Did anyone else think that was a penalty...

[OurManFlint II]

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.

I don't think that is correct, intent has nothing to do with it. Same as ball first, no such thing these days

[OurManFlint II]

Re: Did anyone else think that was a penalty...

While I think it was a penalty I dont think thats a 2nd yellow.

Agree, pen but not a yellow. If he had been facing goal it would have been pen and a straight red probably.

[2b2bdoo]

Re: Did anyone else think that was a penalty...

I thought it was a pen

[Cyclops]

Re: Did anyone else think that was a penalty...

I can't believe people think that was a penalty. What does the ref give if there's a clash of heads in the penalty box between opposition players.one defending, one attacking. The defender, with his eye on the ball totals the attacker. Never meant, no mallice or intent, both players have their eye on the ball. That's a penalty then? What Allen did was exactly the same, but with his foot.

I too never thought it was a pen - even after seeing the replays.
It just didn't make sense to penalise someone for a coming together as a result of a surprise tackle from behind.
I've seen pens given when a player has fallen down in the penalty area and the ball has rolled and hit his arm. No intent! Unavoidable.
And how many pens have been awarded when there clearly was no intent to handle the ball and the arm has been in a natural position.
These decisions are inequitable, and to have probably sent Allen off would have made it doubly inequitable.

[Joe Gillis]

Re: Did anyone else think that was a penalty...

We've all seen those given, we got away with one there.
John Hartson on Sky said definite Pelanty.

[OurManFlint II]

Re: Did anyone else think that was a penalty...

I too never thought it was a pen - even after seeing the replays.
It just didn't make sense to penalise someone for a coming together as a result of a surprise tackle from behind.
I've seen pens given when a player has fallen down in the penalty area and the ball has rolled and hit his arm. No intent! Unavoidable.
And how many pens have been awarded when there clearly was no intent to handle the ball and the arm has been in a natural position.
These decisions are inequitable, and to have probably sent Allen off would have made it doubly inequitable.

It may not make sense but they are the rules, there is nothing in the rules about intent for fouls, only careless, reckless or using excessive force.

- 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
- impedes an opponent with contact (he tripped the player, after Ukraine had turned possession)
- kicks or attempts to kick

[BLUETIT]

Re: Did anyone else think that was a penalty...

Maybe, just maybe, if he hadn’t rolled over as if he’d been shot, the officials may have looked at it differently

[Cyclops]

Re: Did anyone else think that was a penalty...

It may not make sense but they are the rules, there is nothing in the rules about intent for fouls, only careless, reckless or using excessive force.

- 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
- impedes an opponent with contact (he tripped the player, after Ukraine had turned possession)
- kicks or attempts to kick

I agree that the word 'intent' isn't written in the rules, but to my mind it is certainly implicit in the wording of the rules.

Law 12: Fouls and Misconduct
A direct free kick is awarded when a player:
Kicks or attempts to kick an opponent
Trips or attempts to trip an opponent
Jumps at an opponent
Charges an opponent
Strikes or attempts to strike an opponent
Pushes an opponent
Tackles an opponent
Holds an opponent
Spits at an opponent
Handles the ball deliberately
If any of these are fouls are committed by a player in their team’s penalty area, the opposing team is awarded a penalty kick. Indirect free kicks are awarded if a player:

Plays in a dangerous manner
Impedes the progress of an opponent
Prevents the goalkeeper from releasing the ball from his/her hands
Commits any other unmentioned offense

As I said, I would have thought 'intent' was implicit in many of these actions - ie not accidental but deliberate - intended.

And it could even be argued that the Ukranian forward was impeding Allen's progress.

[splott parker]

Re: Did anyone else think that was a penalty...

That was definitely a penalty. Keenor did it deliberately. I saw him wink at the camera when the ref waived play on.

Tunstall had the last laugh that day, the Ukrainian captain didn’t.

[IanD]

Re: Did anyone else think that was a penalty...

I agree that the word 'intent' isn't written in the rules, but to my mind it is certainly implicit in the wording of the rules.

Law 12: Fouls and Misconduct
A direct free kick is awarded when a player:
Kicks or attempts to kick an opponent
Trips or attempts to trip an opponent
Jumps at an opponent
Charges an opponent
Strikes or attempts to strike an opponent
Pushes an opponent
Tackles an opponent
Holds an opponent
Spits at an opponent
Handles the ball deliberately
If any of these are fouls are committed by a player in their team’s penalty area, the opposing team is awarded a penalty kick. Indirect free kicks are awarded if a player:

Plays in a dangerous manner
Impedes the progress of an opponent
Prevents the goalkeeper from releasing the ball from his/her hands
Commits any other unmentioned offense

As I said, I would have thought 'intent' was implicit in many of these actions - ie not accidental but deliberate - intended.

And it could even be argued that the Ukranian forward was impeding Allen's progress.

He was looking for the penalty and was found out. No idea why it was reviewed. No penalty. Draw a line under it, move on etc

[caerkid]

Re: Did anyone else think that was a penalty...

It's a penalty for me all day long. Not the first time Allen has caught someone like that and considering the booking early on he was very lucky.
On the form he was on though I think Hennessy would have saved it so it's all academic in the end :)

[Cyclops]

Re: Did anyone else think that was a penalty...

He was looking for the penalty and was found out. No idea why it was reviewed. No penalty. Draw a line under it, move on etc

Very true.
Let's have no more friendly debate and discussions after matches - and while we're at it, dismantle forums such as this which thrive on POST MATCH debates

[Cyclops]

Re: Did anyone else think that was a penalty...

Tunstall had the last laugh that day, the Ukrainian captain didn’t.

Blimey - did this really happen, then?
Many a true word etc.....

[OurManFlint II]

Re: Did anyone else think that was a penalty...

I agree that the word 'intent' isn't written in the rules, but to my mind it is certainly implicit in the wording of the rules.

Law 12: Fouls and Misconduct
A direct free kick is awarded when a player:
Kicks or attempts to kick an opponent
Trips or attempts to trip an opponent
Jumps at an opponent
Charges an opponent
Strikes or attempts to strike an opponent
Pushes an opponent
Tackles an opponent
Holds an opponent
Spits at an opponent
Handles the ball deliberately
If any of these are fouls are committed by a player in their team’s penalty area, the opposing team is awarded a penalty kick. Indirect free kicks are awarded if a player:

Plays in a dangerous manner
Impedes the progress of an opponent
Prevents the goalkeeper from releasing the ball from his/her hands
Commits any other unmentioned offense

As I said, I would have thought 'intent' was implicit in many of these actions - ie not accidental but deliberate - intended.

And it could even be argued that the Ukranian forward was impeding Allen's progress.

What's implicit to the rules is; careless, reckless, or using excessive force because that's what written in the rule book!

Not sure on your list but it's listed differently here:

https://www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/lawsandrules/laws/football-11-11/law-12---fouls-and-misconduct

[Cyclops]

Re: Did anyone else think that was a penalty...

What's implicit to the rules is; careless, reckless, or using excessive force because that's what written in the rule book!

Please explain to me that if 'careless, reckless, or using excessive force' are actually written in the rule book, they are implicit.

(Definition of implicit -"suggested though not directly expressed")