Reply With QuoteMaybe, just maybe, if he hadn’t rolled over as if he’d been shot, the officials may have looked at it differently
| + Visit Cardiff FC for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results |
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.Originally Posted by Cyclops
- 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
Maybe, just maybe, if he hadn’t rolled over as if he’d been shot, the officials may have looked at it differently
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.
Tunstall had the last laugh that day, the Ukrainian captain didn’t.
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
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 :)
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
Blimey - did this really happen, then?
Many a true word etc.....
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...and-misconduct
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")
The attacker has acted quickly and has beaten Allen to the ball who has been too slow to react resulting in a careless challenge in the area. According to the rules a penalty kick shall be awarded.
VAR has not overturned it as it is not a clear and obvious error due to the timing, whilst the attacker has not helped his case by overacting to the extent that he did.
As many state above, the foul is clearly mandated in the rule book.
explicit would be better
I can't see where Allen was Careless, Reckless or used excessive force. The Ukrainian player was behind him, he had no way of knowing that he was there or that he was going to place his foot in front of his before Allen made contact with the ball. Everything Allen did was natural. The defining factor is that Allen doesn't have eyes in the back of his head (unlike my mother) I just can't for the life of me, understand what people think that he did wrong. His foot wasn't high, his elbows/arms weren't in an unnatural position, he didn't stamp or kick backwards, nothing indicates that what he did (attempt to kick the ball) was reckless, careless or excessive.
A clear foul that could have resulted in serious injury to Joe Allen with the Ukrainian player tackling from behind in a careless and reckless manner.
Could have been given either way.
If the attacker heads the ball then the goalkeeper punches him in the head that's a foul, surely? Yarmolenko hasn't sneaked up on Allen, he's able to run up alongside him because Allen is too slow, looking up to find a pass when he should've been racing to the ball. As soon as Allen realises he's there he takes a little hop on his right so he can boot it clear with his left but Yarmolenko nicks the ball and Allen boots him instead. I don't think it's a yellow, especially as Yarmolenko is running away from goal, but it has to be a penalty. I've no idea why it wasn't given.
People who think it was a pen don’t realise that common sense can be used by VAR and refs as well. Was it a foul? Yes, was it worthy of giving the other team a penalty, and more than likely a goal in a World Cup play off final, NO!
You dont think a player trying to play out from his own box shouldn't be aware of an opposition player even if hes behind him?. You dont need eyes in the back of your head. It was poor play. Allens reaction was to shout at those behind him.
This thread is comedy gold.
Of course it should have been a penalty. It was a blatant foul. In the penalty area. However, thankfully, the VAR on this particular occasion was as utterly useless as the VAR's are in most Premier League games.
"There was no intent...."
How often do players intentionally foul opponents in the penalty area?!?
Ref: "Did you mean to clatter into your opponent and bring him down in the penalty area?"
Player: "No ref, I was going for the ball, I didn't mean to foul him."
Ref: "No problem then, play on."
You can't be penalised for a lack of awareness, which is great news for the majority of our players.
I can only think the ref thought the Ukrainian exaggerated his fall and VAR agreed but it looked like a penalty in real time in the stadium and even more so when I saw the replay. Surprisingly though I read the Ukrainian manager didn’t seem to think it was a penalty either
There's the risk of getting it wrong if you tackle a player in the penalty box, but generally, nearly always, the attacker is in the line of vision of the defender. Allen didn't dive in, didn't mis time, wasn't in an unnatural position and couldn't see the **** either. All of that was obviously taken into account, and rightly so.This thread is comedy gold.
Of course it should have been a penalty. It was a blatant foul. In the penalty area. However, thankfully, the VAR on this particular occasion was as utterly useless as the VAR's are in most Premier League games.
"There was no intent...."
How often do players intentionally foul opponents in the penalty area?!?
Ref: "Did you mean to clatter into your opponent and bring him down in the penalty area?"
Player: "No ref, I was going for the ball, I didn't mean to foul him."
Ref: "No problem then, play on."
The Ukranian knew what he was doing he stuck his foot in front of Allen's foot, it was an unnatural movement. Should have been booked for diving
The Ukrainian manager knows his football!
Didn't mistime?!? He kicked the player, not the ball!
Give your head a wobble.
So…. Is it your contention that it wasn’t given as a penalty because of the incompetence of a referee and the professional(s) running VAR, and that a bunch of armchair fans would unanimously awarded a penalty with the same evidence?This thread is comedy gold.
Of course it should have been a penalty. It was a blatant foul. In the penalty area. However, thankfully, the VAR on this particular occasion was as utterly useless as the VAR's are in most Premier League games.
"There was no intent...."
How often do players intentionally foul opponents in the penalty area?!?
Ref: "Did you mean to clatter into your opponent and bring him down in the penalty area?"
Player: "No ref, I was going for the ball, I didn't mean to foul him."
Ref: "No problem then, play on."
Posting Permissions