Yeah. I crave consistency of ref decisions in the league that's all and I certainly don't know the rules anymore, not that I ever did.
Why wasn’t TAA sent off?
- Thread starter Pogue Mahone
- Start date
They arent. Fouls are given for late tackles every game. Theres no time lock.
Anyway you said it wasnt his fault because he wasnt in control. Well fouling another player while being out of control is literally in the rule book.
You can also be in the way of a player but not move in the way. Thats from the rulebook as well. Trent sliding across CDL is moving in his way.
There is no angle here that says its not a pen to be honest.
These threads are more fun if you pretend to know the rules and refuse to back down though.
I said neither player was in control. Equal. One is defending, now he is not he is sliding. One is attacking - now he is not he is running.
Then the keeper loses the ball and the attacker is attacking again, but the player isn't actively defending, because well he is still on the floor.
Imagine a player running towards the keeper 1vs1, gets close and takes a shot, then the keeper slides while he looks back towards the goal to see if the shot went in and he trips the attacker who stumbles before he gets up. The shot then hits the goalpost and out for a corner and ref deems it.... not a penalty. Don't even consider it
I see. Not quite there yet, but I'll give it a go one of these days. I should jump on the opportunity purely to frustrate the rationale of any liverpool fan but hey they're probably in enough misery right now.
If he's awarding a penalty, then he believes TAA has fouled him. When the foul occurs he makes no attempt to play the ball, therefore, it's a red card. His actions prior to the foul are irrelevant.
CDL was in control, he was on his feet until Trent slid in front of him!I said neither player was in control. Equal. One is defending, now he is not he is sliding. One is attacking - now he is not he is running.
Then the keeper loses the ball and the attacker is attacking again, but the player isn't actively defending, because well he is still on the floor.
Imagine a player running towards the keeper 1vs1, gets close and takes a shot, then the keeper slides while he looks back towards the goal to see if the shot went in and he trips the attacker who stumbles before he gets up. The shot then hits the goalpost and out for a corner and ref deems it.... not a penalty. Don't even consider it
And that example is definetly a red as well. Thats not even a tester.
The thing that should tell you its a pen is that there are rules quoted to confirm it while the arguments coming the other way dont even touch the rule book or even contest it.
A lot of mistakes were made with this decision, the referee obviously should have looked at the video and conferred with his peers for some time. As always, the referee is just one interpretor of the rulebook on the pitch - with VAR they have several referees to come to the correct decision together. If there ever was a long discussion to be had, this was one of them. Just like Pickford on van Dijk, where the wrong decision was made still.
For me, this is not necessarily a foul from the defender under Law 12. After the shot is taken, a new situation arises and he is then in front of DCL - not able to know exactly where he is going. As such, DCL is at most obstructed, not fouled. One could also (laughably perhaps) claim DCL is the one fouling the defender in the back of the head due to this new sequence and his leap over him, but obviously difficult to interpret. Some mention the defender pulling his foot up, but that’s after DCL nudges him in the head. So if you want to call the foot, you have to call DCL’s contact first and it’s a free-kick for the defender. However, the obstruction happens first.... so who the hell knows.
I am sure this situation will be brought up during referee discussion forums/meetings - and I am also sure opinions will be divided, even with rulebook in hand. Not all situations are clear-cut.
There's certainly more to debate as to whether it was a foul or not. The referee was evidently happy there had been foul play, so then he needs to determine whether the defender was making an attempt to play the ball when the foul occured. If it seems it a foul it must be a red. It's harsh, but should be unavoidable.
There was a very similar situation in the PSG/Monaco game today.
Monaco player in the box trying to get to the ball and the PSG defender is facing him and impedes him by accident, ref waved play on.
would love to know how people think it differs?
@GifLord don’t know if you can help, it was about 60 mins
Monaco player in the box trying to get to the ball and the PSG defender is facing him and impedes him by accident, ref waved play on.
would love to know how people think it differs?
@GifLord don’t know if you can help, it was about 60 mins
Why on earth do you want your own fans to go through more mental gymnastics? Just let them be. Penalty was given, done.
It’s a football forum mate we talk about football here. Thanks for your outstanding input though!
Mate just look at the posts above, minds are already made up. You're on the wrong website for a rational footy discussion involving Liverpool.
But if you're taking it seriously I won't be unhelpful. Here's something to chew:
https://www-givemesport-com.cdn.amp...-got-away-with-grabbing-sadio-mane-by-the-leg
Huh? I've seen countless of instances where it never becomes a penalty because a shot has already been taken, or if contact is deemed not enough in it for a foul despite a coming together. Last match I remember Bruno ran onto a pass that went beyond him and out for a goal kick but the defender stepped on his foot and Bruno walked around with a small niggle. Now if Bruno reached that ball and got took out, even if accidental, it would have been called as a penalty. I think things like this happens every game.
I remember a discussion with a guy on here I had about a penalty incident where Brandon Williams sort of ran into the standing leg of a defender. The debate boiled down to intention on Brandon's part or if the defender had his foot standing there long enough to claim his position. In that situation I sided with Brandon but I think TAA has every right to be in that position before he got ran into by the striker, as he isn't actively trying to defend in that moment he is just there. (Unless I missed him doing something on purpose)
It's the same with the diving really, and why they struggle to get a grip on it because you can't judge intention totally unbiased, even when it's seemingly obvious you can't be sure because its so hard to assess correctly. If they are going to avoid going down that road, taking context and intention out of it - they need to make sure almost every incident possible on a football pitch has a clear rule or guide on how to handle. There is so much room for interpretation that it's really just random at this point when put under a microscope.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Deny obvious goal scoring opportunity
Yeah thats the one!
Monaco player knocks it around the PSG lad, then his momentum takes him into the PSG defender who can't get out of the way and ends up impeding him.
According to some of the lads on this thread it should be an immediate penalty, but this ref wasn't interested.
Yep. Agree with this. I think a red has to be given too. The foul stopped a goalscoring opportunity
they’re not even slightly similar. The PSG player didn’t attempt a challenge let alone slide in front of the player and make contact while still sliding. He literally stood there which is allowed in football.Is TAA not allowed to be where he wants too?
The situations are similar IMO as it's both attackers running into defenders.
This isn't even remotely similar.
Oh man, Adam just quit while you’re behind.
It's just a discussion! I saw it and thought it was interesting.Oh man, Adam just quit while you’re behind.
On the face of it it ticks every box that TAA did in terms of it being a foul. Would you say this is a foul?
You’re trying to sound smart by being on obtuse and it’s making you sound really daft. TAA made an attempt at a challenge, was still sliding and missed the ball completely and DCL tripped over him when if he hadn’t he would have tapped the ball into an open net.
I thought at the time why is it even a penalty!
First TAA made an attempt to make a tackle and made no contact with DCL. Then DCL paused a split second then ran into TAA who didn't even know where DCL was and made no attempt to block DCL so, I can't see how that can that be foul.
I think we should all quit while we're behind.
Ps. No one commented on my Mane news link above. Same situation but the goalie additionally holds Mane's legs for extra guarantee to stop him. No penalty. Obviously.
It should have been a penalty. Pretty obvious in the replay. I doubt many would contest that one to be honest.I think we should all quit while we're behind.
Ps. No one commented on my Mane news link above. Same situation but the goalie additionally holds Mane's legs for extra guarantee to stop him. No penalty. Obviously.
Plenty on here would contest it.
And that's the fickle nature of bias.All that proves is a lot of Liverpool fans watch Sky Sports News.
Dermot Gallagher is in the Pen and Red camp.
https://www.skysports.com/football/...-seen-red-in-loss-to-everton-dermot-gallagher
And Dale Johnson also reiterated he thinks it should have been a red - as well as suggesting it's something that VAR missed (again)>
https://www.skysports.com/football/...-seen-red-in-loss-to-everton-dermot-gallagher
And Dale Johnson also reiterated he thinks it should have been a red - as well as suggesting it's something that VAR missed (again)>
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
And that most people think it was a penalty...
Aye, I was referring to the Mane one. The Trent one is greyer though, I think even referees would be split, maybe 75/25 or thereabouts, on it.
I've yet to see a ref/ex-ref say it's not a penalty to be fair, but I've seen 4 that think it was ( ESPN Ref, Dermot Gallagher, Mark Clattenburg, and obviously the ref on the pitch)... would be interesting to see the rationale given by a ref that thinks it wasn't a pen as to why it wasn't.