studs showing, so yes.
Was it a penalty?
- Thread starter tentan
- Start date
Are you suggesting that football fans have biases towards certain other teams?
That's an outrageous suggestion with no basis in reality.
I wouldn’t dream of it
very soft penalty. although i could see why its given. i think England have been very lucky to get this far in the tournament and i was rooting for Netherlands to win - said that, even with out the penalty, i thought England was going to score. they just had better players on the ball.
Carry on with your head in the sand. Like I said Caf rules, attack the post not the poster. Crass uncalled for comment, regardless of how you try to pass it off as normal it isn't. Bigger person would admit they were wrong, but I can see it wont happen. Enjoy your day...
It’s a genuinely nothing comment. Enjoy your day.
Yes, in the main, totally, and vice versa. But not me, I am a paragon of objectivity.
Of course it was. As Harry said, his foot was hanging off but being the brave lionhearted captain he is, he soldiered on.
It doesn’t matter at all where his studs are in relation to Kanes’ torso and I have absolutely no idea why you think it does, unless you’re trolling.
He’s not aiming his studs at Kane, he’s aiming his studs at the ball. His leg movement is towards the ball. In fact both players are going for the ball, from different angles, but one player is going for it with his laces while other is going for it with his studs. Kane gets there first and in the aftermath Dumfries’ studs end up on Kane’s laces, precisely because he reached for the ball studs first. Which makes it a “studs up” challenge, a foul, a penalty (in this case) and a yellow.
I don’t believe he’s actively going for the ball. He’s raised a leg to try to block the shot. The only way to do that is the way he did it. There is nothing in the rules about ‘studs up’. For it to be a foul he needs to have done one of the following:
- 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
which of these has Dumfries done?
I’ve wasted enough time on this thread. Hopefully Spain don’t get a soft penalty on Sunday.
Do I not like that penalty decision.
It's a FK and a yellow anywhere else on the pitch probably. I think it's a touch too late to complain about, but if I'm the defender in that position I know I'm going to get blasted by Koeman if I don't go full blooded into that tackle.
Harsh, but probably right call by the letter of the law. But there is definitely a grey area with the consequences of those last ditch tackles in the area by defenders. If the defender gets a shot off and misses, a penalty seems like too harsh a punishment. Maybe indirect FK would be more fitting.
I feel the same way for most handball offenses too these days. Unless it's a full on blocking the ball on the line like Suarez obviously.
Maybe the definition of what constitutes a penalty needs to be changed ie blatant trips / fouls / denial of goal scoring opportunities only?
Harsh, but probably right call by the letter of the law. But there is definitely a grey area with the consequences of those last ditch tackles in the area by defenders. If the defender gets a shot off and misses, a penalty seems like too harsh a punishment. Maybe indirect FK would be more fitting.
I feel the same way for most handball offenses too these days. Unless it's a full on blocking the ball on the line like Suarez obviously.
Maybe the definition of what constitutes a penalty needs to be changed ie blatant trips / fouls / denial of goal scoring opportunities only?
England were the better team and deserved to win, I don't really see how anyone can cry about injustice, but for the sake of the game it kind of sucks. The same with the handball decisions- it's just pedantic rubbish over common sense that ten years ago wouldn't even merit discussion but now feels like manufactured VAR controversy.
With this and a million other decisions i've seen over the past few years (see the Dalot 'penalty' vs Chelsea) we're at a stage now where the softest contact with the attacker that doesn't result in a winning of the ball results in a penalty, even, in this case, if the ball is long gone and the forward actually kicks the foot of the defender who is trying to block a shot. In the Dalot scenario there wasn't even any actual contact, he just made a mistake, tried to rectify it and was punished for the mistake rather than committing an actual foul. It feels like defenders are actually punished for trying to defend sometimes.
With this and a million other decisions i've seen over the past few years (see the Dalot 'penalty' vs Chelsea) we're at a stage now where the softest contact with the attacker that doesn't result in a winning of the ball results in a penalty, even, in this case, if the ball is long gone and the forward actually kicks the foot of the defender who is trying to block a shot. In the Dalot scenario there wasn't even any actual contact, he just made a mistake, tried to rectify it and was punished for the mistake rather than committing an actual foul. It feels like defenders are actually punished for trying to defend sometimes.
No, that's exactly what we want to see.
I was surprised it was given, because players seem to get clattered and wiped out immediately after taking a shot all the time, and in much more egregious ways than Harry Kane did last night, but they're pretty much never given.
This is how I see it.
There's basically an unwritten rule that things can be fouls outside of the box but not inside the box. It's why you see fouls called for slight nudges outside of the box, but not given inside because "there wasn't enough contact". As you say, handballs are another.
Indirect free-kicks or some new hockey-esque penalty corner seem a better option than an actual penalty, as the latter is basically awarding a team a goal for a minor infraction, just because it happened to be inside a certain set of white lines.
Penalties should really only be for actively preventing attempts on goal, either by illegally blocking a shot with your hands/arms (whether accidental or otherwise), or fouling a player before he can take a shot or set up a teammate.
At the time and at full speed it didn't look like a penalty, so I totally get how the Dutch feel aggrieved. I think it was given because of the angle that Dumfries approached Kane. If he came from the side or was parallel with Kane and stretched out a leg it would be purely a "blocking" move and any contact with the strikers leg as he follows through the ball would be a neutral physical clash - No foul.
However because Dumfries went directly towards Kane "head on" and stretched out his leg with Studs showing it can be considered a reckless or dangerous tackle. I think Dumfries also made it look worse by turning his back towards Kane at the last moment, making it look even more like he was "out of control" than if he went in face-forward.
The "Saka handball" angle from behind Kane makes it actually look a far worse tackle from Dumfries and shows Dumfries lunging towards Kane. If anything it strengthens the argument for a penalty to be given.
However because Dumfries went directly towards Kane "head on" and stretched out his leg with Studs showing it can be considered a reckless or dangerous tackle. I think Dumfries also made it look worse by turning his back towards Kane at the last moment, making it look even more like he was "out of control" than if he went in face-forward.
The "Saka handball" angle from behind Kane makes it actually look a far worse tackle from Dumfries and shows Dumfries lunging towards Kane. If anything it strengthens the argument for a penalty to be given.
The more replays I've seen, the more ridiculous it is that it was given 
Yeah totally agreed, the definition of a penalty being a "foul inside the 18 yard box" is potentially what the issue is, not the lawmakers trying to define what severity of handball / foul is deemed a penalty. That is too subjective.
The probability of scoring from an indirect FK / hockey style corner as you put it, is probably the same as scoring from a cross that just happens to hit a defenders hand.
Obviously, if it's like a cross to a player standing all on his own, let's take Hojlund's headed goal vs Galatasary at home as an example. If the defender handballs that, it's clearly a penalty, because otherwise Hojlund has a great chance of nodding it in.
But a cross that is just being clipped into an area, like Germany's penalty vs Denmark, clearly falls into the indirect FK area.
Those 50/50 lunges defenders make to block a shot should be treated the same.
I do. Just like all the negative comments. Things like “at least the final has one team that tries to play football”. Like the final would’ve been better with Holland in it…..after they just parked the bus for 70% of the semi final and only really posed a threat for most of it through set pieces.
Good call. Should always be given imo.
Never a pen but Harry sold it beautifully
We got a penalty against us for Onana doing something similar. And the time when he did this and the penalty wasn’t given, the world went mad.
Mainoo's first action in this video is a challenge for the ball with his studs showing. Did the ref make a mistake by not giving a foul?
You think we werent lucky? We finished our group 3rd and played Romania and Turkey on the way to the semi's.
Right, it was not even close to a foul. The point I'm trying to make is that irrespective of this penalty incident, challenging for the ball with studs showing is not automatically a foul.
Even in this short video Mainoo goes in with studs showing at least twice. The first in a direct challenge for the ball, later in an attempt to block. Neither of them fouls.
Challenging isn't but contact usually is. Like I said, it outcome led.
Like, the way bicycle kick is a foul if someone's head is nearby whether you see them or not. So the exact same action by the player can both be a foul and not be a foul.
If the ref calls that, I still hate it but fair enough. But for VAR to intervene in such a minimal contact? It reminds me of those 2020-2021ish VAR decision all across Europe. Penalties of people stepping on other people's foot, slight shirt tugs etc.
If Dumfries got to the ball first and cleared it then Kane kicked his foot it would be a Dutch foul and no one would argue otherwise.
Yep this is bang on. It's the same category as the borderline red card challenges that happen and then an offside is called and no one looks at it again unless the attacker is actually hurt.
That was not luck. That was all part of our masterplan.
Quoting this for later chuckles.
If the Dutch player had fallen down, he well might have but the only contact he made was with the ball.
Just not true. It would also have been a debate if England wasnt favoured. All the 'it is a stonewall penalty' claims here would be 'that is never a pen!' claims instead.
That penalty situation will 99 out of a 100 times not be a penalty. Players get clattered and taken out after a shot all the time and no ref or var bats an eye.
England had bad luck in tournaments before. You got some luck now. No need for the poor old England everyone is against us routine. Over 90 minutes England deserved the win. It is a shame that the penalty is part of the win. England played very well the first 45 minutes and deserved to score a goal out of normal play instead of out of a dubious and certainly debate penalty.
Yes. Atleast you are honest about it. It is not the first time a referee makes a very debateable decision and it also wont be the last. Enjoy it because next time it could be against you. Like situations that happend to England in the past.
i hope it comes home come on england
50-50
It was a soft penalty.
It was a soft penalty.
Penalty all day long and twice in Sundays
I really can’t understand folk’s disagreement with the decision?
Studs were up, end of really
I really can’t understand folk’s disagreement with the decision?
Studs were up, end of really