Did anyone else think that was a penalty...

[Cyclops]

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]

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

[OurManFlint II]

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]

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

[Cyclops]

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.

[OurManFlint II]

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...and-misconduct

[Cyclops]

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")

[Rjk]

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")

explicit would be better

[cityhammer]

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")

[Grangenders]

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.

[Tuerto]

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

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.

[Hilts]

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.

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.

[The Lone Gunman]

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."