I haven't seen any replays but the Fulham player apparently went down like a sackofshit when Cancelo nudged him.

I disagree, it is outrageous. He puts that standing foot back on the floor and isn’t even off balance, then kicks out both feet and falls to the ground. It’s what Salah’s been doing for years, and it’s a joke that it’s being enabled by officials.

https://dubz.co/v/6zjb61

Went for the shoulder, barged him in the back. Clear red

The way the Fulham players reacted I didn’t even think it was contentious at the time tbh. Definitely was looking for it though.

comment by Bãleš left boot (U22081)
posted 1 minute ago
https://dubz.co/v/6zjb61

Went for the shoulder, barged him in the back. Clear red
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Yeah no issues with that.

comment by Lisandro The King Martinez (U10026)
posted 2 minutes ago
I disagree, it is outrageous. He puts that standing foot back on the floor and isn’t even off balance, then kicks out both feet and falls to the ground. It’s what Salah’s been doing for years, and it’s a joke that it’s being enabled by officials.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I feel like you're mad about different things that aren't in the rule book. Maybe they should be, but drawing a foul and how you react to a foul aren't in there. The only thing that matters is if it's a foul at all. Salah was doing it all the time with no contact

comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 1 minute ago
The way the Fulham players reacted I didn’t even think it was contentious at the time tbh. Definitely was looking for it though.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Probably because he knows the useless officials will give a pen for any contact, even when it’s not a foul.

But it wasn’t a foul, it was a dive. And Salah made an art form out of doing this when touched as well.

It's not a foul in your opinion but kicking the standing leg while a player is on the turn can reasonably be seen as one.

Because of poor officiating.

I don't think either of them were penalties, although definitely open to interpretation so City were more hard done by as theirs resulted in them having to play most of the game with ten men.

Because of the subjectivity of what constitutes too much contact in a contact sport. Like I say, if that's a little bit harder there's no debate right? If the defender misses kdb by an inch there's no debate either

comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 1 minute ago
I don't think either of them were penalties, although definitely open to interpretation so City were more hard done by as theirs resulted in them having to play most of the game with ten men.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You don't think this is a pen? https://dubz.co/v/6zjb61

Blimey

Just seen it. That’s an absolute shocker of a decision

Yes if there was enough force to constitute a foul I’d agree it was a foul. But there clearly wasn’t as he puts his standing foot down and isn’t off balance. Obviously fouls are subjective regarding force, but this idea that ‘contact’ means a foul is ridiculous. Especially as it’s not applied when outside the box, which is what makes it even more stupid because the consequences are far worse for contact in the box.

There's clearly not enough force to knock KDB to the ground which means he has literally simulated that there is. That's simulation which means a booking but not sure how that fits in with the pen. Personally I don't think it has impeded KDB one iota.

The Cancelo one is a clear foul. Not sure I agree with red cards AND penalties but that's the rules.

Robbing

I don’t think challenges like Cancelo’s should be a red either, even though it’s the law says if there’s no attempt to play the ball it should be.

comment by Robbing Hoody (U6374)
posted 5 minutes ago
There's clearly not enough force to knock KDB to the ground which means he has literally simulated that there is. That's simulation which means a booking but not sure how that fits in with the pen. Personally I don't think it has impeded KDB one iota.

The Cancelo one is a clear foul. Not sure I agree with red cards AND penalties but that's the rules.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
pretty much my thoughts

comment by Lisandro The King Martinez (U10026)
posted 18 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 1 minute ago
The way the Fulham players reacted I didn’t even think it was contentious at the time tbh. Definitely was looking for it though.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Probably because he knows the useless officials will give a pen for any contact, even when it’s not a foul.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Which is why it’s rubbish defending too.

It's odd because I thought they said they are allowing MORE contact, or at least a higher threshold to be a foul, not less.

Certainly looks that way everywhere else on the pitch.

comment by Lisandro The King Martinez (U10026)
posted 6 minutes ago
Yes if there was enough force to constitute a foul I’d agree it was a foul. But there clearly wasn’t as he puts his standing foot down and isn’t off balance. Obviously fouls are subjective regarding force, but this idea that ‘contact’ means a foul is ridiculous. Especially as it’s not applied when outside the box, which is what makes it even more stupid because the consequences are far worse for contact in the box.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Would you think differently if:
a) he played for a different club
and
b) he'd broken his run into a limp instead of throwing himself to the floor?

I mean, I totally understand what you're getting at, put I don't think going to ground is what makes it a foul ... I'd look more at whether the player's ability to play the ball is impeded ... 'kicking another player gently' isn't one of the permitted types of contact either ...

I could see why someone would be against the penalty being given, but I can also see why it could be given. I don't think it's such a black and white situation.

*ground

To an extent, but then you’ve got to consider that KDB has quick feet, so it’s not simply poor defending. Unless you are suggesting to people play a different sport when the ball is in the box, which is kind of what this contact thing is encouraging - basically making it non contact.

ioag, no I wouldn’t. Have had issues with this for years, regardless of who it is that is benefiting.

I could understand it if he was being impeded, but I don’t think he is.

But even still, and I think I’ve mentioned it before, I don’t think simply impeded should constitute a pen anyway. I don’t think the punishment fits the crime. In a low scoring sport like football I don’t think it should be easier to get a penalty than a free kick, but that’s essentially what it’s becoming.

comment by Robbing Hoody (U6374)
posted 11 minutes ago
There's clearly not enough force to knock KDB to the ground which means he has literally simulated that there is. That's simulation which means a booking but not sure how that fits in with the pen. Personally I don't think it has impeded KDB one iota.

The Cancelo one is a clear foul. Not sure I agree with red cards AND penalties but that's the rules.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Simulation refers to pretending you've been fouled, not pretending that a foul had more force than it did. For good reason too, we'd never get to the end of that. And we all know there's plenty of valid fouls that don't require being knocked off your feet.