Tweet
...when joe allen kicked the Ukrainian?...I did..and still don't know why it didn't get spotted by VAR..blatant , and if it was the other way around I would've been properly ****ed off.
-
-
Re: Did anyone else think that was a penalty...
Have you been reading my diary ?Originally posted by kendoddsdadsdogsdead View Post -
Re: Did anyone else think that was a penalty...
Yes definitely, but the football gods were smiling on us last night.Comment
-
Re: Did anyone else think that was a penalty...
It would have been harsh as Allen didn't know that the ukrainian was behind him, there was absolutely no intent to make contact with the player who was kicked because Allen didn't know that he actually existed at the point of contact. No penalty.Comment
-
Re: Did anyone else think that was a penalty...
I saw it on replay when i got home, as i saw it, Allen pulled his leg back to strike the ball and the Ukrainian came form behind him and got to the ball as he kicked it. No intent, and Allen didn't know he was there, just a footballing incident, no foul imo.Comment
-
Re: Did anyone else think that was a penalty...
Is there a rule that if you kick someone but didnt mean it then its not a foul.?
Allen should have been aware either by his own means or a call. Booting the Ukrainian because you didnt know he was there is no excuse.
In fact the 2 on here are the only ones ive seen say it wasnt. 100% a penalty.
Who cares though we got away with one.I really wished it was Scotland though. If id been Allen and it was the Jocks id be saying yeah I booted him feck em.Comment
-
Re: Did anyone else think that was a penalty...
I suspect VAR rules may be a little more generous in Europe than in England. Contact probably viewed as minor and/or accidental.Comment
-
Re: Did anyone else think that was a penalty...
Those types of coming-togethers tend to result in a pen.
Doesn’t mean it would have been a fair decision.
It was an opportunistic attempt to manufacture a free pop on goal. Would have been a totally disproportionate punishment.Comment
-
Re: Did anyone else think that was a penalty...
If you aren't aware of the player, then yes. There has to be some intent, even if that means that a player can visualise the opponent.Originally posted by Hilts View PostComment
-
Re: Did anyone else think that was a penalty...
If thats the rule fair enough. Never heard of that and neither did all the so called experts. All reckon we got away with one.Originally posted by Tuerto View PostComment
-
Re: Did anyone else think that was a penalty...
I don't know the rule. I suppose that if a goalkeeper came to punch a ball at a corner, missed it, and walloped an opposing player who had come in from the back of him, then would that be a foul, even if it could be proved that his eyeline, vision, was never once on that player? To me, that would be harsh. It's one of those i suppose.Originally posted by Hilts View PostComment
-
Re: Did anyone else think that was a penalty...
Exactly as I saw it and definitely not enough evidence to overturn an on field decisionOriginally posted by Tuerto View PostComment
-
Re: Did anyone else think that was a penalty...
VAR is supposed to be used to overturn “clear and obvious” errors I believe. In the Premier League they use VAR too much and for slight incidents whereas in Europe from what I’ve seen it’s more sparingly used. Whilst I’d say to the laws of the game it probably was a penalty I don’t think the ref not seeing it/not giving it was a “clear and obvious” error.Comment
-
Re: Did anyone else think that was a penalty...
It should have been. But it wasn't.Comment
-
Re: Did anyone else think that was a penalty...
No.
The laws of the game require that the contact should be the result of a player being "...careless, reckless or using excessive force."
Given that the opponent came from behind Allen and there was minimal and unintentional contact it was not a foul within the meaning of law 12.
Even the "experts" regularly forget that football is not a "non contact" sport, hence the sometimes hysterical and irrelevant claim that there was a foul because there was contact.Comment
Comment