...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.
Printable View
...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.
Have you been reading my diary ?Quote:
Originally Posted by kendoddsdadsdogsdead
Yes definitely, but the football gods were smiling on us last night.
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.
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.
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.
I suspect VAR rules may be a little more generous in Europe than in England. Contact probably viewed as minor and/or accidental.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hilts
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuerto
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hilts
Exactly as I saw it and definitely not enough evidence to overturn an on field decisionQuote:
Originally Posted by Tuerto
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.
It should have been. But it wasn't.
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.
..that's not very niceQuote:
Originally Posted by SLUDGE FACTORY
Definite penalty, back in 2002, Peter Thorne tried to clear a ball in our penalty area and ended up in kicking a wurzels player, the Premier League ref (Alan Wiley?) gave the penalty, Tinnion scored it and Bristol were on their way to yet another win at Ninian Park. It was an odd situation because there was no intention of foul play on Thorne's part at all and I was convinced it was a wrong decision at the time - I'd not seen a similar decision before, but I've seen quite a few since. Given our history over the past fifty years or so, we'd be up in arms if we'd gone out because we weren't given a penalty after an incident like the one on Sunday.
It quickly put an end to my FIFA-is-going-to-rob-us theory.
Apart from giving Dan James a yellow for saying a bad word, I felt the ref had a good game overall. He let both sides play throughout.
My initial thought was penalty 100% but I think we’re swayed by the abhorrent way that the Premier League uses VAR.
In the moment I completely resigned myself to a penalty though.
Eh?Quote:
Originally Posted by the other bob wilson
You're saying it was a pen based on an incident in one game TWENTY YEARS AGO!
Apart from this being totally illogical, how many rule changes have there been in the interim.
I remember a similar incident in the Cup Final when Fred Keenor kicked Tunstall in exactly the same way and no pen was given. This proves the Joe Allen incident def wasn't a pen. And VAR didn't over-rule the ref then either.
If that was at Anfield or Old Trafford on a Saturday afternoon, that would have been given. With Hennessey having the best game of his career , the penalty not being given, and the deflected winning goal, you knew Wales were going to win.
I thought it was a pen. Obvs glad not given and about time we got some luck
Didn’t stop a bloke next to me keeping saying to everyone who would listen “I told you! it’s Eurovision all over again!”
A statement I never thought I’d hear at a football match
Read the whole message, what I'm saying is that in the past twenty years more and more similar type penalties have been given - the one given against Thorne was unusual at that time, but it wouldn't be now because interpretations of the laws have changed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops
Yes, but Keenor should have gone for retaliation alone - Tunstall stubbing his Woodbine in Keenor's face was also sending off offence..Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops
He takes a swipe at the ball that is no longer there and now replaced by the Ukraine lads foot. I really don't know how it's not a pen. Allen's reaction is one of someone that knows he was done.
To be fair we were due some luck.
I also don't want matches decided by a penalty kick in that way when it's a complete accident and the lad is going away from goal.
A free kick in the box perhaps? Not seen one of those for a while.
Think they are supposed to be given for no contact infringements like a high foot, I've only seen them given for goalkeeper infringements though.
Id say being caught in possession in your own penalty box and ending up kicking someone you should have been aware of was definitely careless. Therefore penalty.Quote:
Originally Posted by JumpersforGoalposts
If it had have been given, Joe would have been off, because Shirley he would have been booked
Disallowed goal, no pelanty, last ditch tackles, inspired goalkeeping, deflected goal, IT WAS JUST WRITTEN IN THE STARS
If I was a neutral I’d say that was 100% a penalty and a second yellow.
I think that’s the luckiest game I’ve ever seen We were outplayed one of the worst I’ve seen us play for a long time
About time we had some luck but do feel sorry for Ukraine
Was VAR being used I thought that according to the pre match talk it wasn’t as the FAW felt the couldn’t afford to implement it in the full sense. As regarding the penalty claim, no it wasn’t
They couldn’t implement goal line techQuote:
Originally Posted by Cleve van Leef
Var checked and said no pen
At the time I thought the referee should have given a pelanty.
Having seen the replay, it should have been a pelanty.
The forward was clever, Allen was careless.
Could it be that the interpretation of the rule with the help of VAR varies across Europe?
Or possibly Sky's coverage and the constant dialogue with questioning the decision that goes on for days after such an incident (invariably involving MU, MC, Scousers, Arse and Chelsea).
Wales have been on the wrong end of more than our fair share of this type of decision, it was our time to get one.
It’s one of those ones where I think in the English game (or as VAR is now used in the premiership) it’s a pen. It’s a harsh one, one of those ones where I think it probably gets given anywhere else on the pitch but given it wasn’t an egregious kick, the attacking player was moving away from goal and arguably wasn’t in control of the ball himself, the fact it was in the penalty box, would probably have had to send the defender off as a result, in such a game… I can see why it wasn’t given too on the field. It’s a big call VAR or otherwise.
I’m fairly so-so about VAR overall but what it highlights for me is that refereeing is about interpretation and VAR is no different really. We’re seeing just as un-uniform interpretations in the same way we always had with different referees, in different countries, etc. In a way I feel like we’ve sort of ended up in the same place with its introduction.
I’d be disappointed if the boot was on the other foot, no doubt, but I’d also begrudgingly understand and stomach it in the same way as had we played that pre-VAR. Basically, the ref didn’t see enough in it to give it.
The refereeing had good moments, let the game flow and helped make it less bitty than it could have been given the occasion and conditions, although there were some moments where it felt like fouls were being given that I felt should have gone to the other side (both us and Ukraine). After the first couple cards early doors (not helped by James being a hot head), overall think the refereeing was fine.
While I think it was a penalty I dont think thats a 2nd yellow.
it's the kind of decision I don't think SHOULD be a penalty, but are usually given.
Leicester playoff 2nd leg. We're 3-1 down. Through ball for Chopra is poor but there's hesitancy in the Leicester defence, Chopra manages to nip in and he's caught, lightly, but there is contact. There was no doubts he was looking for a penalty.
This wasn't too dissimilar a moment in that Allen was hesitant and had the ball pinched off him.
If that had been on Kieffer Moore at the other end we'd have been demanding a penalty.
So what is the actual rule?
Nathan Blake said during commentary something along the lines of "he's one of those refs, it's more about him than the actual game".Quote:
Originally Posted by Kind of Blue
I don't know but perhaps the TV audience should vote on it instead of VAR. 20 seconds to vote 'yes' or 'no'. One lucky voter gets a £10 note sent by drone.Quote:
Originally Posted by WJ99mobile
Agree we’d be demanding a pen if it was at the other end of the pitch, no question. But I think had it been more like that Chopra incident - with momentum attacking towards goal and more of a challenge than Allen’s was - I think that definitely gets given by the ref on Sunday.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric the Half a Bee
Another thing I remember thinking at the time, unless I perhaps missed it or the replays were taking up screen time, I don’t recall Yarmolenko or the Ukrainians massively challenging it on the field, swamping the ref, etc. Which made me feel a little like they perhaps knew themselves it was “one of those ones”. I don’t know. Perhaps given the obvious situation in their country such histrionics may not come as easy.