The penalty call on Rashford

[nick2004]

Referee video instant replay. All the American sports have it.

And actually, the time wasted in those incidents is more that what would be wasted to an instant replay by the fourth referee.

 

[Reducation]

Hey, you went on the internet and said something stupid to wind people up. Well done you!

Do you believe he hit the deck involuntarily?

 

[bdecuc]

Alan Shearer actually said it wasn't a penalty on MotD2

I guess these 'analysts' are probably encouraged to express contrarian opinions from time to time. Helps give the appearance their job has proper value maybe?

Either that or he's just an idiot.

Yeah probably the latter...

 

[Reducation]

Except every other referee seems to do it. Calm down son, pick someone to have a fight with that has time for your petulant peacocking.

I'm calm, petal. Let that bee out of your bonnet. Ref-bashing is pathetic. They do a superb job.

 

[RedDevil@84]

He remembered that he has set a standard for fouls when he refused to call this one a foul on Oscar.

 

[Sir A1ex]

Do you believe he hit the deck involuntarily?

Urm, yes. Unless he was controlling Demichelis at the time?

 

[SSSSnake]

Anyone catch Alan Shearer and Danny Murphy's thoughts on MOTD? Basically both said it wasn't a foul. Shearer in fact said it's a physical sport so no penalty. I fu***** hate Shearer. What kind of comment is that? He gets no where near the ball and takes Rashford out. Couldn't be more clear cut. It was like Joey Barton saying the other day that it's ok for a two footed lunge because it's a derby.

 

[Mr Pigeon]

I'm calm, petal. Let that bee out of your bonnet. Ref-bashing is pathetic. They do a superb job.

Hey, we don't use that word around here. That's a RAWK word

I'm guessing that you're a ref? Because you seem really defensive about any criticism related to them.

 

[Sir A1ex]

Ref-bashing is pathetic. They do a superb job.

Good point - every call refs make is correct and to claim otherwise is disrespectful. Or something.

 

[Rado_N]

I'm calm, petal. Let that bee out of your bonnet. Ref-bashing is pathetic. They do a superb job.

No they really don't.

 

[acrebo]

Do you believe he hit the deck involuntarily?

So, in a hypothetical situation, a player is impeded to the point where they can no longer carry out their intended movement. The impedance wouldn't necessarily result in them falling over. That's not a foul?

It's absolutely clear that Demichelis' challenge knocked Rashford both off-balance and off of his stride. The ball was knocked clear into space towards goal and, due to the challenge, it was unlikely that Rashford would have been able to get to it before it ran out of play.

In that case, Rashford has been fouled. Unfortunately, it's indicative of modern refereeing that a foul is only a foul if a player falls over. If Rashford doesn't fall, after being clearly fouled, then he loses the ball AND doesn't get any recompense. It's a clear case of a player being fouled and going to ground to ensure the correct decision is made.

I'm not even 100% certain he went down easily to be honest. For me, he's struggling to stay on his feet the second the contact comes in and, if anything, he was trying to continue running whilst his body was off-balance.

 

[Turnip]

Don't think it was a pen personally. However the pushing and shoving on an 18 year old for falling over (and he didn't even seem to ask for a pen) is utterly pathetic. We were also lucky to get away with Smalling on Aguero (though I'd still say would have been a harsh pen) at the other end, so don't think we can have that much to complain about.

 

[Striker10]

I'm calm, petal. Let that bee out of your bonnet. Ref-bashing is pathetic. They do a superb job.

Well from a certain POV, sure they turn up and they get paid. But most officials have too much power. In the newcastle game for their penalty, the ref did what other refs don't. Usually the refs talk to the players but this smuck just awarded a penalty and you know what? He'll encounter that situation 100 times and more often then not a ref will stop play and talk to the players involved. The penalty was a penalty but he even put himself in a poor position over smalling because city commited multiple offenses before one of their players got booked. Against WBA, we saw Mata sent off and while we can say these were offenses - there was a certain haste to send the player off. Where is the common sense of the ability to read the game? You are talking nonsense. Refs have too much power to influence a game. They are grossly inconsistant and in Olivers case - another day he would have sent him off. So teams now have to rely on how the ref 'feels'. Now not all is bad......but i'm not sure you understand how BIG in sport - talking points are. I don't think so. They get away with it week after week and people like you make excuses.

 

[Striker10]

Don't think it was a pen personally. However the pushing and shoving on an 18 year old for falling over (and he didn't even seem to ask for a pen) is utterly pathetic. We were also lucky to get away with Smalling on Aguero (though I'd still say would have been a harsh pen) at the other end, so don't think we can have that much to complain about.

So he didn't go up to the ref then? Players protest in their own way. You saw we were lucky over smalling but Mangala would have been off too if Oliver did his job properly. That's the problem you create when you book one teams players early and not the others.

 

[lysglimt]

I think it's just Hargreaves who don't think it's a pen.

Shearer didn't think so either....

 

[RaptorSlo]

I think it's just Hargreaves who don't think it's a pen.

And Shearer.

 

[Reducation]

Urm, yes. Unless he was controlling Demichelis at the time?

Ok, that's where we differ. I saw an unnatural fall. The camera behind the goal line showed particularly clearly Rashford pull his right leg up and then drop.

No they really don't.

Au contraire. Studies have shown that a remarkably high percentage of their decision-making is brilliantly accurate and quick under immense pressure. Whining about individual allegedly debatable decisions is pathetic and unscientific. What is your opinion based on?

So, in a hypothetical situation, a player is impeded to the point where they can no longer carry out their intended movement. The impedance wouldn't necessarily result in them falling over. That's not a foul?

It's absolutely clear that Demichelis' challenge knocked Rashford both off-balance and off of his stride. The ball was knocked clear into space towards goal and, due to the challenge, it was unlikely that Rashford would have been able to get to it before it ran out of play.

In that case, Rashford has been fouled. Unfortunately, it's indicative of modern refereeing that a foul is only a foul if a player falls over. If Rashford doesn't fall, after being clearly fouled, then he loses the ball AND doesn't get any recompense. It's a clear case of a player being fouled and going to ground to ensure the correct decision is made.

I'm not even 100% certain he went down easily to be honest. For me, he's struggling to stay on his feet the second the contact comes in and, if anything, he was trying to continue running whilst his body was off-balance.

I have never said that Rashford wasn't fouled, only that he dived, and you seem to concur. He certainly did not struggle to stay on his feet. No outside force knocked his right foot away from under him.

 

[Rado_N]

There's nothing debatable about that penalty decision, the referee got it wrong. The fact that you think he dived is ridiculous.

When the only people agreeing with you are Owen Hargreaves and Alan Shearer it should be clear that you're wrong.

 

[Sad Chris]

If you really thought that was a dive, I have a faint idea of how your agility skills must be...

 

[Sir A1ex]

Ok, that's where we differ. I saw an unnatural fall. The camera behind the goal line showed particularly clearly Rashford pull his right leg up and then drop.
I have never said that Rashford wasn't fouled, only that he dived, and you seem to concur. He certainly did not struggle to stay on his feet. No outside force knocked his right foot away from under him.

We do differ.

If it had been his only priority to stay on his feet, regardless of where he ended up, could he have? Probably. He most likely could have thrown his leg out the other way and after a few steps held it together, ending up regaining his balance fully several meters away (somewhere off the pitch by the side of the goal netting I reckon), facing in a random direction, long after the ball had gone.
But his priority was to remain involved in the match, ideally in control of the ball, in a goal-scoring position. This was not possible, due to the impact he received from Demichelis. Not long after the impact this becomes apparent, so rather than put all his effort into a heroic effort to stay on his feet as described above he lets the momentum of the knock take him down.

In your book that means he dived. Fair enough, but nobody else agrees. He was fouled (as you agree) and this caused him to go down. It's as clear a case you can get.

 

[Jonno]

Plus if there's any player in the world right now who's going to stay on his feet and rifle another shot past the opposing goalkeeper it's Marcus Rashford.

He's bundled over whilst running at full pace blatantly.

 

[El Zoido]

Couldn't believe Shearer thought that it wasn't a penalty. If he'd been brought down like that when he was playing he'd have been livid not to be awarded it. It's actually unbelievable to me that anybody could watch the replay and think it wasn't a penalty, it's as clear as they come.

 

[Bebe]

Couldn't believe Shearer thought that it wasn't a penalty. If he'd been brought down like that when he was playing he'd have been livid not to be awarded it. It's actually unbelievable to me that anybody could watch the replay and think it wasn't a penalty, it's as clear as they come.

I can't understand why it's even debatable. Couple simple questions:

Was there enough contact to impede or obstruct?
- Obviously.

Was the contact made in a genuine attempt to play the ball?
- Not at all

Foul, simple as.

Was the foul committed in the penalty area?
- Yes

Penalty shot. Absurd to suggest otherwise.

 

[kouroux]

I can't understand why it's even debatable. Couple simple questions:

Was there enough contact to impede or obstruct?
- Obviously.

Was the contact made in a genuine attempt to play the ball?
- Not at all

Foul, simple as.

Was the foul committed in the penalty area?
- Yes

Penalty shot. Absurd to suggest otherwise.

Sometimes people are guided and blinded by some bias and they refuse to see and accept what is so clear and in front of them. You can always make case for having the wrong at first view because it may go too but after several replays if one cannot conclude that it should've been a pen then something is truly wrong.

 

[Eddy_JukeZ]

Was absolutely fuming when the pen wasn't awarded. It's as clear a pen as you'll ever see.

Oliver is one of the worst refs out there.

 

[Northstand]

Couldn't believe Shearer thought that it wasn't a penalty. If he'd been brought down like that when he was playing he'd have been livid not to be awarded it. It's actually unbelievable to me that anybody could watch the replay and think it wasn't a penalty, it's as clear as they come.

Aye, and having listened for years to these pundits justifying countless soft penalties with the old mantra "there was contact", Shearer's reason for this not to be a penalty was "football is a contact sport"!

 

[crossy1686]

I know Shearer said it wasn't a penalty on match of the day 2 but all the guys on the Guardian football podcast said it should have been a penalty and Savage was going mad on Radio 5 Live's commentary when it wasn't given.

Also, as a striker, I find it hard to believe that Shearer would not screaming for a penalty if that was for a team he was either playing for or supporting.

 

[acrebo]

Ok, that's where we differ. I saw an unnatural fall. The camera behind the goal line showed particularly clearly Rashford pull his right leg up and then drop.

I have never said that Rashford wasn't fouled, only that he dived, and you seem to concur. He certainly did not struggle to stay on his feet. No outside force knocked his right foot away from under him.

If it's a foul then it's a penalty, so why are we even having the debate?

There was an outside force: Demichelis. Just because Rashford is able to get his right foot back on the ground doesn't mean he is able to stay on his feet.

Look at the angle of his body, particular how far forward his torso is from his legs, immediately after the contact. He's been thrown completely off balance. With the pace that he was running at, it would have been very difficult to regain balance and continue running.

 

[Spock]

Anywhere else on the pitch that particular foul will be called a foul 100% of the time by 100% of referees.

But it's one of those fouls that referees get wobbly on when it occurs inside the penalty box, especially in big games. Oliver got it wrong, but we referees get conned so often they're reluctant to make that call and risk getting criticized for it.

 

[Reducation]

If it's a foul then it's a penalty, so why are we even having the debate?

There was an outside force: Demichelis. Just because Rashford is able to get his right foot back on the ground doesn't mean he is able to stay on his feet.

Look at the angle of his body, particular how far forward his torso is from his legs, immediately after the contact. He's been thrown completely off balance. With the pace that he was running at, it would have been very difficult to regain balance and continue running.

The video shows the dive. The still image above is of little use. The thread started with a question as to why the ref might have decided not to give a penalty. I said the dive probably influenced him. I believe Rashford could have stayed on his feet easily and that he hit the deck deliberately.

 

[BobbyManc]

It was a definite penalty, albeit somewhat soft. Not saying Rashford dived but the contact was not huge, enough to impede him though and merit a penalty and a booking. For me, Oliver bottled it, he was probably hesitant to award anything because the fans and players were claiming the ball had gone out moments before yet he couldn't call it from where he was, and ultimately he must have had some doubt over how easily Rashford went down. Having watched it again though I'm perplexed at the City players reactions to Rojo keeping the ball in, so many including Demichelis just stopped playing. That's inexcusable and sums up our season.

 

[Silverman]

Definite penalty. He was barged over.

 

[ZAGREB RED]

It wasn't a bad foul or a brutal tackle but De Michelis knew exactly what he was doing, he banged into Rashford just enough to knock him off balance, the kid didn't dive. It was a penalty, agreed bit soft but a penalty all the same. Like some have already said, it would most likely have been a foul anywhere else on the pitch. That said, Smalling got away with his foul on Aguero late on and probably should have got his second yellow. If he hadn't already been booked he would have been so the ref cut him a break there. swings and roundabouts. Had United got the penalty and scored it, the game might have been done and dusted by the time Smalling got away with the second foul, but anyway United won so, from a United point of view, it's all good.

 

[Lawman]

The video shows the dive. The still image above is of little use. The thread started with a question as to why the ref might have decided not to give a penalty. I said the dive probably influenced him. I believe Rashford could have stayed on his feet easily and that he hit the deck deliberately.

Doesn't matter if he went down it still should have been a penalty. Stone wall in my opinion.

 

[gerdm07]

Can't believe anyone would say it wasn't a PK. I think Oliver is a very good referee but he did not have a good match. I also think he normally would have given Smalling a second yellow but was making up for this mistake (I'm sure he watched the video at halftime). Two wrongs sometimes makes it right.

 

[LuisNaniencia]

Christ, is this still being debated? Even Liverpool fans I've spoken to think if was a blatant pen.

 

[Richard Cranium]

The worst part about all of that is how he's too fecking cowardly to break up the big huddle of players who are fighting with each other. Is there a referee as weak and scared as Oliver in the league?

Apparently it's a yellow for AdM in that clip but nothing for Fernandinho or Demechelis for double handed pushes on Rashford after already fouling him.

I have questioned some of the decisions of Oliver against us. Seems very reserved in awarding us decisions but more than happy to do it for teams we play. [/rawk]

 

[TrustInJanuzaj]

I'm sorry but if you don't think that's a pen you need your eyes checked. Honestly if he rugby tackled him to the floor there would still be some idiots in here debating it. I think too many people have now got in their head that every player is diving when the reality is that when you actually okay football even the smallest challenge can knock you off balence and is as such a foul. In this instance, he doesn't just make mild contact he literally cleans his legs out leaving no chance to stay on his feet bad some bambi on ice performance.

 

[carlosp]

Can't help but feel that it would have been very soft. Against City I take it, but I'd be furious if something like that was given against us.

I have seen less tackles given against us e.g. Rafael tackle a few years ago. Ref was chicken at giving a blatant penalty.

 

[RoadTrip]

The video shows the dive. The still image above is of little use. The thread started with a question as to why the ref might have decided not to give a penalty. I said the dive probably influenced him. I believe Rashford could have stayed on his feet easily and that he hit the deck deliberately.

Serious question - do you run?

Because anyone who has ever run in the history of time knows that the smallest of contact can be enough to knock you off your balance. I've watched the video and I disagree with you.