Was it a penalty?

[FootballHQ]

Watched the BBC replay of the match just before going to bed and had a good look at it. Ball is in the air so not like Dumfries can do anything else but lift his foot up to try to block the shot. Dumfries just keeps his foot still and Kane follows through and kicks him pretty much.

To me it's a natural collision rather than a clear and obvious error and amazed he was sent to the monitor.

 

[MadMike]

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.

Yes, England were lucky because there was a handball in the build up and it should have been given but it didn't get picked up by VAR. Yes, if the VAR reviews a sequence of play leading to a potential penalty they should check for all possible infringements in the immediate build up to the incident too. England did get lucky.

But was that the point you were making 5 mins ago? I felt you were making a different point, that Dumphries didn't commit a foul.

 

[90 + 5min]

That has to be the worst decision I have ever seen. Dumfries got a yellow as well. Dumbfounded.

That is no penalty and never will be. Amazing to give it. Shocking. Premier League level of referee. If that was Gillardino or Inzaghi or Pires there would not be talk about it. But because it is Harry Kane it is different.

 

[whitbyviking]

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.

No, but you can have your foot in the air with your studs pointing away or in a safer direction than straight at the other player. As is evidenced in thousands of tackles

 

[kaku06]

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.

High foot and studs showing. You make it sound like it was a dangerous play. Endangering the opponent? How? High foot where? In the air? Away from Kane? In a different direction to Kane’s body? So dangerous that Kane had to reach for the contact with his follow through and still barely caught it. Please tell me how it was endangering the opponent.

 

[acnumber9]

No, but you can have your foot in the air with your studs pointing away or in a safer direction than straight at the other player. As is evidenced in thousands of tackles

They weren’t straight at Kane though, that’s the point. They’re at the ball.

 

[Red Star One]

I have little love for this Dutch team but for me it was never a pen and they got royally fecked. If this was given against England, also with the mishandling in the buildup, many of you would be appalled by this decision. Football, eh, even with VARs we’re never going to be 100% accurate

 

[Annihilate Now!]

It's never a penalty, it's a natural coming together.

Kane kicks into Dumfries just as much as the other way around

 

[Cassidy]

It's never a penalty, it's a natural coming together.

Kane kicks into Dumfries just as much as the other way around

Fixed it for you

 

[moses]

It’s a debate because it favoured England. We know this.

Don't be so sensitive.

There are always debates. The debate is a) because it's a soft penalty and b) because everyone hates VAR and then whether it was a clear an obvious mistake.

While watching the game I wasn't surprised it wasn't given but did say it was a foul. So when VAR was called it was clear for me. But that said it's a debatable decision so stop with the self pity.

 

[golden_blunder]

Personal opinion - no
But what’s done is done. Crack on

 

[Eric_the_Red99]

It’s a debate because it favoured England. We know this.

If England had gone out due to a dodgy VAR decision we would never have heard the end of it again. The public pressure to scrap VAR, driven by the media, would reach critical levels. MPs would be raising it in Parliament.

 

[Kopral Jono]

Yes, German commentators and fans alike have a huge bias towards England

Why?

 

[Ish]

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.

FFS, how have i completely forgotten about the "snicko-meter" fiasco. And it seems like it might actually have even touched both of Saka's hands

 

[Wilt]

Hard cheese (Edam)

 

[siw2007]

I would say no, it’s a harsh decision. I get why it was given though as you shouldn’t be challenging for the ball if your foot is that high. It would be ok if it was applied consistently but I think this is one of the first times I’ve seen given as a penalty.

 

[NotoriousISSY]

I couldn’t believe it was given, but I’m also not surprised it was given in a UEFA tournament.

 

[vic090482]

Absolutely outrageous decision! That was never a penalty.

 

[MadMike]

High foot and studs showing. You make it sound like it was a dangerous play. Endangering the opponent? How? High foot where? In the air? Away from Kane? In a different direction to Kane’s body? So dangerous that Kane had to reach for the contact with his follow through and still barely caught it. Please tell me how it was endangering the opponent.

Mate, are you ok? You're asking how and why going studs up, for a 50/50 ball, that is waist high, is considered dangerous play in 2024?

 

[Lash]

Never a pen, outrageous it went to VAR, but sometimes luck is on your side. It did completely change the game though at that point, so as an England fan, I am happy it was given.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Mate, are you ok? You're asking how and why going studs up, for a 50/50 ball, that is waist high, is considered dangerous play in 2024?

He wasn’t “studs up”. The studs were always pointing down. The natural way for studs to point. He didn’t go for the ball. He tried to block a shot. Finally, what has waist high got to do with anything? The hight of the ball is only relevant if there’s a risk of kicking someone in the head.

You seem to have got a lot of details wrong here.

 

[Ekeke]

You might get a freekick for that outside the box. You'll rarely get a penalty for it.

Kane's momentum kicking the ball hit Dumfries. When an attacker is the one initiating contact its not a foul

 

[gfactor86]

The more I watch it, the more I think that it may be the worst decision I have ever seen. To give that as a penalty in such a high profile match is nothing short of disgraceful.

 

[slyadams]

I'm going to say its a soft penalty, but its a foul in the box so its a penalty. Arguing the bar for a foul in the box should be higher is crazy, we're already frustrated about consistency in decisions and now some are claiming there should be another judgement the referee has to make: "well, its a foul, but is it enough of a foul". This is basically asking for more inconsistency.

Its hard to say you should be able to make a waist high challenge, not got the ball and then be appalled a foul is given. If this happened in the center circle everyone accepts it's a foul and move on. To suggest this is the "worst decision even made" is, frankly, idiotic hyperbole.

 

[ROFLUTION]

Yes, England were lucky because there was a handball in the build up and it should have been given but it didn't get picked up by VAR. Yes, if the VAR reviews a sequence of play leading to a potential penalty they should check for all possible infringements in the immediate build up to the incident too. England did get lucky.

But was that the point you were making 5 mins ago? I felt you were making a different point, that Dumphries didn't commit a foul.

I stand by both my points - Even without the handball, the penalty is highly debatable - every media, every forum is debating it. Of course there is a difference between people and actual law - but if you just think of it like 1 ref on field who doesn't give it, and 2 or 3 VAR-refs in the booth who gives it. Then it's either 25% or 50% who's not thinking it's clear and obvious.

Edit: After doing 5 minutes of research on official websites then it's still not clear for me whether a VAR-review requires 2 or 3 VAR-referees voices in the vote. Anyone who can shed a light on how many of the 3 VAR-refs in the booth that is needed for them to call the referee on pitch out for a review?

Edit 2: Even if the law (VAR room) is to be called gospel, VAR just needs transparency for it not to be corrupt. How can we really know a ref refererees according to law or what he is told/paid? We can't really unless they're held accountable. (Which is why I hate VAR in the first place. It's only pseudo transparency with weak explanations or not from the people in the actual booth).

 

[Drz]

50/50 so contact is a given, both going for it, one got there first. Never a foul in my mind.

 

[MadMike]

He wasn’t “studs up”. The studs were always pointing down. The natural way for studs to point. He didn’t go for the ball. He tried to block a shot. Finally, what has waist high got to do with anything? The hight of the ball is only relevant if there’s a risk of kicking someone in the head.

You seem to have got a lot of details wrong here.

No, I feel pretty sure that I got the details right and you have an entirely different interpretation of common football vernacular.

This is what a studs up challenge is

Source: referee circular on FIFA instructions

Pretty confident that below is a studs up challenge based on the definition

 

[slyadams]

Regarding the handball, its not an offense under the rules. Distance is not a mitigating factor of a handball being deliberate if the referee considers a players hand has made their body unaturally bigger. In this case if the referee considers the hands are in a natural position then distance is a mitigating factor and can therefore be deemed accidental.

 

[kaku06]

Mate, are you ok? You're asking how and why going studs up, for a 50/50 ball, that is waist high, is considered dangerous play in 2024?

Knew it. Let me ask you again, Dumfries tries to block the shot with his foot which is away from Kane’s body and is in the direction of the ball. Kane takes the shot and catches Dumfries boot not Dumfries catches Kane in his follow through. Now explain to me again, how Dumfries is endangering the opponent?

 

[Pogue Mahone]

No, I feel pretty sure that I got the details right and you have an entirely different interpretation of common football vernacular.

This is what a studs up challenge is

Source: referee circular on FIFA instructions

Pretty confident that below is a studs up challenge based on the definition

It wasn’t a tackle though. We all know what a studs up challenge is. It’s a potential leg breaker. Very different to the attempted block last night.

 

[moses]

It wasn’t a tackle though.

It was an attempt at one, and the way he placed his leg was causing potential danger to the other player. Which is the way the rule is worded. In other words, you can't just dangle a leg in and hope for the best. Like a lot of football laws, the decision is outcome-based, you have to get the ball.

 

[slyadams]

It wasn’t a tackle though. We all know what studs up challenge is. That isn’t one.

Out of interest, let's say the ball was on the floor and a defender slid in showing their studs to block. The striker hits the ball but the defenders boot, with studs pointing towards the striker, is an inch behind the ball such that the striker slams their foot into the studs. Would you consider that a foul?

 

[djembatheking]

No, I feel pretty sure that I got the details right and you have an entirely different interpretation of common football vernacular.

This is what a studs up challenge is

Source: referee circular on FIFA instructions

Pretty confident that below is a studs up challenge based on the definition

Good post, explains it clearly and pic shows him leading with his studs. I doubt there was any intent to foul Kane and he was just desperately trying to block the shot but he has gone in with studs leading which isn`t allowed .

 

[moses]

Knew it. Let me ask you again, Dumfries tries to block the shot with his foot which is away from Kane’s body and is in the direction of the ball. Kane takes the shot and catches Dumfries boot not Dumfries catches Kane in his follow through. Now explain to me again, how Dumfries is endangering the opponent?

Kane got there first, so he was late with his studs up. Kane hurt himself on the follow-through which according to the law means that Dumfries placed his foot in a position that could injure the other player, which in fairness does happen a lot, but as I said above decisions are mostly outcome-based.

 

[RedC]

It wasn't a tackle, showing still images where the ball has already left Kane's boot and his foot has travelled past the point of impact doesn't make it one. It was an attempted block in front of the point of the shot, that ended up being in the path of Kane's foot after contact.

 

[MadMike]

It wasn’t a tackle though. We all know what a studs up challenge is. It’s a potential leg breaker. Very different to the attempted block last night.

Errm no. Dumphries was not moving to get his body between Kane and the goal. He was moving to get to the ball and got there milliseconds late after Kane had kicked it. He's lunging towards Kane. Not towards where the ball will go. It's an attempted tackle that was late.

 

[moses]

The UEFA regulation specifies: "It is committed with an opponent nearby and prevents the opponent from playing the ball for fear of injury. Playing in a dangerous manner involves no physical contact between the players. If there is physical contact, the action becomes an offense punishable with a direct free kick or penalty kick."

 

[moses]

Errm no. Dumphries was not moving to get his body between Kane and the goal. He was moving to get to the ball and got there milliseconds late after Kane had kicked it. He's lunging towards Kane. Not towards where the ball will go. It's an attempted tackle that was late.

For me that's the key, a second before, he gets a bit of the ball and it's nothing.

 

[RedorDead21]

If Spain get one in the final in the same circumstances we will hear if it’s a penalty from the media or not.

 

[jesperjaap]

I thinl penalty was harsh, could argue was a foul on RIce for there first goal too though. Were some odd decisions in the game. Overall I think we were unlucky a few times more than them though and were the better side