Video for anyone who wants to watch TAA clearly slide into his path.
Why wasn’t TAA sent off?
- Thread starter Pogue Mahone
- Start date
You're the one who's talking rubbish, you can consider it harsh as a pen and that's fine but referees don't make decisions that aren't book based. They protect themselves like that.
You really think he based his decision out of thin air
?Still waiting for you to show me the rule of why it’s a penalty? But sure keep calling it rubbish with no facts to back it upYou're the one who's talking rubbish, you can consider it harsh as a pen and that's fine but referees don't make decisions that aren't book based. They protect themselves like that.
You really think he based his decision out of thin air
When you watch all those angles, the idea that DCL should have found a way to take a detour around TAA en route to the ball and that the collision was all his fault is pretty fecking extraordinary.
Try and imagine it this way; If a car was to handbrake and slide in front of another car travelling at full speed, resulting in a collision, which car would be at fault? It doesn't get any more simple than that unless you choose to complicate it.Still waiting for you to show me the rule of why it’s a penalty? But sure keep calling it rubbish with no facts to back it up
Read the OP, it's got it covered (DOGSO). Be sure to keep arguing a pen that was given where the player himself didn't even protest it, I just find it amusing.Still waiting for you to show me the rule of why it’s a penalty? But sure keep calling it rubbish with no facts to back it up
Honestly I'm lost for words. It's a clear pen even if it's unfortunate the way it happened but it just is. TAA knew it himself, the ref didn't even take long to confirm it
Wait what, there's a non Liverpool fan that thinks it wasn't a peno
Yep.
An easy way to think of it is that because intent doesn't matter, that attempted slide block gets treated in exactly the same way as if he had deliberately tried to slide tackle DCL.
The "tackle" saw TAA slide directly through the path of the attacker who was running to the loose ball, make contact with the player without being anywhere near playing the ball, prevent the attacker from playing ball, then continue to slide on after contact had been made. As with all tackles that fit that description, it's a nailed on penalty.
Four pages of debate in a thread started just cause Pogue wanted to show off the new acronym he'd learned.
Never admitting you're wrong is more important than club affiliation.Wait what, there's a non Liverpool fan that thinks it wasn't a peno
In Trent’s situation, where you have committed to a slide tackle and missed the ball, you had better make yourself as small as possible. You don’t try to be cute and lift your arm and leg to try and bring down the striker and blame it on an innocent tangle. Goalkeepers will often try the same thing in similar scenarios where there’s a loose ball and they’re on the ground.
It’s a bit similar to the Grosso/Neill penalty from Italy v Australia in 2006, where the defender has slid for the ball, missed it and obstructed the attacker from getting the ball.
It’s a bit similar to the Grosso/Neill penalty from Italy v Australia in 2006, where the defender has slid for the ball, missed it and obstructed the attacker from getting the ball.
You’d have to be a bit special to think he hasn’t slid into his path.
Last edited:
If DCL is going to have an unchallenged shot why would he fall over TAA? TAA being on the floor is a natural position after attempting to block a shot. Even if TAA decides to clear off that path, he couldn’t just delete himself from that spot immediately.
Forget that TAA was on the floor for a moment. If a striker plays a shot and a defender attempts to block the shot but fails but the keeper parries the ball away into a no man’s land, that defender would naturally be in front of the attacker. At this point the defender is not impeding the striker. However if the striker attempts to get to the ball but is obstructed by the defender, then that’s a foul.
TAA’s raised leg should be a foul but DCL falls over him first and so that is the original foul. I’m startled how many people think that the penalty was the correct call. Some even think a red card should have been awarded. In which world do players get punished for someone falling over them?
Glad he wasn't sent off he can keep being a liability for them.
You described exactly what happened - and concluded it’s a foul - in the same post you claim to be startled by anyone who thinks it was a penalty!This thread is the gift that keeps on giving. So many bizarre takes.
Literally exactly that
This thread is the gift that keeps on giving. So many bizarre takes.
that’s hilarious.TAA didn't find himself in that position by chance. He was there because he deliberately slid along the ground and that put him there.
Because intent isn't a factor, it gets treated in exactly the same way as if it was an attempted slide tackle on DCL. If he had tried to slide tackle DCL, slid directly through his path to goal, got nowhere near the ball, made contact with DCL and brought him down then nobody in their right mind would be saying "well DCL just ran into the player slide tackling him off the ball, it's his own fault".
I think you missed the last paragraph of my post. If DCL was on his way to getting the ball but gets impeded by TAA’s trailing foot, that would be 120% a penalty but in this case DCL actually falls over TAA before the latter sticks out his foot. There are two fouls here but DCL fouls first and so it should be free kick to TAA.
This thread is the gift that keeps on giving. So many bizarre takes.
Sliding to block a shot but not reaching the ball is not a foul. Being on the ground as a result of attempting to block a shot is not a foul. The moment the ball comes to no man’s land, a foul is done by DCL first before TAA sticks his leg out. Are you saying that TAA’s presence on the ground is a foul?
Being on the ground when making a tackle and missing the ball is not a foul. Are you saying when you trip the player while being on the ground is also not a foul?
They got a new defender?
DCL failing to get to the ball was more a result of falling over TAA than TAA being on the floor. He should have just gone past TAA and slotted the ball home. If in the process of doing that
I didn’t say attempting a tackle from the ground isn’t a foul. I said being on the ground as a result of having attempted to block a shot is not a foul in itself. It couldn’t have changed anything really but I’m being as honest as I can be here.
Being objective has nothing to to with being fan for one or another club.Wait what, there's a non Liverpool fan that thinks it wasn't a peno
TAA wasn't passively sitting on the ground minding his own business. He deliberately (as in as part of a deliberate action on his part) slid along the ground into that position, was sliding along the ground when he made contact with DCL and continued sliding along the ground after contact had been made too.
The fact that the slide was an attempt to block the ball doesn't matter, at all. Nor does the fact that he didn't intend to make contact with DCL. It gets treated in exactly the same way as if it had been an intentional slide tackle on DCL that got nowhere near the ball.
Yeah but you know DCL clearly fouls Arnold... or something.
You genuinely think DCL fouls Arnold? Even when Arnold is sliding across the path between DCL and the ball which as you said makes him fall over?
Way too many acronyms in this thread.
Ehhhh? It was a clear peno ffs
Didn't Grosso also exagerate it ?
I just saw another view of the tackle, the one by limerickcitykid and yes you guys are correct along with @Pogue Mahone that’s a penalty. It was the right call.
Fair play buddy.
It is. The previous action of the shot and the slide is over. Both players continue their motion, one player has no control and is still sliding and the player still running is off balance after taking the shot so also has little control. It is accidental from both players. I'm sure TAA would have gotten out of the way if he could and I'm sure DCL wouldn't have gone to ground if he had the balance to stay on his feet. It looks messy but If the keeper didn't give a rebound it would never be a penalty, which is my stance. It shouldn't be a penalty just because the keeper lost the ball there, when it would never even be discussed otherwise.
Too many sensible facts to digest here.
Yet another crazy take. This thread keeps on flushing them out!
Allison did lose the ball. That actually happened. Hence DCL tried to get to it, only to be impeded by TAA. Which is why it was a penalty.
You seem to be arguing that it’s not a penalty if the sequence of events that caused it to be a penalty didn’t happen. Erm, ok?
Fouls arent judged by different phases of play. Its not an offside ffs
Obviously. I don't care about you as I haven't read the thread but it's nothing crazy about my post mate. I'm not even arguing, I'm letting you know how I see it. Calm your tits.
But they are. That's what I'm saying. If a player is fouled by a soft slide tackle after a shot the refs tend to not give penalties as long as the shot is fired well before the followthrough. Obviously that changes if the tackle is dangerous or something. I'm not arguing against anything, I'm just saying I don't know the rules but based on how refs usually apply a sense of logic to similar situations, they clearly haven't done that here.
I’m calm. My post was probably more smart arsed than it needed to be. It’s actually a really interesting incident. It has caused a load of crazy takes but mainly because it’s kind of unique. Could be in one of those “You Are The Referee” comic strips.