I see the incident as a deliberate/accidental handball type situation. Your hand isn't meant to be there and you haven't placed it there on purpose but it is in the way and blocking a goal so is a penalty. Similar to this where TAA hasn't positioned himself there on purpose after challenging DCL but he is in the way of him scoring the goal so it's a penalty. It's rough and I think most of us would be annoyed if it was given against us but I can see why it is given.
Why wasn’t TAA sent off?
- Thread starter Pogue Mahone
- Start date
Refs gave a penalty so it should have been a red as there is no intent to play the ball. But was it really a penalty? I think we would be fuming if it was given against us.
I think that’s fair, no one is arguing it isn’t unlucky, but how unfair would it be if nothing was given and DCL lost a chance at a tap in because someone was randomly sliding across his path?
I thought unless it was a “clear and obvious error” then the on field decision should stand? The fact that people are debating this so much, with opinions on both sides, shows that it wasn’t clear and obvious either way. Therefore they didn’t need him to look at the screen for the penalty award.
I wasn't sure yesterday but have watched it again today. Should have been red.
The initial contact is completely accidental and part of the initial challenge as some are saying, however my understanding is that this is still a penalty. (See Luiz)
BUT, DCL is only stumbling at this point and has an open goal so he only needs to get something on the ball, which is still possible at this stage. TAA then clearly raises his leg to trip him. Watch it again, it quite clear.
The initial contact is completely accidental and part of the initial challenge as some are saying, however my understanding is that this is still a penalty. (See Luiz)
BUT, DCL is only stumbling at this point and has an open goal so he only needs to get something on the ball, which is still possible at this stage. TAA then clearly raises his leg to trip him. Watch it again, it quite clear.
For some reason, this gets overlooked in the whole debate. This makes it a foul without going for the ball, so therefore a red in my book.
Can a decision be looked at again and a red given after the match or does the on field ref have the final say, am lost when it comes to reffing nowadays.
I didn't think it was a penalty to be honest. What can Arnold Trent do? He was down and got a knee in the back of his head. I understand why it was given because there would be a goal but I don't know. This is case where it is 50/50 and I wouldn't have called that penalty. Red card? Because what I thought of situation there is no way it is read card. But now, when it was given, referee should have given him red card because of the law.
The most wierd moment in this was referee taking 50 meters run to check a screen for about 1,3 sec and run back. Plain stupidity from VAR and referee once again.
The most wierd moment in this was referee taking 50 meters run to check a screen for about 1,3 sec and run back. Plain stupidity from VAR and referee once again.
That's not irrelevant as the only reason he is there is because he has made a deliberate action to slide and go to ground...he is in fact still sliding when DCL hits him, so you can't argue he's just laying still.
You can't equate it to someone running into someone standing still because TAA has made a movement.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
The raised leg has zero baring on DLC, he's already pretty much down at that point.
The red is debatable but I don't see the penalty as being. He slides straight through his path and knocks him over when he is looking at an open goal. If that isn't a DOGSO then what is ?
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
The raised leg has zero baring on DLC, he's already pretty much down at that point.
[/QUOTE]
He still fouled him and stopped a goal scoring opportunity, he can’t be sliding about all over the pitch, red for me.
I find it utterly perplexing that anyone could argue it’s not a blatant penalty. Putting the red card to one side for a moment, how many times have we seen penalties when a goalkeeper slides out but has the ball knocked past him and the attacker trips over him. Nailed on penalty every time. I defy anyone to rewatch that clip imagining TAA is a goalkeeper and tell me it’s not a penalty.
Whats confusing is his body. Hes attempting a slide tackle, didnt get the ball and tripped the attacker up. It has to be a pen.
If its not his body but an outstretched leg that tries a block, fails and trips CDL up, is it not a pen?
Plus MOTD has shown he moved his leg to trip him up anyway so we cant even say there wasnt any intent.
Carragher was talking absolute shite.
Sick of every nailed on penalty getting discussed like a moment of contentious play, because some idiot commentator made a comment on it, and this it's discussed to death because of some clown commenting during game.
They claim VAR ruining football but it's the supposed experts who don't know the rules with Bais who are ruining it every game
Sick of every nailed on penalty getting discussed like a moment of contentious play, because some idiot commentator made a comment on it, and this it's discussed to death because of some clown commenting during game.
They claim VAR ruining football but it's the supposed experts who don't know the rules with Bais who are ruining it every game
I saw the leg coming up but I don't think he touched him there. I believe also that there was intent even if he missed. I think it is the first contact, knee to head, that referee used. And for me, that is not penalty although I understand it was given because of goalscoring opportunites where Calvert Lewin would score. I see it as Lewin run into Trent.
We are lucky that it didn't decide the game because Everton would have still won. And as I said and answer the point of the thread that if you blow for a penalty there should have been red card.
Clear penalty. He clearly impeded Calvert Lewin who would have tapped it in. How can anyone genuinely argue that?
I really had no idea that the rule was that you only get away with a red card if you are going for the ball. I thought it was intent in the foul. So, if you deliberately take someone down, it's a red. If no intent, then not.
This incident was one where there was no intent so I would say no red card. But, if the comments above are correct, maybe that's not the rule.
I really had no idea that the rule was that you only get away with a red card if you are going for the ball. I thought it was intent in the foul. So, if you deliberately take someone down, it's a red. If no intent, then not.
This incident was one where there was no intent so I would say no red card. But, if the comments above are correct, maybe that's not the rule.
Well MOTD showed there was contact when he raised his leg (twice!) but isnt the rule that you have to be in control of yourself? TAA made the decision to dive in and couldnt get out of the way so he lacked control.
It just has to be a pen
Sorry but you’re talking absolute rubbish, where in the rules does this make it a penalty? I’ll wait.The rules say it is a pen, what we feel is right or fair is irrelevant. I hope you're still not on that "intent" notion since yesterday
intent in this situation definitely does matter, he’s not even trying to win the make a tackle or block DCL, he’s literally still sliding along the turf and can’t do anything about it.
anybody with half a brain cell knows you can’t just run into somebody, fall over and expect to get a penalty. I don’t care if he’s laying on the floor between him and the ball, there is zero rule that says you can’t sit on the floor if you want to.
So it’s DCLs fault for running into a guy on the floor? Gotcha. no pen then.
Definite penalty for me. TAA decides to go for a sliding tackle, doesn't get any of the ball and ends up impeding DCL, so he can't tap into an open net.
Yet again, you’re describing a completely different situation. If a goalkeeper is flying into a striker and knocks him off balance then it’s a penalty.
in this situation it’s the striker running into the defender, a very CLEAR difference.
if TAA was sliding in front of his path and took him out when he was going towards the ball I’d agree, but he literally runs into the back of him because he’s already lost his footing. He then falls over because he knees him in the back of the head! How can that ever be the player on the floors fault?
TAA has just as much right to be there and he’s fouled first, you aren’t allowed to knee people in the head.
You've just said he's still sliding and his movement takes out DCL and yet you think it's not a pen? How?
its clearly a pen as he impeded the player and denied a goal-scoring opportunity
but I thought it couldn't be a red if the player was attempting to play the ball, which I think TAA was in this case
or is that rule no longer in effect?
but I thought it couldn't be a red if the player was attempting to play the ball, which I think TAA was in this case
or is that rule no longer in effect?
His movement doesn’t take him out does it? he is ahead of DCL so how can he possibly be the one fouling? You can see he runs into the back of TAA right?
Oh God I thought you had given it a rest. I admire the commitment.
I had done until somebody tagged me in it again, I feel like bashing my head against the wall personally.Oh God I thought you had given it a rest. I admire the commitment.
apparently an opposing player can run into somebody and fall over and it’s always a foul no matter the situation, news to me.
.. If a player is out of control when tackling then its an infringement.
Honestly mate, you have had it explained to you a lot on why people disagree, just move on.
Dude. You’re having an absolute shocker on this one. It’s absolutely nothing like running into someone standing still and falling over. Football is a game that is played standing up. If you go to ground you’d better win the ball or there’s a good chance you’ll give a foul away. Sliding into the path of another player who is trying to get to the ball - and not playing the ball yourself - is one of the most obvious fouls you’ll ever see.
I agree it's a pen. But a red would be considerably harsh. I think you have to look at taa actions all as one
I think slow motion replays give people an unrealistic idea of the movement some players can actually do in real time. There’s no chance DCL can get out of the way of TAA.
Every time a player makes a movement and puts a leg out (intentional or not) they're ahead of the attacker but it's still a pen if it impedes.
Your logic only makes sense if you think DCL could have got to that ball unimpeded but instead decided to run into TAA? Don't see it personally
Penalty is fair, red is not. I also fealt that the Luiz red was not justified.
Of course he could have, watch it from
The other angles he’s already stumbling and tries to vault TAA, if he wasn’t already off balance he wouldn’t have ran into him.
Sliding is in the rules otherwise it wouldn’t be allowed.
He doesn’t slide into his path, if he did id understand it being a foul.
the ball ends up dropping behind him, he is perfectly legally allowed to be on the floor.
the striker starts to run for the spilt ball but for some reasons starts stumbling, instead of running around TAA he then tries to jump over, but because he’s imbalanced he doesn’t make it over him and hits into him instead.
there is nothing in the rules that says a defender has to move out of the way, you’re allowed to stand your ground and if somebody runs into you that’s no foul.
IF TAA deviates his path or sticks his leg out of an arm to trip/stop him getting the ball then yes it’s a foul, but he doesn’t.
DCL CREATES the contact by running into him, not the other way around.
that’s the last thing I’m saying on the situation.
DCL doesn’t CREATE anything. He takes the most direct route to the football but trips over a defender sliding along the ground between him and the ball. The foul could not be more obvious. I don’t know why you’re doubling down on such an obviously incorrect take. It’s a strange hill to die on.
We all need a life but life has been put on hold for an indefinite period of time. I spent my Saturday evening playing AC:V River Raids.
As much as I hate Liverpool I don't even thick that's a foul. I think DCL runs into him while he was sliding after trying to clear the ball.
It’s not incorrect and that’s the point. You can disagree but it doesn’t make your opinion anymore correct than mine.
I don’t agree that TAA is sliding INTO his path, he’s already ahead of him. If DCL decides that jumping over him is the quickest path that’s his own fault. Nothing in the rules say he can’t be on the floor in that situation so it doesn’t matter where he’s sliding, as long as he isn’t intentionally impeding DCL which he clearly isn’t.
DCL is also stumbling and out of control, then knees an opponent in the back of the head. It should be a foul the other way around!
He's so bad that I'm not gonna complain he will not miss games.
At a certain point we're all going to have to accept that Adam can't understand the rules and is going to keep going on about intent even though it's been pointed out again and again that intent has zero bearing on the decision.
Just leave him be. Repeatedly tagging him back into this argument is like dragging a dyslexic kid into a spelling bee. It's mean.
Just leave him be. Repeatedly tagging him back into this argument is like dragging a dyslexic kid into a spelling bee. It's mean.