That has to be the worst decision I have ever seen. Dumfries got a yellow as well. Dumbfounded.
Was it a penalty?
- Thread starter tentan
- Start date
That has to be the worst decision I have ever seen. Dumfries got a yellow as well. Dumbfounded.
You can't challenge for a waist high ball with your leg extended leading with your studs. It's a foul anywhere else on the pitch.
Kane definitely embellished it but it's a foul.
Kane definitely embellished it but it's a foul.
I think it’s a soft pen, but it is a foul - especially as Dumfries studs were up.
Absolutely terrible decision.
The only reason the contact happens is because of Kane’s follow through.
He’s already taken the shot and the ball is gone.
The only reason the contact happens is because of Kane’s follow through.
He’s already taken the shot and the ball is gone.
pelanty all day
Just rewatched the game and can confirm that it was a penalty and we went on to score from it.
Yes, I saw him take it as well. Can confirm.
In isolation, yes, it's a clear foul and penalty. It becomes a big talking point only because you never see them given. But a clip is doing the rounds on Twitter showing Saka handling the ball leading up to the incident. Surely VAR should have also taken a look at that?
No pen. Also feck you Dumfries.
This. End of thread.
Stonewall penalty. That’s a foul anywhere on the field. Hence a penalty. I don’t even see how this is a debate. Dumfries should have picked up a second yellow for his subsequent foul on Foden five minutes later, that the referee didn’t catch.
Wtf, that's a stonewall penalty
The way some defenders put a shoulder into an attacker when defending the ball going out to touch would be a foul anywhere else on a pitch. The grabbing and pulling on corners too. Not buying that excuse.
not for me
Keepers never penalised for follow through if shot is away. How many times have you seen a striker shoot and an onrushing keeper make contact.
Even contact is debatable- Kane seems to follow thru onto him
Keepers never penalised for follow through if shot is away. How many times have you seen a striker shoot and an onrushing keeper make contact.
Even contact is debatable- Kane seems to follow thru onto him
If he got kicked before he managed to shoot, or while he was shooting. He made a shot on target before he was fouled so it's not a penalty.
Never a penalty, if we start giving these every follow through after a shot will find a defender if they are in the area.
Clear and obvious something. England are through.
I only just caught the highlights and that’s a ridiculous penalty to give. Kane got his shot away, these things happen all the time. That decision represents everything wrong with modern refereeing - attacking players are treated like toddlers.
Exactly
That shouldn’t have been a penalty. You can’t just ask defenders not to try and block shots or we may as well all go home.
Getting your shot away doesn't mean you haven't been fouled. That logic has never made any sense to me.
What is being impeded if it doesn’t affect the shot? The attack has been allowed till its completion without any illegitimate action disrupting it. Unless there’s malice involved like an elbow thrown or a stamp, I don’t see any reason for a penalty especially when it’s just a 50/50 rather than him being scythed down.
I was making a general point that a foul is a foul and too often defenders get away with foul play because the attacker got the shot away, regardless of how off target it was because of said foul.
This was a 50/50 Dumfries goes into showing his studs which make contact with Kane's foot. It's a foul.
One of those penalty that will always be given against utd but never if it happens to city.
Swedish TV found pictures of Bukayo Saka clearly handballing the ball just before the incident - so no...that was not a penalty
Super slo-mos often create a false sense of intentionality and this is a classic case of that.
Watching in real time, Saka cuts in from the right to shoot on his left, and the ball is blocked and ricochets onto his body, possibly hitting his hand. But with the pace Saka is running at, and the fact that he's just hit the ball, a deliberate handball just does not seem plausible to me.
The penalty for me was 100% correct. Reckless, studs up, high boot, and nowhere near the ball. It's a late challenge that basically stops Kane from keeping his shot down.
Last edited:
Yes
Studs up is a foul and considered dangerous play. That’s why he was given a yellow card also. I don’t even know why people think there is controversy there
Very rarely given considering the amount of times it happens across a season.
Right decision was made as it was studs up and dangerous.
Right decision was made as it was studs up and dangerous.
Its only the super slow-mo that makes you think its a penalty as well though. Kane kicks and his follow through hits Dumfries who simply had his leg up to try and block the shot.
These are never given.
I don't think it was a penalty, but with the freeze frame showing studs and there being contact there's always a chance it gets given.
Think it would have been a debatable foul even outside the box, so not a penalty.
The kind of mental gymnastics from people agreeing it's a foul anywhere on the pitch but not a penalty.
Just because refs often apply a different standard to fouls in the box doesn't mean it's correct
Just because refs often apply a different standard to fouls in the box doesn't mean it's correct
Wasn’t a penalty, but England would have equalised regardless.
Clear penalty
I've heard some absolute stupid stuff recently
He's gone in, studs up, not touched the ball and made contact with Kane. He could have really hurt him
The Netherlands seem not to know how to challenge for the ball when it's in the air h
I've heard some absolute stupid stuff recently
He's gone in, studs up, not touched the ball and made contact with Kane. He could have really hurt him
The Netherlands seem not to know how to challenge for the ball when it's in the air h
It's a penalty, not sure why there is so much controversy around it.
It's a VAR penalty and we have to accept that VAR has fundamentally changed how the game is interpreted now. Just look at the absolute roller coaster approach to the handball rule since it's inception.
We had that crazy red card for Casemiro where he wins the tackle but his foot bounces off the top of the ball and connects with the players shin. This is a similar interpretation .The angle of the foot is deemed dangerous regardless of any intent
Personally I don't think you should give fouls for this, the Dutch were very unlucky but in the grand scheme England deserved to win last night
We had that crazy red card for Casemiro where he wins the tackle but his foot bounces off the top of the ball and connects with the players shin. This is a similar interpretation .The angle of the foot is deemed dangerous regardless of any intent
Personally I don't think you should give fouls for this, the Dutch were very unlucky but in the grand scheme England deserved to win last night
Anywhere else on the pitch it's a foul, I don't see why it's any different in the box, you see these given every week just not in the box and there is no outrage
Whilst this may have been a foul anywhere else on the pitch (although I am dubious of that), what this incident clearly shows is that not every foul in the penalty area should be a penalty. Punishments should be a proportionate to the offence, this clearly was not.
Picture this.
It’s the half way line. Your central midfielder looks for a long ball switch, and strikes through the ball with power to get the ball 40yrds to the wing.
As he does that, an opposition player comes with his foot high to try and block the ball, but was too late, the ball had already gone, but manages to catch the midfielders foot.
That’s a free kick.