Penalty decisions

[LarryHagman]

I think it was a pen, and I’m glad it was. But it was only a pen because modern footy is a sack of cock.
If he’d have been running to the ATM to check his humongous bank balance, that molecular level of contact would never have brought him down; he probably wouldn’t have noticed.

 

[Frogfish]

That is the point, when the player is in the penalty area or just outside it, they fall over to gain an advantage. When they're in midfield or at the back, they don't fall over anymore because the advantage now is to continue running past the player you've just beat and look to create a chance. So the players are choosing when to be impeded and when not to. That defeats the definition of being impeded. Unless there is some gravitational anomaly caused by their proximity to the goal posts, it's diving.


What my point is, you don't need a physics PhD to know Benteke was not fouled, but touched.

I think you need to watch more Nat Geo .... a cheetah bringing down a gazelle for instance, just the merest tap of the ankles when at pace ..........

 

[Insignificance]

He clipped the heal of someone racing by him. Unintentionally yeah. But still a foul. Fouls inside the box is penalty. Poor ref that cant make that call alone. Coward.

 

[Gerry_A_Trick]

The problem is that the rule is not very clear, or at least it's not implemented in a clear manner.

Is it intent? Is it contact? Does winning the ball exempt you? What happens with a wild tackle, with no contact, but the player needs to jump/dive/check his run to avoid contact/injury and loses the ball?

They need to get better at defining what is a foul. All contact below the ankle is fine, anything above is not, or something like that.

 

[dantes]

The problem is that the rule is not very clear, or at least it's not implemented in a clear manner.

Is it intent? Is it contact? Does winning the ball exempt you? What happens with a wild tackle, with no contact, but the player needs to jump/dive/check his run to avoid contact/injury and loses the ball?

They need to get better at defining what is a foul. All contact below the ankle is fine, anything above is not, or something like that.

I don't think the FA want to do that. It would mean clubs could apply the precise definition to prove that the referee made a mistake. Several dozen mistakes in every single game.

 

[dantes]

The inevitable consequence would be that referees would be replaced by technology, by machines. Those machines would probably be made to look like humanoid referees. Then the end will come.

 

[Gerry_A_Trick]

I don't think the FA want to do that. It would mean clubs could apply the precise definition to prove that the referee made a mistake. Several dozen mistakes in every single game.

The first step is actually admitting that refs can make mistakes, and doing something to help them a bit more often.

 

[Portly]

Attempts to make the interpretation of the rules of football more scientific and less dependent on human judgement always fail.

A few years ago there was a great deal of moaning about referees needing to be "consistent." The FA tried to educate the referees so that they would all make decisions on a consistent basis.

The result was an increase in obviously unfair decisions. The thing is that no two situations in football are exactly identical.

 

[Judge Jules]

Nor are human beings ever going to be 100% consistent, and referees are human. Allegedly.

 

[Woland]

I don't see how starting and stopping a game will help, given no two humans agree having seen the thing a zillion times each.

 

[Judge Jules]

The system works OK in rugby, where the TMO (television match official) has the final call. It would need to be crystal clear whose job the final decision would be.

 

[Gerry_A_Trick]

The system works OK in rugby, where the TMO (television match official) has the final call. It would need to be crystal clear whose job the final decision would be.

The difference is that the rules are a lot clearer in rugby. As someone else said, we can't agree on most of these decisions after viewing hundreds of times. The rules need to be clearer first, then video refs are a no brainer.

 

[Woland]

The system works OK in rugby, where the TMO (television match official) has the final call. It would need to be crystal clear whose job the final decision would be.

It doesn't. I used to go to loads of rugby internationals and wouldn't bother again. The refs are scared of giving anything. You spend most of the time looking at the screen waiting for a confirmation. It's shite. As for the final call.. we already have that. This debate would be exactly the same whether a video ref had called it or not.

 

[mark1975]

Since when does Benteke run to the ATM on grass in studs?

 

[Red Bird]

I think it was a pen, and I’m glad it was. But it was only a pen because modern footy is a sack of cock.
If he’d have been running to the ATM to check his humongous bank balance, that molecular level of contact would never have brought him down; he probably wouldn’t have noticed.

I played rugby union for 10 years, from secondary school up to university, against people on whom I conceded one and half to three stone (by the end). The best way to bringing them down as they ran past me at pace was simply by tapping their ankles.

 

[Athens]

I played rugby union for 10 years, from secondary school up to university, against people on whom I conceded one and half to three stone (by the end). The best way to bringing them down as they ran past me at pace was simply by tapping their ankles.

I remember Peter Stringer (who was tiny for a rugby player) used to bring down players that were much larger than him with tap tackles.

 

[tombrown]

I remember Peter Stringer (who was tiny for a rugby player) used to bring down players that were much larger than him with tap tackles.

Myself, wife & two kids once got a flight from Shannon to Bristol and shared the plane with the Munster rugby team. The plane on that route is so small that it was just about us & them & noone else.

I hate rugby so ignored them, but my wife got into a conversation with one of them and was asking about that "Peter Stringfellow" bloke who plays for them and whether or not he was related to THE Peter Stringfellow. The guy who she was talking to just ran with the unintended joke while poor Peter Stringer sat in the seat beside him squirming, with my wife totally oblivious to the fact that the object of her amusement was right in front of her.

 

[white-sox]

This is getting rather frustrating. There is 100% proof that contact was made with the knee to the foot (100%) (100%). The only issue is if Benteke made a meal out of it (which he did as there was contact!).

 

[Judge Jules]

I remember Peter Stringer (who was tiny for a rugby player) used to bring down players that were much larger than him with tap tackles.

Technically the term "tap tackle" denotes something different, namely a very low tackle which doesn't involve wrapping your arms right around the guy's legs. Tripping other players up with your feet is as much a foul in rugby as it is in football. Of course the perps aren't always caught. 😉

 

[Hansern]

The lino is taken off duty this weekend aswell. The Mirror saying its because of the controversial decision.
There was contact and no dive, so very little controversial in all honesty...

 

[Insignificance]

The lino is taken off duty this weekend aswell. The Mirror saying its because of the controversial decision.
There was contact and no dive, so very little controversial in all honesty...

It is controversial to referees that we are breathing down Uniteds neck after having a poo season.

 

[Hansern]

What did the gigantic cunt Pardew say about this then???

 

[Arn]

Palace should be thrown out of the cup, the player banned for the rest of his life and Pardew forced to be the manager at Palermo next season.

 

[Judge Jules]

What have Palermo done to deserve that?

 

[Arn]

What have Palermo done to deserve that?

The owner is even more crazy than Ashley. After a year there Pardew would need psychiatric help forever. No one would be able to save him. He would be mad for the rest of his life. He would walk around naked telling everyone that he is a dickhead.

 

[cloggypop]

He'd probably just go to nightclubs and try to pull Italian birds.

 

[Comical Aly]

The problem is that the rule is not very clear, or at least it's not implemented in a clear manner.

Is it intent? Is it contact? Does winning the ball exempt you? What happens with a wild tackle, with no contact, but the player needs to jump/dive/check his run to avoid contact/injury and loses the ball?

They need to get better at defining what is a foul. All contact below the ankle is fine, anything above is not, or something like that.

If I was to put into words how it's currently interpreted (mostly), it should be a foul is avoidable contact unless incidental to clearly winning the ball. That's as close as you could get so still loads of room for judgement.

Otherwise refereeing could be automated with robots running around the pitch programmed with Michael Owen's voice.

 

[Silver Sean]

It's a pen if the ref gives it. It's not a pen if the ref doesn't give it. Simple.