comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Barefoot (U19770)
posted 20 minutes ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 13 minutes ago
Arsenal and Liverpool ones were both clear penalties.
Didn't see the Madisson one and really don't understand the fuss around the Wolves one. He's standing offside in front of the keeper. Clear offside.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yep basically in the bloody way. Keeper probably wasn't getting it but he may have.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Going by the laws of the game though, where's the infringement?
Keeper wasn't impeded, he could see the ball fine.
I would tend to say anyone within that close proximity to the keeper is interfering, but I don't think that's what the law says.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The player was directly in front of the keeper. 100% interfering. The only argument is, was the keeper getting it but that's possibly a moot point
comment by Barefoot (U19770)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Barefoot (U19770)
posted 20 minutes ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 13 minutes ago
Arsenal and Liverpool ones were both clear penalties.
Didn't see the Madisson one and really don't understand the fuss around the Wolves one. He's standing offside in front of the keeper. Clear offside.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yep basically in the bloody way. Keeper probably wasn't getting it but he may have.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Going by the laws of the game though, where's the infringement?
Keeper wasn't impeded, he could see the ball fine.
I would tend to say anyone within that close proximity to the keeper is interfering, but I don't think that's what the law says.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The player was directly in front of the keeper. 100% interfering. The only argument is, was the keeper getting it but that's possibly a moot point
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But that's not what the law says.
It doesn't stop with the word 'interfering'. It gives specific examples of interference, none of which really apply in this case.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Barefoot (U19770)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Barefoot (U19770)
posted 20 minutes ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 13 minutes ago
Arsenal and Liverpool ones were both clear penalties.
Didn't see the Madisson one and really don't understand the fuss around the Wolves one. He's standing offside in front of the keeper. Clear offside.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yep basically in the bloody way. Keeper probably wasn't getting it but he may have.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Going by the laws of the game though, where's the infringement?
Keeper wasn't impeded, he could see the ball fine.
I would tend to say anyone within that close proximity to the keeper is interfering, but I don't think that's what the law says.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The player was directly in front of the keeper. 100% interfering. The only argument is, was the keeper getting it but that's possibly a moot point
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But that's not what the law says.
It doesn't stop with the word 'interfering'. It gives specific examples of interference, none of which really apply in this case.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, and he was interfering with the goalkeepers line of sight. Which is one of the criteria.
You could also make a case that by backing into the goalkeeper he makes an obvious action that impacts the goalies ability to play the ball.
It was an offside.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 23 minutes ago
I'm shocked that TOOR thinks the Liverpool one was a clear penalty. Shocked, I tell you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why would you be shocked that someone thinks that a clear penalty was a clear penalty?
welshpoolfan (U7693)
I don't think at any point, the goalkeeper's line of sight was affected i.e. if you regard that as meaning that you could see the ball.
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 23 minutes ago
I'm shocked that TOOR thinks the Liverpool one was a clear penalty. Shocked, I tell you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why would you be shocked that someone thinks that a clear penalty was a clear penalty?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because it wasn't a clear penalty?
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 23 minutes ago
I'm shocked that TOOR thinks the Liverpool one was a clear penalty. Shocked, I tell you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why would you be shocked that someone thinks that a clear penalty was a clear penalty?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because it wasn't a clear penalty?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Gets nowhere near the ball and impedes the player in the penalty area. It is pretty textbook.
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 29 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 2 hours, 5 minutes ago
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 26 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 24 seconds ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 14 seconds ago
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 57 seconds ago
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 1 minute ago
Any contact? I said taking out the opponent not a slight touch.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Most slide tackles will take the player out as a consequence, so long as you get the ball first then its fair.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not if the slide tackle doesn't alter the direction or pace of the ball and the player being tackled is getting the ball easily if he wasnt impeded. That is a foul all day long.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hilarious
Like i say, contact on teh ball first is a tackle. As long as it is not excessive force and all that then if the player is taken out as a consequence then so be it. It's a contact sport and you will see multiple times a game tackles that get the ball but also take the man. How much you get the ball is not in the rules and never has been.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No but:
trips or attempts to trip
If an offence involves contact it is penalised by a direct free kick or penalty kick.
Is in the rules. Doesn't say if you get a feint touch on the ball you can trip up the opponent.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He took the player in the action of tackling and got the ball first.
If you are promoting any tackle that takes the player out is a foul then maybe football aint for you. I suggest netball may be your thing. Almost no contact although those girls can be quite vicious, so may be still a bit tough for you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fack me you are thick
Jesus knocks the ball past Lamptey, Lamptey takes Jesus out. Penalty. The fact it brushed Lamptey as it went past him is totally irrelevant. He fouled Jesus.
A fair tackle is winning the ball, not getting a brush that doesn't change its direction at all.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not sure you've seen the tackle, soft lad
Not sure ive seen the rule that says a tackle is only legitimate is you make a strong contact on the ball.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The rule makes no mention of touching the ball at all. Strong contact, soft contact. It does say if you trip the opponent you have committed a foul...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So again you're making the case that any tackle that gets the ball first but then gets the man is a foul.
Lets just make all contact a foul. Much simpler for all the pansies out there.
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 23 minutes ago
I'm shocked that TOOR thinks the Liverpool one was a clear penalty. Shocked, I tell you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why would you be shocked that someone thinks that a clear penalty was a clear penalty?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because it wasn't a clear penalty?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Gets nowhere near the ball and impedes the player in the penalty area. It is pretty textbook.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course it is.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 50 seconds ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 23 minutes ago
I'm shocked that TOOR thinks the Liverpool one was a clear penalty. Shocked, I tell you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why would you be shocked that someone thinks that a clear penalty was a clear penalty?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because it wasn't a clear penalty?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Gets nowhere near the ball and impedes the player in the penalty area. It is pretty textbook.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course it is.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes. Hence why it was given and not a single person whp saw it was surprised.
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 31 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 50 seconds ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 23 minutes ago
I'm shocked that TOOR thinks the Liverpool one was a clear penalty. Shocked, I tell you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why would you be shocked that someone thinks that a clear penalty was a clear penalty?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because it wasn't a clear penalty?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Gets nowhere near the ball and impedes the player in the penalty area. It is pretty textbook.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course it is.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes. Hence why it was given and not a single person whp saw it was surprised.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So again you're making the case that any tackle that gets the ball first but then gets the man is a foul.
Lets just make all contact a foul. Much simpler for all the pansies out there.
------
No, im saying if the ball goes past you, the player is going past you with the ball very much in playing distance and you take him out you have committed a foul regardless if you get a slight touch of the ball.
A good tackle is playing the ball in a way it is no longer in the possession of the player you are tackling. If you don't do that and then kick the opponent you have committed a foul.
The reason why the rules make no mention of getting the ball is because that is understood to be the definition of a tackle. Fair play isn't defined within the rules, foul play is, and that includes dangerous play or excessive force which may override situations where a ball is played first, like, for example, the Romero tackle vs Chelsea where he cleared the ball but his follow through was dangerous.
You havent made the case that Lamptey was dangerous or excessive force, just that he tripped the player in the action of tackling him.
We have all seen a thousand times a tackle where a player hangs out a leg, gets a toe end on the ball and the player goes over the leg. These are never fouls.
If you were saying to me that that tackle was excessive force or dangerous i'd still disagree, but I think it is wrong and dangerous to start giving fouls simply because the tackle didnt get much contact on the ball (where excessive force isnt used) .
Surely the very definition of a tackle is getting your foot to the ball before your opponent and whether that's a toe end of full contact into row z makes no difference.
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 3 minutes ago
It was careless.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh for sure, but the saving grace was contact with the ball.
If AWB tackle on Elliot got the end of his toe on the ball it would not have been a pen, even though you would call his actions careless or clumsy in the area.
1. Direct free kick
A direct free kick is awarded if a player commits any of the following offences against an opponent in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force:
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
If an offence involves contact it is penalised by a direct free kick or penalty kick.
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
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 hour, 47 minutes ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 31 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 50 seconds ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 23 minutes ago
I'm shocked that TOOR thinks the Liverpool one was a clear penalty. Shocked, I tell you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why would you be shocked that someone thinks that a clear penalty was a clear penalty?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because it wasn't a clear penalty?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Gets nowhere near the ball and impedes the player in the penalty area. It is pretty textbook.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course it is.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes. Hence why it was given and not a single person whp saw it was surprised.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Imagine thinking it wasn't a clear penalty.
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 25 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 hour, 47 minutes ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 31 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 50 seconds ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 23 minutes ago
I'm shocked that TOOR thinks the Liverpool one was a clear penalty. Shocked, I tell you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why would you be shocked that someone thinks that a clear penalty was a clear penalty?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because it wasn't a clear penalty?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Gets nowhere near the ball and impedes the player in the penalty area. It is pretty textbook.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course it is.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes. Hence why it was given and not a single person whp saw it was surprised.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Imagine thinking it wasn't a clear penalty.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
😂
I think the Liverpool one was neither a definite pen or definite non pen. Elliott was impeded but he also wasn't tripped.
I would have given it but it's a 60/40 for me.
comment by Striketeam7 - There used to be a football club over there (U18109)
posted 8 hours, 26 minutes ago
Didn’t see the Arsenal one.
Wan Bissaka was a penalty all day long, you can’t dive in and get none of the ball - Elliott tried to jump and avoid but landed on top - that is a penalty, he has impeded him.
Maddison - honestly I think the ref took into account it was that massive clogging Khunt Yates and gave Maddison a pass. Yates committed 4 fouls in 14 mins just before that and could have gone himself - he was also a proper diiick in the reverse fixture. Technically a red and had it been to another Forest player then Maddison probably would have walked, but I think the ref/VAR got that one right - but of intelligence for once
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Elliot dragged his right foot, looking for contact, then collapsed his left leg for no reason. It’s a dive.
comment by Spurtle (U1608)
posted 7 hours, 56 minutes ago
comment by Terminator1 (U1863)
posted 15 minutes ago
Hardly seen anything about Ben White. Quite possibly the worst play acting I’ve seen in the PL and deserving of retrospective punishment for bringing the game into disrepute.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
White privilege innit.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben White isn’t White
comment by burghandy (U10383)
posted 7 hours, 24 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 1 minute ago
The Lamptey one is just ridiculous.
He got contact on the ball so it's a tackle. It wasn't from behind, it wasnt player then ball, it wasnt over the ball and high or an aggressive OTT follow-through.
I am not sure where in the rules it says that you have to make a full contact with the ball. If that was cleared into row z with the same contact on the player then how is that any more or any less of a foul.
When penalties are given "contact" is often enough to
deem it as a foul, even when such contact is minimal or really not causing the player to tumble. That contact on the ball should have been viewed as enough for it to be deemed as a legit tackle.
Elliot - Yes he bought that one but a silly silly dive in by the defender who was asking for it. Never going to be over-ruled and will probably be given by the ref 9 times out of 10.
Maddison. Lucky boy! Yates is a detestable hacker of a player and most would like to stick one on him, but that was a clear punch from Madders and should have seenAs they said on MOTD, if that's Romero that's a red.
Speaking of which there was another tackle in that game on Johnson where the high follow through caught him on the knee and led to him hobbling off. Again, if that's a Romero tackle or someone else with a reputation then that's a
Seems like VAR has 'raised the bar' again with VAR not intervening so much, so we are back to poor inconsistent decisions by refs.
What is also obvious to me is that preconception and reputation carry a lot of weight in referees decision making. Not just individuals but teams. As a result, similar/identical incidents involving different teams and individuals will get different outcomes and this what annoys me most about referees.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Agree Devon, for me that Lamptey one is the most shocking decision, clearly won the ball, I can't believe it wasn't overturned.
Agree about Wan-Bissaka diving in, that was stupid to do that but still the replays show that Harvey dived so again I think that should have been overturned.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I can’t believe people are saying if the leg is there, Elliott is right to drag his foot to ‘trip’ over.
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson (U1282)
posted 6 hours, 41 minutes ago
Wan-Bissaka did not touch Harvey Elliot so the penalty has to be overturned.
=====
Was very soft IMO, but Bissaka never touched the ball either. Did he impede Elliot?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No, Elliott dragged his right foot to ensure there was contact. He is a young athlete. He could have easily cleared the leg had he wanted to
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 2 hours, 27 minutes ago
1. Direct free kick
A direct free kick is awarded if a player commits any of the following offences against an opponent in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force:
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
If an offence involves contact it is penalised by a direct free kick or penalty kick.
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Do are you saying that if he got full contact on the ball and se t it to roe z then it's still a pen?
comment by Terminator1 (U1863)
posted 7 hours, 17 minutes ago
Agree about Wan-Bissaka diving in, that was stupid to do that but still the replays show that Harvey dived so again I think that should have been overturned
———————
You’re contradicting yourself though. You’ve acknowledged that he dived in, once he does that in the penalty area then it’s a penalty almost every time.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no contact. Elliott bought the pen.
Sign in if you want to comment
Weekend Decisions
Page 4 of 8
6 | 7 | 8
posted on 8/4/24
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Barefoot (U19770)
posted 20 minutes ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 13 minutes ago
Arsenal and Liverpool ones were both clear penalties.
Didn't see the Madisson one and really don't understand the fuss around the Wolves one. He's standing offside in front of the keeper. Clear offside.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yep basically in the bloody way. Keeper probably wasn't getting it but he may have.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Going by the laws of the game though, where's the infringement?
Keeper wasn't impeded, he could see the ball fine.
I would tend to say anyone within that close proximity to the keeper is interfering, but I don't think that's what the law says.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The player was directly in front of the keeper. 100% interfering. The only argument is, was the keeper getting it but that's possibly a moot point
posted on 8/4/24
comment by Barefoot (U19770)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Barefoot (U19770)
posted 20 minutes ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 13 minutes ago
Arsenal and Liverpool ones were both clear penalties.
Didn't see the Madisson one and really don't understand the fuss around the Wolves one. He's standing offside in front of the keeper. Clear offside.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yep basically in the bloody way. Keeper probably wasn't getting it but he may have.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Going by the laws of the game though, where's the infringement?
Keeper wasn't impeded, he could see the ball fine.
I would tend to say anyone within that close proximity to the keeper is interfering, but I don't think that's what the law says.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The player was directly in front of the keeper. 100% interfering. The only argument is, was the keeper getting it but that's possibly a moot point
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But that's not what the law says.
It doesn't stop with the word 'interfering'. It gives specific examples of interference, none of which really apply in this case.
posted on 8/4/24
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Barefoot (U19770)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Barefoot (U19770)
posted 20 minutes ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 13 minutes ago
Arsenal and Liverpool ones were both clear penalties.
Didn't see the Madisson one and really don't understand the fuss around the Wolves one. He's standing offside in front of the keeper. Clear offside.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yep basically in the bloody way. Keeper probably wasn't getting it but he may have.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Going by the laws of the game though, where's the infringement?
Keeper wasn't impeded, he could see the ball fine.
I would tend to say anyone within that close proximity to the keeper is interfering, but I don't think that's what the law says.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The player was directly in front of the keeper. 100% interfering. The only argument is, was the keeper getting it but that's possibly a moot point
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But that's not what the law says.
It doesn't stop with the word 'interfering'. It gives specific examples of interference, none of which really apply in this case.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, and he was interfering with the goalkeepers line of sight. Which is one of the criteria.
You could also make a case that by backing into the goalkeeper he makes an obvious action that impacts the goalies ability to play the ball.
It was an offside.
posted on 8/4/24
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 23 minutes ago
I'm shocked that TOOR thinks the Liverpool one was a clear penalty. Shocked, I tell you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why would you be shocked that someone thinks that a clear penalty was a clear penalty?
posted on 8/4/24
welshpoolfan (U7693)
I don't think at any point, the goalkeeper's line of sight was affected i.e. if you regard that as meaning that you could see the ball.
posted on 8/4/24
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 23 minutes ago
I'm shocked that TOOR thinks the Liverpool one was a clear penalty. Shocked, I tell you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why would you be shocked that someone thinks that a clear penalty was a clear penalty?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because it wasn't a clear penalty?
posted on 8/4/24
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 23 minutes ago
I'm shocked that TOOR thinks the Liverpool one was a clear penalty. Shocked, I tell you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why would you be shocked that someone thinks that a clear penalty was a clear penalty?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because it wasn't a clear penalty?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Gets nowhere near the ball and impedes the player in the penalty area. It is pretty textbook.
posted on 8/4/24
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 29 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 2 hours, 5 minutes ago
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 26 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 24 seconds ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 14 seconds ago
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 57 seconds ago
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 1 minute ago
Any contact? I said taking out the opponent not a slight touch.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Most slide tackles will take the player out as a consequence, so long as you get the ball first then its fair.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not if the slide tackle doesn't alter the direction or pace of the ball and the player being tackled is getting the ball easily if he wasnt impeded. That is a foul all day long.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hilarious
Like i say, contact on teh ball first is a tackle. As long as it is not excessive force and all that then if the player is taken out as a consequence then so be it. It's a contact sport and you will see multiple times a game tackles that get the ball but also take the man. How much you get the ball is not in the rules and never has been.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No but:
trips or attempts to trip
If an offence involves contact it is penalised by a direct free kick or penalty kick.
Is in the rules. Doesn't say if you get a feint touch on the ball you can trip up the opponent.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He took the player in the action of tackling and got the ball first.
If you are promoting any tackle that takes the player out is a foul then maybe football aint for you. I suggest netball may be your thing. Almost no contact although those girls can be quite vicious, so may be still a bit tough for you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fack me you are thick
Jesus knocks the ball past Lamptey, Lamptey takes Jesus out. Penalty. The fact it brushed Lamptey as it went past him is totally irrelevant. He fouled Jesus.
A fair tackle is winning the ball, not getting a brush that doesn't change its direction at all.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not sure you've seen the tackle, soft lad
Not sure ive seen the rule that says a tackle is only legitimate is you make a strong contact on the ball.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The rule makes no mention of touching the ball at all. Strong contact, soft contact. It does say if you trip the opponent you have committed a foul...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So again you're making the case that any tackle that gets the ball first but then gets the man is a foul.
Lets just make all contact a foul. Much simpler for all the pansies out there.
posted on 8/4/24
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 23 minutes ago
I'm shocked that TOOR thinks the Liverpool one was a clear penalty. Shocked, I tell you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why would you be shocked that someone thinks that a clear penalty was a clear penalty?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because it wasn't a clear penalty?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Gets nowhere near the ball and impedes the player in the penalty area. It is pretty textbook.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course it is.
posted on 8/4/24
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 50 seconds ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 23 minutes ago
I'm shocked that TOOR thinks the Liverpool one was a clear penalty. Shocked, I tell you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why would you be shocked that someone thinks that a clear penalty was a clear penalty?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because it wasn't a clear penalty?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Gets nowhere near the ball and impedes the player in the penalty area. It is pretty textbook.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course it is.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes. Hence why it was given and not a single person whp saw it was surprised.
posted on 8/4/24
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 31 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 50 seconds ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 23 minutes ago
I'm shocked that TOOR thinks the Liverpool one was a clear penalty. Shocked, I tell you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why would you be shocked that someone thinks that a clear penalty was a clear penalty?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because it wasn't a clear penalty?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Gets nowhere near the ball and impedes the player in the penalty area. It is pretty textbook.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course it is.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes. Hence why it was given and not a single person whp saw it was surprised.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
posted on 8/4/24
So again you're making the case that any tackle that gets the ball first but then gets the man is a foul.
Lets just make all contact a foul. Much simpler for all the pansies out there.
------
No, im saying if the ball goes past you, the player is going past you with the ball very much in playing distance and you take him out you have committed a foul regardless if you get a slight touch of the ball.
A good tackle is playing the ball in a way it is no longer in the possession of the player you are tackling. If you don't do that and then kick the opponent you have committed a foul.
posted on 8/4/24
The reason why the rules make no mention of getting the ball is because that is understood to be the definition of a tackle. Fair play isn't defined within the rules, foul play is, and that includes dangerous play or excessive force which may override situations where a ball is played first, like, for example, the Romero tackle vs Chelsea where he cleared the ball but his follow through was dangerous.
You havent made the case that Lamptey was dangerous or excessive force, just that he tripped the player in the action of tackling him.
We have all seen a thousand times a tackle where a player hangs out a leg, gets a toe end on the ball and the player goes over the leg. These are never fouls.
If you were saying to me that that tackle was excessive force or dangerous i'd still disagree, but I think it is wrong and dangerous to start giving fouls simply because the tackle didnt get much contact on the ball (where excessive force isnt used) .
Surely the very definition of a tackle is getting your foot to the ball before your opponent and whether that's a toe end of full contact into row z makes no difference.
posted on 8/4/24
It was careless.
posted on 8/4/24
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 3 minutes ago
It was careless.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh for sure, but the saving grace was contact with the ball.
If AWB tackle on Elliot got the end of his toe on the ball it would not have been a pen, even though you would call his actions careless or clumsy in the area.
posted on 8/4/24
1. Direct free kick
A direct free kick is awarded if a player commits any of the following offences against an opponent in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force:
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
If an offence involves contact it is penalised by a direct free kick or penalty kick.
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
posted on 8/4/24
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 hour, 47 minutes ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 31 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 50 seconds ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 23 minutes ago
I'm shocked that TOOR thinks the Liverpool one was a clear penalty. Shocked, I tell you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why would you be shocked that someone thinks that a clear penalty was a clear penalty?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because it wasn't a clear penalty?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Gets nowhere near the ball and impedes the player in the penalty area. It is pretty textbook.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course it is.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes. Hence why it was given and not a single person whp saw it was surprised.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Imagine thinking it wasn't a clear penalty.
posted on 8/4/24
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 25 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 hour, 47 minutes ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 31 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 50 seconds ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 23 minutes ago
I'm shocked that TOOR thinks the Liverpool one was a clear penalty. Shocked, I tell you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why would you be shocked that someone thinks that a clear penalty was a clear penalty?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because it wasn't a clear penalty?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Gets nowhere near the ball and impedes the player in the penalty area. It is pretty textbook.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course it is.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes. Hence why it was given and not a single person whp saw it was surprised.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Imagine thinking it wasn't a clear penalty.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
😂
posted on 8/4/24
I think the Liverpool one was neither a definite pen or definite non pen. Elliott was impeded but he also wasn't tripped.
I would have given it but it's a 60/40 for me.
posted on 8/4/24
comment by Striketeam7 - There used to be a football club over there (U18109)
posted 8 hours, 26 minutes ago
Didn’t see the Arsenal one.
Wan Bissaka was a penalty all day long, you can’t dive in and get none of the ball - Elliott tried to jump and avoid but landed on top - that is a penalty, he has impeded him.
Maddison - honestly I think the ref took into account it was that massive clogging Khunt Yates and gave Maddison a pass. Yates committed 4 fouls in 14 mins just before that and could have gone himself - he was also a proper diiick in the reverse fixture. Technically a red and had it been to another Forest player then Maddison probably would have walked, but I think the ref/VAR got that one right - but of intelligence for once
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Elliot dragged his right foot, looking for contact, then collapsed his left leg for no reason. It’s a dive.
posted on 8/4/24
comment by Spurtle (U1608)
posted 7 hours, 56 minutes ago
comment by Terminator1 (U1863)
posted 15 minutes ago
Hardly seen anything about Ben White. Quite possibly the worst play acting I’ve seen in the PL and deserving of retrospective punishment for bringing the game into disrepute.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
White privilege innit.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben White isn’t White
posted on 8/4/24
comment by burghandy (U10383)
posted 7 hours, 24 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 1 minute ago
The Lamptey one is just ridiculous.
He got contact on the ball so it's a tackle. It wasn't from behind, it wasnt player then ball, it wasnt over the ball and high or an aggressive OTT follow-through.
I am not sure where in the rules it says that you have to make a full contact with the ball. If that was cleared into row z with the same contact on the player then how is that any more or any less of a foul.
When penalties are given "contact" is often enough to
deem it as a foul, even when such contact is minimal or really not causing the player to tumble. That contact on the ball should have been viewed as enough for it to be deemed as a legit tackle.
Elliot - Yes he bought that one but a silly silly dive in by the defender who was asking for it. Never going to be over-ruled and will probably be given by the ref 9 times out of 10.
Maddison. Lucky boy! Yates is a detestable hacker of a player and most would like to stick one on him, but that was a clear punch from Madders and should have seenAs they said on MOTD, if that's Romero that's a red.
Speaking of which there was another tackle in that game on Johnson where the high follow through caught him on the knee and led to him hobbling off. Again, if that's a Romero tackle or someone else with a reputation then that's a
Seems like VAR has 'raised the bar' again with VAR not intervening so much, so we are back to poor inconsistent decisions by refs.
What is also obvious to me is that preconception and reputation carry a lot of weight in referees decision making. Not just individuals but teams. As a result, similar/identical incidents involving different teams and individuals will get different outcomes and this what annoys me most about referees.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Agree Devon, for me that Lamptey one is the most shocking decision, clearly won the ball, I can't believe it wasn't overturned.
Agree about Wan-Bissaka diving in, that was stupid to do that but still the replays show that Harvey dived so again I think that should have been overturned.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I can’t believe people are saying if the leg is there, Elliott is right to drag his foot to ‘trip’ over.
posted on 8/4/24
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson (U1282)
posted 6 hours, 41 minutes ago
Wan-Bissaka did not touch Harvey Elliot so the penalty has to be overturned.
=====
Was very soft IMO, but Bissaka never touched the ball either. Did he impede Elliot?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No, Elliott dragged his right foot to ensure there was contact. He is a young athlete. He could have easily cleared the leg had he wanted to
posted on 8/4/24
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 2 hours, 27 minutes ago
1. Direct free kick
A direct free kick is awarded if a player commits any of the following offences against an opponent in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force:
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
If an offence involves contact it is penalised by a direct free kick or penalty kick.
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Do are you saying that if he got full contact on the ball and se t it to roe z then it's still a pen?
posted on 8/4/24
comment by Terminator1 (U1863)
posted 7 hours, 17 minutes ago
Agree about Wan-Bissaka diving in, that was stupid to do that but still the replays show that Harvey dived so again I think that should have been overturned
———————
You’re contradicting yourself though. You’ve acknowledged that he dived in, once he does that in the penalty area then it’s a penalty almost every time.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no contact. Elliott bought the pen.
Page 4 of 8
6 | 7 | 8