. We know this.