I felt like the intent was a block, not to win the ball. It didn't impede the passage of play and it wasn't dangerous play (yes studs were up, but it was an attempt at a block not a tackle). I don't think it should have been a penalty but I can also see why it was given.
Was it a penalty?
- Thread starter tentan
- Start date
Turn his foot to the side to use the instep or outside of his foot. Can’t believe you’re still having this argument hours ago when your basis ignores physiology and thousands of other attempted blocks that don’t result in penalties
The very definition of a studs up challenge is one where you're leading with the studs. Dumfries is leading with the studs. To dispute that, is to dispute the very fabric of reality here.
His studs are aimed at the ball, but behind the ball is Kane's foot because Kane is first to the ball and he's kicking it goalwards. The studs don't have to aim towards the torso or body, if your studs risk contact with any part of the player you're endangering them. And there was literally contact with between Dumfries studs and the top of Kane's foot and it's Kane who could have broken a foot here. Dumfries is in no danger from Kane who's lacing the ball, it's Kane who's in danger from Dumfries studs. So what are you even disputing here?
@acnumber9 is basically sticking his fingers in his ears and ignoring now. Thinks it’s physically impossible to tackle without showing studs.
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
That's neither here nor there, if you can't get there without studs first you really have to get the ball and nothing else.
Somewhat soft but definitely a foul and therefore a pen.
if it happens in the centre circle it’s given 99 times out of 100.
high and leading with studs - regardless of force, the dangling nature (laughable), Kane having more momentum or the fact the ball is already played - means you are asking for trouble.
Wouldn’t bother me if it wasn’t given as there’s an element of refs discretion but arguing it simply can’t be a foul is daft.
if it happens in the centre circle it’s given 99 times out of 100.
high and leading with studs - regardless of force, the dangling nature (laughable), Kane having more momentum or the fact the ball is already played - means you are asking for trouble.
Wouldn’t bother me if it wasn’t given as there’s an element of refs discretion but arguing it simply can’t be a foul is daft.
But he did use the outside of his foot. I can’t believe you can’t use your eyes and see the angle the ball is coming from.
England fans really are the Liverpool fans of the international stage.
It’s not studs first though.
Does that include the Dutch and German people saying it was an alright decision?
Or the countless others who don’t think it was. Including Lee Dixon. And he’s the most biased twat you could ever come across.
So you’re saying that you used your eyes and ascertained that Dumfries was in fact leading with the side of his foot and not with the studs? And you’re calling out other people’s eyesight?
Last edited:
So you’re saying the you used your eyes and ascertained that Dumfries was in fact leading with the side of his foot and not with the studs? And you’re calling out other people’s eyesight?
He’s ignoring the picture too that I tagged him in. It’s either some epic level trolling now, or epic myopia. I give up
It's one of those decisions, like the handball against Denmark, that seems like the trend to football more robotic and remove any leeway for errors from defenders. Defenders really have to walk on thin ice now in the box as context is completely removed from decisions and everything is looked at from the lense of 'contact = foul'.
Dumfries was trying to block the shot, Kane got a clean connection to the ball, what was completely uneffected by Dumfries, and got touched after the shot.
It's stuff like this that makes me laugh when people talk about how great past defenders, even the likes of Rio and Nesta, were compared to today. The amount those defenders were allowed to get away with was much more than defenders are allowed today.
Dumfries was trying to block the shot, Kane got a clean connection to the ball, what was completely uneffected by Dumfries, and got touched after the shot.
It's stuff like this that makes me laugh when people talk about how great past defenders, even the likes of Rio and Nesta, were compared to today. The amount those defenders were allowed to get away with was much more than defenders are allowed today.
Wasnt there one earlier in the tournament that the ref went to the screen and stuck with the original decision? I was genuinely shocked as never happens!
Lunge = a sudden forward thrust of the body, typically with an arm outstretched to attack someone or seize something. So ticks all the boxes for a lunge.
Like I said you don't have to go in studs up when challenging, it's dangerous play. Kane didn't have his studs up.
Don't appreciate the comment, if you're upset I called you out on it, then just don't do it. Criticise the post not the poster Caf rules!
Any better angles on Saka’s handball yet? Genuinely can’t see it hit his hand in the videos I’ve seen.
Edit: Spotted it now. Took me ages to the point I was convinced I was crazy.
Edit: Spotted it now. Took me ages to the point I was convinced I was crazy.
Half the people you are arguing with are likely anything but England fans.
That comment likely says much more about your own bias on the topic.
I just don’t understand how anyone thinks that is 100% not a penalty. It’s dangerous play. Doesn’t matter if it’s happened due to a follow through, Kane is striking the ball and Dumfries has his studs up and leg raised in extreme close proximity. He’s going for the ball and doesnt get there, hence it’s a foul.
The yellow is correct too, there’s no intent, but it is sloppy. And he’s not denied a goal scoring opportunity. Pretty bang on the money with the decision. The moment it’s in VAR, that was always going to be the only decision to happen.
Netherlands were really sloppy in their challenges yesterday and I’m surprised they didn’t pick up more yellows.
The yellow is correct too, there’s no intent, but it is sloppy. And he’s not denied a goal scoring opportunity. Pretty bang on the money with the decision. The moment it’s in VAR, that was always going to be the only decision to happen.
Netherlands were really sloppy in their challenges yesterday and I’m surprised they didn’t pick up more yellows.
Stonewaller. Lucky it wasn't a red tbh
Have you ever played football?
Classic
Firstly the block has not much to do with it. Reaching for the ball with studs first, while in vicinity of players, is endangering them and a foul in all rule books. He was obviously in vicinity as their legs clashed and his studs could have got Kane injured there.
Secondly people keep saying that this is a block as some sort of excuse (which it isn't) but there's a very clear difference between a block and a tackle. An attempt at a block means an attempt to get between the ball and its target (such as another player or as in this case the goal) as it's travelling towards it.
If you're trying to get to the ball before it gets struck by the other player then, it's indistinguishable from a tackle and it's treated as a tackle. Now look at the video again and tell me this: Does it look like Dumfries would have kicked the ball, if Kane hadn't kicked it first? If not, then it's an attempt at a block. But if yes, then it's indistinguishable from any other tackle and it's a tackle. Personally, I see that Dumfries would have pinched the ball if Kane hadn't kicked it and it was an attempt getting at the ball first, but he got there late. A.k.a a late, high tackle that made contact with the opponent after the opponent made contact with the ball.
Not a penalty for me (split second contact only perceptible by VAR and after the shot so therefore not influencing the play).
Nevertheless, the thing that really bothers me is how they totally fecked up VAR implementation in a way that I can't think is basic incompetence anymore but by design. What is a stonewall penalty in Germany - Denmark isn't anymore in Germany - Spain. This penalty probably won't be a penalty in another game and VAR will be happily used to justify it. Same with red cards, aggressions, etc.
8 years of absolutely evident failure in implementation and they haven't done anything to try and fix it. VAR at this point is a little more than a shield for the referee in order to justify any decision independent on the criteria or the rules no one cares for anymore.
Just imitate rugby or tennis (IMO the last one works perfectly) and while we're doing that impose mandatory yellow cards for simulation. That plus stop clock should improve the sport in no time.
Nevertheless, the thing that really bothers me is how they totally fecked up VAR implementation in a way that I can't think is basic incompetence anymore but by design. What is a stonewall penalty in Germany - Denmark isn't anymore in Germany - Spain. This penalty probably won't be a penalty in another game and VAR will be happily used to justify it. Same with red cards, aggressions, etc.
8 years of absolutely evident failure in implementation and they haven't done anything to try and fix it. VAR at this point is a little more than a shield for the referee in order to justify any decision independent on the criteria or the rules no one cares for anymore.
Just imitate rugby or tennis (IMO the last one works perfectly) and while we're doing that impose mandatory yellow cards for simulation. That plus stop clock should improve the sport in no time.
It's such a ridiculous notion that I have to wonder.
Dead set penalty. Studs up high tackle. How could it be anything else?
Nope. Not a pen.
The question is whether Dumfries should have had his leg up in this first place, because high boot challenges are by definition fouls. Yes, Kane's boot is also up, but he is not moving to the ball, and he's actually waiting for it to come down. Dumfries comes charging in, pretty recklessly, and that forces Kane to shoot upwardly. He's not in control of what he's doing, whereas Kane is.
I was watching it on ESPN in Spanish and the commentators cautiously agreed that it was a penalty.
I think in England where high boots are more acceptable, it doesn't get called, but in Europe and Latin America they always give fouls for those challenges. As the competition is taking place in Germany, that is going to be the natural interpretation of the rules.
Last edited:
Watch where the ball is coming from. He’s standing side on to Kane. The side of his foot is towards Kane. Unless he could somehow be standing side on and aiming his studs at Kane.So you’re saying that you used your eyes and ascertained that Dumfries was in fact leading with the side of his foot and not with the studs? And you’re calling out other people’s eyesight?
You should.He’s ignoring the picture too that I tagged him in. It’s either some epic level trolling now, or epic myopia. I give up
You don't think kicking the bottom of someone's boot at full force is going to hurt?
Your definition proves it wasn’t a lunge. You’re trying to create trouble for a very innocuous comment.
And yet the English media, not exactly known for being impartial also didn’t think so. Knock yourself out if you think it’s a penalty. You have people here acting like thinking by otherwise is ridiculous when it’s anything but.
He rolls around like a gimp for half of every game he plays, when he's not busy trying to give people spinal injuries when they go up for a header. Painful to watch.
Ok sure thing.
Not trying anything, you made a crass uncalled for comment.
This really isn’t pne of those cases. Approaching the ball and/or another player with the studs first was introduced as a separate rule because of repeated incidences of horrible injuries. It’s always a freekick and there need not even be contact. It is called dangerous play and is anninfringent in itself, for good reason.The space for discretion in a case such as Dumfries here, is not wether it is a foul, which it is 100/100. It is wether the card should be yellow or red. I was worried yesterday that he was going to get redcarded, as I like The Netherlands and was 50/50 on who I rooted for, and because the VAR ref and ref could easily feel they were under obligation to show red. To me, the foot was skewed enough, he stopped the lunge enough for it not to warrant a red, and I do think there is a problem with the double penalty of pen and red card on top of each other. Then again, we’ve seen players sent off many times for going in on the ball with leading studs like that. To me, yellow was more than enough.
Claiming it should not have been a penalty, like Carragher/Neville, is not really knowing the rules (which they don’t) and speaking from an extremely short sighted, egotistical perspective as a defender wanting to be able to it the easiest way without thinking about how exactly that type of challenges have led to so many injuries and also serious injuries.
I’m amazed you’ve survived on the internet.
No self pity here. I’m absolutely buzzing. It was a soft peno and I thought it was really harsh. But let’s be honest, the outage wouldn’t be as strong in certain quarters if the situation had been reversed.
No, the outrage would be from entirely different quarters! But that's the joy of it all!
I dare say that the decision would be backed as ‘correct’ by the very same individuals claiming it’s a huge injustice, today.