comment by reddave (U8660)
posted 1 hour, 2 minutes ago
The whole point is Dumfries doesn’t kick Kane, Kane kicks Dumfries, its nothing more than a coming together, Dumfries doesn’t at any point move towards Kane, it is Kanes forward momentum that causes the contact, therefore not a foul by Dumfries.
Never a penalty.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not sure you could be any more wrong!
The ball drops beautifully for Kane to hit. Dumfries has to cover 2-3 yards to close it down and is way more "on the move" than Kane.
I think if this is a Mainoo or a Palmer or a Trent, then no one on here is making half as much about this as they are.
Because it's Kane, some people just have an issue with England's most prolific striker and always want to bash him...even when he's scoring for England in a Euro semi final.
It was the kind of penalty that we regularly see given to Varpool and Penited but not most other clubs
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 1 hour, 9 minutes ago
comment by reddave (U8660)
posted 1 hour, 2 minutes ago
The whole point is Dumfries doesn’t kick Kane, Kane kicks Dumfries, its nothing more than a coming together, Dumfries doesn’t at any point move towards Kane, it is Kanes forward momentum that causes the contact, therefore not a foul by Dumfries.
Never a penalty.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not sure you could be any more wrong!
The ball drops beautifully for Kane to hit. Dumfries has to cover 2-3 yards to close it down and is way more "on the move" than Kane.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 7 hours, 43 minutes ago
comment by reddave (U8660)
posted 1 hour, 2 minutes ago
The whole point is Dumfries doesn’t kick Kane, Kane kicks Dumfries, its nothing more than a coming together, Dumfries doesn’t at any point move towards Kane, it is Kanes forward momentum that causes the contact, therefore not a foul by Dumfries.
Never a penalty.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not sure you could be any more wrong!
The ball drops beautifully for Kane to hit. Dumfries has to cover 2-3 yards to close it down and is way more "on the move" than Kane.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It was a clear studs up penalty.
But it is a fact that Kane then took the penalty kickwith the injured foot!
comment by JustCallMeTed (U21528)
posted 7 hours, 1 minute ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 7 hours, 43 minutes ago
comment by reddave (U8660)
posted 1 hour, 2 minutes ago
The whole point is Dumfries doesn’t kick Kane, Kane kicks Dumfries, its nothing more than a coming together, Dumfries doesn’t at any point move towards Kane, it is Kanes forward momentum that causes the contact, therefore not a foul by Dumfries.
Never a penalty.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not sure you could be any more wrong!
The ball drops beautifully for Kane to hit. Dumfries has to cover 2-3 yards to close it down and is way more "on the move" than Kane.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It was a clear studs up penalty.
But it is a fact that Kane then took the penalty kickwith the injured foot!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He'll have a bruised foot for sure.
comment by Spurtle (U1608)
posted 17 hours, 26 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 11 minutes ago
Not sure if this has been mentioned, but the biggest controversy is not the decision itself, it's the fact that it was reviewed by VAR.
It wasn't a clear and obvious error - not a chance.
It was also a case of the referee being unduly influenced by watching replays of the incident - totally distorting what actually happened, and focusing on the position of the foot.
Another great example of the major problems that VAR has brought to the game.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't know how hurt Kane was by the contact. He seemed totally fine taking the pen a couple of minutes later. But if he'd been up quite soon after that contact and not looking like he was in agonising pain on the floor for a minute, I'm not sure it would have even gone to VAR at all. This is where I think the reactions of players can have an influence still.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is basically what I said. Winston's remark about the 'clear and obvious' nature of the challenge is spot on, but that horse bolted a long time ago.
Let's just accept that refs -including those in the VAR room- are human and prone to being influenced by contingent circumstances.
I reckon it's likely the incident would not have been reviewed if
a) Kane had not reacted how he did
or
b) the score at that point had been 1-0 England rather than 1-0 Netherlands
But it is what it is. It was given, and there were (just about, imo) sufficient grounds for reviewing and awarding.
Had the shirt colours been reversed, it's likely most of the people claiming it's a clear pen would be saying the same, and equally likely that most of those saying it wasn't would be saying it was legit.
I myself am biased, no denying that, but the fact that a sizeable number of England fans also think the penalty was gifted suggests it was anything but a clear-cut pen.
comment by Brian Gittins (U1449)
posted 22 hours, 26 minutes ago
Hope we get one in the 90th minute on Sunday
----------------------------------------------------------------------
When all is said and done, I wouldn't begrudge you getting a late consolation goal either.
comment by JustCallMeTed (U21528)
posted 8 hours, 18 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 7 hours, 43 minutes ago
comment by reddave (U8660)
posted 1 hour, 2 minutes ago
The whole point is Dumfries doesn’t kick Kane, Kane kicks Dumfries, its nothing more than a coming together, Dumfries doesn’t at any point move towards Kane, it is Kanes forward momentum that causes the contact, therefore not a foul by Dumfries.
Never a penalty.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not sure you could be any more wrong!
The ball drops beautifully for Kane to hit. Dumfries has to cover 2-3 yards to close it down and is way more "on the move" than Kane.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It was a clear studs up penalty.
But it is a fact that Kane then took the penalty kickwith the injured foot!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Have you never hurt yourself, been in pain for a minute or two and been okish afterwards?
comment by Barefoot (U19770)
posted 12 hours, 24 minutes ago
comment by JustCallMeTed (U21528)
posted 8 hours, 18 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 7 hours, 43 minutes ago
comment by reddave (U8660)
posted 1 hour, 2 minutes ago
The whole point is Dumfries doesn’t kick Kane, Kane kicks Dumfries, its nothing more than a coming together, Dumfries doesn’t at any point move towards Kane, it is Kanes forward momentum that causes the contact, therefore not a foul by Dumfries.
Never a penalty.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not sure you could be any more wrong!
The ball drops beautifully for Kane to hit. Dumfries has to cover 2-3 yards to close it down and is way more "on the move" than Kane.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It was a clear studs up penalty.
But it is a fact that Kane then took the penalty kickwith the injured foot!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Have you never hurt yourself, been in pain for a minute or two and been okish afterwards?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If he was really hurt he would have been smart to let someone else take the PK.
comment by it'sonlyagame (U6426)
posted 1 day, 1 hour ago
comment by Spurtle (U1608)
posted 17 hours, 26 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 11 minutes ago
Not sure if this has been mentioned, but the biggest controversy is not the decision itself, it's the fact that it was reviewed by VAR.
It wasn't a clear and obvious error - not a chance.
It was also a case of the referee being unduly influenced by watching replays of the incident - totally distorting what actually happened, and focusing on the position of the foot.
Another great example of the major problems that VAR has brought to the game.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't know how hurt Kane was by the contact. He seemed totally fine taking the pen a couple of minutes later. But if he'd been up quite soon after that contact and not looking like he was in agonising pain on the floor for a minute, I'm not sure it would have even gone to VAR at all. This is where I think the reactions of players can have an influence still.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is basically what I said. Winston's remark about the 'clear and obvious' nature of the challenge is spot on, but that horse bolted a long time ago.
Let's just accept that refs -including those in the VAR room- are human and prone to being influenced by contingent circumstances.
I reckon it's likely the incident would not have been reviewed if
a) Kane had not reacted how he did
or
b) the score at that point had been 1-0 England rather than 1-0 Netherlands
But it is what it is. It was given, and there were (just about, imo) sufficient grounds for reviewing and awarding.
Had the shirt colours been reversed, it's likely most of the people claiming it's a clear pen would be saying the same, and equally likely that most of those saying it wasn't would be saying it was legit.
I myself am biased, no denying that, but the fact that a sizeable number of England fans also think the penalty was gifted suggests it was anything but a clear-cut pen.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Pure conjecture.
We know what the European refs are like on the raised foot. It would be no surprise if this is given for any team in any circumstance in any European officiated match. The surprise is perhaps VAR referred it.
It wouldn't be given in the PL and certainly not over turned by VAR. But if you watch a lot of European football you will see this sort of thing quite often.
comment by Barefoot (U19770)
posted 1 day, 1 hour ago
comment by JustCallMeTed (U21528)
posted 8 hours, 18 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 7 hours, 43 minutes ago
comment by reddave (U8660)
posted 1 hour, 2 minutes ago
The whole point is Dumfries doesn’t kick Kane, Kane kicks Dumfries, its nothing more than a coming together, Dumfries doesn’t at any point move towards Kane, it is Kanes forward momentum that causes the contact, therefore not a foul by Dumfries.
Never a penalty.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not sure you could be any more wrong!
The ball drops beautifully for Kane to hit. Dumfries has to cover 2-3 yards to close it down and is way more "on the move" than Kane.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It was a clear studs up penalty.
But it is a fact that Kane then took the penalty kickwith the injured foot!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Have you never hurt yourself, been in pain for a minute or two and been okish afterwards?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I've sprained my ankle playing, many times. Worst pain feels like it's broken, can barely stand on it. 5 minutes later back up and running around. Later and next day it looks and feels bad.
Kane may have added a bit more to his reaction but there is no denying that that would have been painful.
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 1 hour, 8 minutes ago
comment by it'sonlyagame (U6426)
posted 1 day, 1 hour ago
comment by Spurtle (U1608)
posted 17 hours, 26 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 11 minutes ago
Not sure if this has been mentioned, but the biggest controversy is not the decision itself, it's the fact that it was reviewed by VAR.
It wasn't a clear and obvious error - not a chance.
It was also a case of the referee being unduly influenced by watching replays of the incident - totally distorting what actually happened, and focusing on the position of the foot.
Another great example of the major problems that VAR has brought to the game.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't know how hurt Kane was by the contact. He seemed totally fine taking the pen a couple of minutes later. But if he'd been up quite soon after that contact and not looking like he was in agonising pain on the floor for a minute, I'm not sure it would have even gone to VAR at all. This is where I think the reactions of players can have an influence still.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is basically what I said. Winston's remark about the 'clear and obvious' nature of the challenge is spot on, but that horse bolted a long time ago.
Let's just accept that refs -including those in the VAR room- are human and prone to being influenced by contingent circumstances.
I reckon it's likely the incident would not have been reviewed if
a) Kane had not reacted how he did
or
b) the score at that point had been 1-0 England rather than 1-0 Netherlands
But it is what it is. It was given, and there were (just about, imo) sufficient grounds for reviewing and awarding.
Had the shirt colours been reversed, it's likely most of the people claiming it's a clear pen would be saying the same, and equally likely that most of those saying it wasn't would be saying it was legit.
I myself am biased, no denying that, but the fact that a sizeable number of England fans also think the penalty was gifted suggests it was anything but a clear-cut pen.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Pure conjecture.
We know what the European refs are like on the raised foot. It would be no surprise if this is given for any team in any circumstance in any European officiated match. The surprise is perhaps VAR referred it.
It wouldn't be given in the PL and certainly not over turned by VAR. But if you watch a lot of European football you will see this sort of thing quite often.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Conjecture, as acknowledged implicitly when I said "I reckon", but no more of a leap than the unsubstantiated claim that "we know what what the European refs are like on the raised foot".
At least I've had the honesty to admit my bias, instead of claiming full knowledge of the nuances of the apparently homogenous refereeing standards in place everywhere across continental Europe.
comment by it'sonlyagame (U6426)
posted 4 hours, 4 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 1 hour, 8 minutes ago
comment by it'sonlyagame (U6426)
posted 1 day, 1 hour ago
comment by Spurtle (U1608)
posted 17 hours, 26 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 11 minutes ago
Not sure if this has been mentioned, but the biggest controversy is not the decision itself, it's the fact that it was reviewed by VAR.
It wasn't a clear and obvious error - not a chance.
It was also a case of the referee being unduly influenced by watching replays of the incident - totally distorting what actually happened, and focusing on the position of the foot.
Another great example of the major problems that VAR has brought to the game.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't know how hurt Kane was by the contact. He seemed totally fine taking the pen a couple of minutes later. But if he'd been up quite soon after that contact and not looking like he was in agonising pain on the floor for a minute, I'm not sure it would have even gone to VAR at all. This is where I think the reactions of players can have an influence still.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is basically what I said. Winston's remark about the 'clear and obvious' nature of the challenge is spot on, but that horse bolted a long time ago.
Let's just accept that refs -including those in the VAR room- are human and prone to being influenced by contingent circumstances.
I reckon it's likely the incident would not have been reviewed if
a) Kane had not reacted how he did
or
b) the score at that point had been 1-0 England rather than 1-0 Netherlands
But it is what it is. It was given, and there were (just about, imo) sufficient grounds for reviewing and awarding.
Had the shirt colours been reversed, it's likely most of the people claiming it's a clear pen would be saying the same, and equally likely that most of those saying it wasn't would be saying it was legit.
I myself am biased, no denying that, but the fact that a sizeable number of England fans also think the penalty was gifted suggests it was anything but a clear-cut pen.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Pure conjecture.
We know what the European refs are like on the raised foot. It would be no surprise if this is given for any team in any circumstance in any European officiated match. The surprise is perhaps VAR referred it.
It wouldn't be given in the PL and certainly not over turned by VAR. But if you watch a lot of European football you will see this sort of thing quite often.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Conjecture, as acknowledged implicitly when I said "I reckon", but no more of a leap than the unsubstantiated claim that "we know what what the European refs are like on the raised foot".
At least I've had the honesty to admit my bias, instead of claiming full knowledge of the nuances of the apparently homogenous refereeing standards in place everywhere across continental Europe.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You're guessing mate, and biased.
My comment about European refs is borne out by anyone who watches European football. It's well known and it's different from the standards in the PL SPL. It's no nuance it's a simply and often observed fact, including in this Euros.....and it's certainly a far more substantiated reasoning than "he gave it because England were losing"
Has Barry hijacked your user ID?
Sign in if you want to comment
The Penalty
Page 4 of 4
posted on 11/7/24
comment by reddave (U8660)
posted 1 hour, 2 minutes ago
The whole point is Dumfries doesn’t kick Kane, Kane kicks Dumfries, its nothing more than a coming together, Dumfries doesn’t at any point move towards Kane, it is Kanes forward momentum that causes the contact, therefore not a foul by Dumfries.
Never a penalty.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not sure you could be any more wrong!
The ball drops beautifully for Kane to hit. Dumfries has to cover 2-3 yards to close it down and is way more "on the move" than Kane.
posted on 11/7/24
I think if this is a Mainoo or a Palmer or a Trent, then no one on here is making half as much about this as they are.
Because it's Kane, some people just have an issue with England's most prolific striker and always want to bash him...even when he's scoring for England in a Euro semi final.
posted on 11/7/24
It was the kind of penalty that we regularly see given to Varpool and Penited but not most other clubs
posted on 11/7/24
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 1 hour, 9 minutes ago
comment by reddave (U8660)
posted 1 hour, 2 minutes ago
The whole point is Dumfries doesn’t kick Kane, Kane kicks Dumfries, its nothing more than a coming together, Dumfries doesn’t at any point move towards Kane, it is Kanes forward momentum that causes the contact, therefore not a foul by Dumfries.
Never a penalty.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not sure you could be any more wrong!
The ball drops beautifully for Kane to hit. Dumfries has to cover 2-3 yards to close it down and is way more "on the move" than Kane.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
posted on 12/7/24
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 7 hours, 43 minutes ago
comment by reddave (U8660)
posted 1 hour, 2 minutes ago
The whole point is Dumfries doesn’t kick Kane, Kane kicks Dumfries, its nothing more than a coming together, Dumfries doesn’t at any point move towards Kane, it is Kanes forward momentum that causes the contact, therefore not a foul by Dumfries.
Never a penalty.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not sure you could be any more wrong!
The ball drops beautifully for Kane to hit. Dumfries has to cover 2-3 yards to close it down and is way more "on the move" than Kane.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It was a clear studs up penalty.
But it is a fact that Kane then took the penalty kickwith the injured foot!
posted on 12/7/24
hello
posted on 12/7/24
comment by JustCallMeTed (U21528)
posted 7 hours, 1 minute ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 7 hours, 43 minutes ago
comment by reddave (U8660)
posted 1 hour, 2 minutes ago
The whole point is Dumfries doesn’t kick Kane, Kane kicks Dumfries, its nothing more than a coming together, Dumfries doesn’t at any point move towards Kane, it is Kanes forward momentum that causes the contact, therefore not a foul by Dumfries.
Never a penalty.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not sure you could be any more wrong!
The ball drops beautifully for Kane to hit. Dumfries has to cover 2-3 yards to close it down and is way more "on the move" than Kane.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It was a clear studs up penalty.
But it is a fact that Kane then took the penalty kickwith the injured foot!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He'll have a bruised foot for sure.
posted on 12/7/24
comment by Spurtle (U1608)
posted 17 hours, 26 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 11 minutes ago
Not sure if this has been mentioned, but the biggest controversy is not the decision itself, it's the fact that it was reviewed by VAR.
It wasn't a clear and obvious error - not a chance.
It was also a case of the referee being unduly influenced by watching replays of the incident - totally distorting what actually happened, and focusing on the position of the foot.
Another great example of the major problems that VAR has brought to the game.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't know how hurt Kane was by the contact. He seemed totally fine taking the pen a couple of minutes later. But if he'd been up quite soon after that contact and not looking like he was in agonising pain on the floor for a minute, I'm not sure it would have even gone to VAR at all. This is where I think the reactions of players can have an influence still.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is basically what I said. Winston's remark about the 'clear and obvious' nature of the challenge is spot on, but that horse bolted a long time ago.
Let's just accept that refs -including those in the VAR room- are human and prone to being influenced by contingent circumstances.
I reckon it's likely the incident would not have been reviewed if
a) Kane had not reacted how he did
or
b) the score at that point had been 1-0 England rather than 1-0 Netherlands
But it is what it is. It was given, and there were (just about, imo) sufficient grounds for reviewing and awarding.
Had the shirt colours been reversed, it's likely most of the people claiming it's a clear pen would be saying the same, and equally likely that most of those saying it wasn't would be saying it was legit.
I myself am biased, no denying that, but the fact that a sizeable number of England fans also think the penalty was gifted suggests it was anything but a clear-cut pen.
posted on 12/7/24
comment by Brian Gittins (U1449)
posted 22 hours, 26 minutes ago
Hope we get one in the 90th minute on Sunday
----------------------------------------------------------------------
When all is said and done, I wouldn't begrudge you getting a late consolation goal either.
posted on 12/7/24
comment by JustCallMeTed (U21528)
posted 8 hours, 18 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 7 hours, 43 minutes ago
comment by reddave (U8660)
posted 1 hour, 2 minutes ago
The whole point is Dumfries doesn’t kick Kane, Kane kicks Dumfries, its nothing more than a coming together, Dumfries doesn’t at any point move towards Kane, it is Kanes forward momentum that causes the contact, therefore not a foul by Dumfries.
Never a penalty.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not sure you could be any more wrong!
The ball drops beautifully for Kane to hit. Dumfries has to cover 2-3 yards to close it down and is way more "on the move" than Kane.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It was a clear studs up penalty.
But it is a fact that Kane then took the penalty kickwith the injured foot!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Have you never hurt yourself, been in pain for a minute or two and been okish afterwards?
posted on 12/7/24
comment by Barefoot (U19770)
posted 12 hours, 24 minutes ago
comment by JustCallMeTed (U21528)
posted 8 hours, 18 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 7 hours, 43 minutes ago
comment by reddave (U8660)
posted 1 hour, 2 minutes ago
The whole point is Dumfries doesn’t kick Kane, Kane kicks Dumfries, its nothing more than a coming together, Dumfries doesn’t at any point move towards Kane, it is Kanes forward momentum that causes the contact, therefore not a foul by Dumfries.
Never a penalty.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not sure you could be any more wrong!
The ball drops beautifully for Kane to hit. Dumfries has to cover 2-3 yards to close it down and is way more "on the move" than Kane.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It was a clear studs up penalty.
But it is a fact that Kane then took the penalty kickwith the injured foot!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Have you never hurt yourself, been in pain for a minute or two and been okish afterwards?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If he was really hurt he would have been smart to let someone else take the PK.
posted on 13/7/24
comment by it'sonlyagame (U6426)
posted 1 day, 1 hour ago
comment by Spurtle (U1608)
posted 17 hours, 26 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 11 minutes ago
Not sure if this has been mentioned, but the biggest controversy is not the decision itself, it's the fact that it was reviewed by VAR.
It wasn't a clear and obvious error - not a chance.
It was also a case of the referee being unduly influenced by watching replays of the incident - totally distorting what actually happened, and focusing on the position of the foot.
Another great example of the major problems that VAR has brought to the game.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't know how hurt Kane was by the contact. He seemed totally fine taking the pen a couple of minutes later. But if he'd been up quite soon after that contact and not looking like he was in agonising pain on the floor for a minute, I'm not sure it would have even gone to VAR at all. This is where I think the reactions of players can have an influence still.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is basically what I said. Winston's remark about the 'clear and obvious' nature of the challenge is spot on, but that horse bolted a long time ago.
Let's just accept that refs -including those in the VAR room- are human and prone to being influenced by contingent circumstances.
I reckon it's likely the incident would not have been reviewed if
a) Kane had not reacted how he did
or
b) the score at that point had been 1-0 England rather than 1-0 Netherlands
But it is what it is. It was given, and there were (just about, imo) sufficient grounds for reviewing and awarding.
Had the shirt colours been reversed, it's likely most of the people claiming it's a clear pen would be saying the same, and equally likely that most of those saying it wasn't would be saying it was legit.
I myself am biased, no denying that, but the fact that a sizeable number of England fans also think the penalty was gifted suggests it was anything but a clear-cut pen.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Pure conjecture.
We know what the European refs are like on the raised foot. It would be no surprise if this is given for any team in any circumstance in any European officiated match. The surprise is perhaps VAR referred it.
It wouldn't be given in the PL and certainly not over turned by VAR. But if you watch a lot of European football you will see this sort of thing quite often.
posted on 13/7/24
comment by Barefoot (U19770)
posted 1 day, 1 hour ago
comment by JustCallMeTed (U21528)
posted 8 hours, 18 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 7 hours, 43 minutes ago
comment by reddave (U8660)
posted 1 hour, 2 minutes ago
The whole point is Dumfries doesn’t kick Kane, Kane kicks Dumfries, its nothing more than a coming together, Dumfries doesn’t at any point move towards Kane, it is Kanes forward momentum that causes the contact, therefore not a foul by Dumfries.
Never a penalty.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not sure you could be any more wrong!
The ball drops beautifully for Kane to hit. Dumfries has to cover 2-3 yards to close it down and is way more "on the move" than Kane.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It was a clear studs up penalty.
But it is a fact that Kane then took the penalty kickwith the injured foot!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Have you never hurt yourself, been in pain for a minute or two and been okish afterwards?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I've sprained my ankle playing, many times. Worst pain feels like it's broken, can barely stand on it. 5 minutes later back up and running around. Later and next day it looks and feels bad.
Kane may have added a bit more to his reaction but there is no denying that that would have been painful.
posted on 13/7/24
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 1 hour, 8 minutes ago
comment by it'sonlyagame (U6426)
posted 1 day, 1 hour ago
comment by Spurtle (U1608)
posted 17 hours, 26 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 11 minutes ago
Not sure if this has been mentioned, but the biggest controversy is not the decision itself, it's the fact that it was reviewed by VAR.
It wasn't a clear and obvious error - not a chance.
It was also a case of the referee being unduly influenced by watching replays of the incident - totally distorting what actually happened, and focusing on the position of the foot.
Another great example of the major problems that VAR has brought to the game.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't know how hurt Kane was by the contact. He seemed totally fine taking the pen a couple of minutes later. But if he'd been up quite soon after that contact and not looking like he was in agonising pain on the floor for a minute, I'm not sure it would have even gone to VAR at all. This is where I think the reactions of players can have an influence still.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is basically what I said. Winston's remark about the 'clear and obvious' nature of the challenge is spot on, but that horse bolted a long time ago.
Let's just accept that refs -including those in the VAR room- are human and prone to being influenced by contingent circumstances.
I reckon it's likely the incident would not have been reviewed if
a) Kane had not reacted how he did
or
b) the score at that point had been 1-0 England rather than 1-0 Netherlands
But it is what it is. It was given, and there were (just about, imo) sufficient grounds for reviewing and awarding.
Had the shirt colours been reversed, it's likely most of the people claiming it's a clear pen would be saying the same, and equally likely that most of those saying it wasn't would be saying it was legit.
I myself am biased, no denying that, but the fact that a sizeable number of England fans also think the penalty was gifted suggests it was anything but a clear-cut pen.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Pure conjecture.
We know what the European refs are like on the raised foot. It would be no surprise if this is given for any team in any circumstance in any European officiated match. The surprise is perhaps VAR referred it.
It wouldn't be given in the PL and certainly not over turned by VAR. But if you watch a lot of European football you will see this sort of thing quite often.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Conjecture, as acknowledged implicitly when I said "I reckon", but no more of a leap than the unsubstantiated claim that "we know what what the European refs are like on the raised foot".
At least I've had the honesty to admit my bias, instead of claiming full knowledge of the nuances of the apparently homogenous refereeing standards in place everywhere across continental Europe.
posted on 13/7/24
comment by it'sonlyagame (U6426)
posted 4 hours, 4 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 1 hour, 8 minutes ago
comment by it'sonlyagame (U6426)
posted 1 day, 1 hour ago
comment by Spurtle (U1608)
posted 17 hours, 26 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 11 minutes ago
Not sure if this has been mentioned, but the biggest controversy is not the decision itself, it's the fact that it was reviewed by VAR.
It wasn't a clear and obvious error - not a chance.
It was also a case of the referee being unduly influenced by watching replays of the incident - totally distorting what actually happened, and focusing on the position of the foot.
Another great example of the major problems that VAR has brought to the game.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't know how hurt Kane was by the contact. He seemed totally fine taking the pen a couple of minutes later. But if he'd been up quite soon after that contact and not looking like he was in agonising pain on the floor for a minute, I'm not sure it would have even gone to VAR at all. This is where I think the reactions of players can have an influence still.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is basically what I said. Winston's remark about the 'clear and obvious' nature of the challenge is spot on, but that horse bolted a long time ago.
Let's just accept that refs -including those in the VAR room- are human and prone to being influenced by contingent circumstances.
I reckon it's likely the incident would not have been reviewed if
a) Kane had not reacted how he did
or
b) the score at that point had been 1-0 England rather than 1-0 Netherlands
But it is what it is. It was given, and there were (just about, imo) sufficient grounds for reviewing and awarding.
Had the shirt colours been reversed, it's likely most of the people claiming it's a clear pen would be saying the same, and equally likely that most of those saying it wasn't would be saying it was legit.
I myself am biased, no denying that, but the fact that a sizeable number of England fans also think the penalty was gifted suggests it was anything but a clear-cut pen.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Pure conjecture.
We know what the European refs are like on the raised foot. It would be no surprise if this is given for any team in any circumstance in any European officiated match. The surprise is perhaps VAR referred it.
It wouldn't be given in the PL and certainly not over turned by VAR. But if you watch a lot of European football you will see this sort of thing quite often.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Conjecture, as acknowledged implicitly when I said "I reckon", but no more of a leap than the unsubstantiated claim that "we know what what the European refs are like on the raised foot".
At least I've had the honesty to admit my bias, instead of claiming full knowledge of the nuances of the apparently homogenous refereeing standards in place everywhere across continental Europe.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You're guessing mate, and biased.
My comment about European refs is borne out by anyone who watches European football. It's well known and it's different from the standards in the PL SPL. It's no nuance it's a simply and often observed fact, including in this Euros.....and it's certainly a far more substantiated reasoning than "he gave it because England were losing"
posted on 13/7/24
Has Barry hijacked your user ID?
Page 4 of 4