And it's fair to say that United or PSG fans aren't the best people to speak to on this direct incident. Was there this much agreement with the ref when Nani was sent off? Was there feck.
Was it a pen?
- Thread starter ivaldo
- Start date
You can't just make new rules up though.
And it was as deliberate as it needs to be. He chose to put his arm there as a way of helping him get more height to block the ball. He chose to turn away instead of facing it and having a chance to move his arm away.
And scored
I wholeheartedly agree with your second paragraph and with Ferdinand if that's what he's saying. Regarding the bolded part, that's what I take issue with. Blocking the ball is an integral part of defending and you simply can't make your arms go away whilst doing that. If the ball accidentally hits your arm it still shouldn't be a penalty imo. Criteria to take into account for a decision are proximity to the ball, position of the arm, stuff like that.
Doesn't make sense to punish defenders for doing their job. If an attacker gets a free shot at the edge of the area, and a defender is coming in to block that shot with a perfectly fine tackle, the attacker now basically has two targets he can choose from: the goal or the defender's arm. There's nothing inherently risky at trying to block a shot.
I'm not. I accept the referee's decision and expert analyses. I wouldn't be mad if a penalty was not awarded.
I also think the punishment for the infraction is uber-harsh. I personally think the game would be better if penalties were awarded for clear goal deniers, not all fouls that occur within an area.
Don't listen to either and just see what the refs who are updated on the rules say, they all say the pen was legit.
I think the rule should be modified. I don't think the current rule is the best for the sport.
I would be mad if I knew there is a rule for it and it wasn't applied. I personally think it can be harsh but at the same time, those are the rules...
Maybe it will in due time, with the current UEFA there are always new things being experimented on.
That'd be a major change to the sport. I look at penalties as another aspect of the game, rather than a fair replacement for the scenario preceding it.
Can't say it doesn't add a layer of excitement .
It also mostly stops defenders cheating. Can you imagine how many would start purposely trying to knock the ball with their arms out if it meant a freekick instead of a pen? Would end up an impossible grey area to ref.
I think more people need to read this to get an understanding of how the handball law is written...
It's still open for interpretation. I think his arm was in a natural position, although it's debatable. And I definitely think the distance to the ball and with the power the ball was struck, the distance that the ball travelled was not short is also very debatable.
But these things are taken into consideration today as well? Even in this specific instance?
"Following the on-field review, the referee confirmed that the distance that the ball travelled was not short and the impact could therefore not be unexpected," a UEFA statement said.
"The defender's arm was not close to the body, which made the defender's body bigger thus resulting in the ball being stopped from travelling in the direction of the goal. The referee, therefore, awarded a penalty kick."
The refs are told that a natural position is a walking position. So arms at your side. Anything that makes them bigger is considered unnatural (arms out). So no, it's not down to interpretation when the laws are enforced the way they are meant to be...
I see what you're getting at. I assume you're also thinking of those daft penalties defenders give away when the forward has already gone too wide or has lost control of the ball.
The trouble with applying another kind of DOGSO rule on penalty kicks is the subjective factor. Do you include the forward's ability in the equation - one man's too tight an angle is another forward's chance, or at least the chance for a rebound. What about where other defenders/attackers are. All the what ifs that go towards making football unpredictable. I think that's an unnecessary extra burden on the ref.
Too many penalties? Maybe, one day, and they might have to change it then, but that's not what we've been seeing so far.
See my previous post above yours
He put his arm in the path of the ball, while looking at it.
It was only the last 45-60cm of its travel, that he turns his head away. His arm remains on the trajectory path of the ball at all times.
Clearly deliberate handball.
Though I would not likely have thought so in real-time, as it takes some examination and reflection to realise what happened.
It was only the last 45-60cm of its travel, that he turns his head away. His arm remains on the trajectory path of the ball at all times.
Clearly deliberate handball.
Though I would not likely have thought so in real-time, as it takes some examination and reflection to realise what happened.
He had time to jump up and swing around trying to block the ball so he had time to anticipate Dalots shot.
It's not like he didn't have time to react since he did.
If you're jumping, having your arms at your side would be an unnatural position.
Football is not a walking pace sport. Every picture from players heading the ball, they have their eyes closed. They have to react to things in a split second. You can't predict their moves and movement.
Yeah that is true, it does introduce a level of subjectivity. And as @VeevaVee said, defenders would definitely try to push the boundaries.
Yes, he did. But after the ball left Dalot's foot, he did not have time to change the position of his hand, that's how close he was and how hard the ball was struck.
Anyway, you'll keep arguing A and I'll keep saying B. It's just that I can see a lot of unfair situations coming from these rules, and I don't like that. Defenders should be given the benefit of the doubt unless it's obvious, e.g. he changes the position of his arm to block the shot after he sees where it's going.
Sure, you disagree with the outcome, but it certainly is part of the consideration when making the decision. It is literally the reason for the penalty.See my previous post above yours
Yes, but it's still very much open to interpretation. What distance is close enough that it's not considered a penalty? Would he still have given it if Dalot was 2m closer, although those 2m would not change anything since Kimpembe still wouldn't have had time to change the position of his arms?
Would he have not given it if his arms were 15cm closer to his body? 30cm? It's still the referee's interpretation that will be the definitive element.
This is what I don't get. There are rules and according to it it's a penalty. Why should they change the rule again just because one CB made a mistake of blocking shot with his hand.
Kimpembe shouldnt have even been playing if the ref at Old Trafford had any balls on him.
Karma
PSG, City, Liverpool fans.
There is only so much a man can take.
There is only so much a man can take.
Oh, I do agree it's still open to interpretation. I thought you meant, in the post I first quoted, that you meant these elements are not taken into consideration with the line the refs have to follow today.
Also, if his arm was 30 cm closer to his body, it certainly wouldn't be a pen.
Would you mean the same if his arm was 15 cm further from his body? 30 cm? Even then the movement/position is considered natural, but his silhouette would be even bigger.
I'd say any distance if your arm is out in any other way than naturally running. Even then, Lindelof runs at attackers with his arms tucked behind his back sometimes. If you try to benefit from jumping in such a way that requires your arm to be out you run the risk.
In real time no, he probably didn't, but after the first VAR image/still he did.
Not changing at all, having seen all the angles and hearing UEFA/FIFA's explanation I still don't think it should have been a penalty, the not an obvious penalty was from the perspective of the Referee after several viewings.
I'm old school, I want my defenders to face up and if you get it flush in the mush, or get a stinger in the crown jewels that's tough, it's your job you're paid handsomely to do it, maybe it should have been a penalty for cowardice and handball....
Maybe we should go the whole hog and bring the rule in that the Spanish used a few years ago that if the ball hits your hand/arm in the box deliberate or not it's a penalty, it was a bloody stupid rule, but at least everybody knew where the stood.
He's jumping in front of the shot though. he knows where the ball is going. I can't see why he can claim he hasn't time to react to the ball when he's literally jumping in front of it.
Is ignorance really an excuse? It's his mistake when he turns his head, why should he get the benefit of the doubt if he can't see the ball?
He knows where the goal is and he knows where the ball is, and tries to block the path in between. He has literally no idea whatsoever where that ball is going when he starts his jump (and neither did Dalot probably
).Of course he does, he has two other teammates sliding in as well, even one player sticking his leg out like a ballerina in that direction because he knows where the ball is heading..its towards the goal!He knows where the goal is and he knows where the ball is, and tries to block the path in between. He has literally no idea whatsoever where that ball is going when he starts his jump (and neither did Dalot probably
Dalot is running towards goal with shortened stride, unless it goes completely vertical then the defender knows the shot is coming straight towards him, thats why he's turning like a coward to protect himself while trying his best to close down the shot.
All three PSG defenders knew exactly where that ball was going. It's not like the defender was doing star jumps and Dalot suddenly appeared from nowhere.
It's why he's in the air in the first place. His intent was to make himself bigger.
He had his eyes on the ball almost the whole time, he turned his head in the last few hundredths of a seconds as it was about to hit him. I think it was a very harsh decision, but he had a very good idea where the ball was.He knows where the goal is and he knows where the ball is, and tries to block the path in between. He has literally no idea whatsoever where that ball is going when he starts his jump (and neither did Dalot probably
I think most people that have played the game at any level think it was very harsh, but I can see (by the letter of the law) why the refs gave it. I would be annoyed if it had been given against Utd.
I think it's great how the current rules are more in favour of the attackers and not the defenders. Will provide more goals and attacking play. Anyone whining about that needs to have a talk with themselves.
You go and jump with your hands out and your back turned you will have to live with the consequences.
You go and jump with your hands out and your back turned you will have to live with the consequences.
And that's the risk you take when you jump to block a ball...
I don't know, slow-mo replays make everything seem much worse, it happens so fast in reality that I doubt he had the time to adjust anyway if he saw the ball coming. I agree with the bolded part though, yes.
To be honest soft one, but I've seen it now a few times and yes it was, I think he new as well, the ball hits his arm from the elbow down, which I think is easier to get out of the way, and that's why it was given I think, if it hits his upper arm shoulder down I don't think they give it?
stick to this incident.
The rule has been clarified by UEFA.
Using your argument an Arsenal Supporter is not the best person to talk about this.