• Major upgrades completed! Please report any issues you spot in here

Is this a penalty?

Is this a penalty?

  • Yes

    Votes: 6 35.3%

  • No

    Votes: 11 64.7%
  • Total voters
    17
I wouldn't give it. There doesn't seem to be any contact between their legs but maybe looks like Hajduk player slightly pushed the opponent with his hand. But then again that shouldn't be enough to make a man fall down. Dinamo player could've avoid that but he apparently dived.
 
If the Hajduk player "slightly pushed" the opponent, then he "slightly" committed a foul, a foul in the box according to the rules is a penalty...so it's pretty clear: penalty.

I know one could argue about a "soft penalty". But if refs started to apply the rules (or if the rules would change) then there would not be so much discussion. Then would be a penalty every time there is a corner? Yes, give it! Football is a game that is played with feet and not with hands except for the GK.
I watch football for over 40 years and it is bullshit that everything was better in the past, in fact nowadys football is much better than 40 years ago. But the one thing i preferred in the past, that no matter how "slightly" the fouls were in the box, they resulted far regularly in a penalty. If there is contact in the box, refs should always give a penalty. No discussion possible.
 
Football is not ballet. Contact and physicality always happen inside the box. Players just seize the slightest of pushes and fall on the ground to get a penalty even if they can perfectly continue on their feet or didn't on their own succeed in the move they were attempting.

I think the opposite gerd. Refs should be stricter and give yellows for dives.
 
That isn't thinking the opposite Zeem. I fully agree with you about the fact that diving should be punished, even after the match.
If a player has dived, he should be banned for a couple of matches.

But i don't get the notion "softe penalty"...it's like being pregnant: you are pregnant or not pregnant...not "a litle bit pregnant".
Saying about a penalty that it is a "soft penalty", is basically saying that it is a penalty...

Football is very high profile the last 20 years. High profile things have a need for maximum transparancy. The basic rule about a penalty is very transparant: a foul inside the box is a penalty. How often don't you hear that a ref would have given a free kick for a foul if that same foul would have been outside the box, but if it's in the box...it is no foul. Am i missing something? A foul is a foul...
 
gerd said:
If the Hajduk player "slightly pushed" the opponent, then he "slightly" committed a foul, a foul in the box according to the rules is a penalty...so it's pretty clear: penalty.
Click to expand...

The thing is there's not a rule saying that any sleightest contact needs to be called as foul. For the minor contacts, it's most of the time called 'charging' and it's just up to the ref's interpretaion to decide whether it's a foul or not (except, if it's a reckless (or careless) challenge or a brutal tackle). If that really was a foul, then I'd say "it's clear: penalty", too. But it's not a foul in my book*. To be honest, I mean no offence but your interpretion of foul sounds a bit too much utopic to me and had that ever applied, it would only help to ruin the flow of the game, not to mention how much divers could gladly contribute to that.

*The rule says that the player can not use his arms or elbow when charging but in the video above there a player with no intention of diving wouldn't even feel Hajduk's player touch and just go on. That's how I intepret that.
 
I will infuriate everybody: i haven't seen the clip, i was only reacting to Kanouté's description. I'm not talking about this specific case...this is about a fierce football rivalry and i prefer not to mingle in it.
 
The same (fuckin' exactly) "penalty" was given for Panathinaikos in their recent game vs PAOK.Even Panathinaikos' most hardcore fans admitted the ref was wrong...
 
Zeem said:
I think the opposite gerd. Refs should be stricter and give yellows for dives.
Click to expand...

:R1

otherwise they won´t stop..

i think if there was no intention to faul from the defender, it should not be a penalty..

but such things are up to refs...many more biger mistakes are being made and nobody cares..

remember Englands goal at world cup that no ref has seen, except whole world?...
 
yes and no , if he give there are persons who say was not , if he dont , than persons would say yes it was , so no problem good penalty for me :P

did Dinamo score ?
 
I will analyze this from different perspectives:

I AM THE REF
Granted, the ref has another perspective than I had when I watch the clip. But I will try to judge it as I first saw it in the clip: live action.

And from what I could tell the first time I saw it, it seems to be both a penalty and an exaggerated fall at the same time.

It's a penalty because the defender does a tackle without any option to play the ball and stops the progression of the striker. At least watching it live, that's what I first thought. The way the striker gets accelerated after contacting the defender it's typical of a contact.

But at the same time even watching it live I could also see the typical "dead leg" that's left behind when the striker falls. It's VERY easy to know when someone is exaggerating the fall when one or both legs fall dead. If there is a contact big enough, your leg gets ejected on the other direction, and that would be a movement that your body won't be able to replicate by himself.

So, if I was a ref and I had to decide on that very moment... I would infuriate everybody and be massively criticized by saying it's a penalty and also showing a yellow to the striker. No one would understand it but it would be fair considering what I saw.

In fact, it's something we usually lack in modern football. There's a lot of times when there is a penalty and the striker exaggerates the fall. Usually refs will decide it's either a penalty or a dive, when actually it could be both. It doesn't make much sense, but...

It's hard to be a ref. There's too much pressure on them. That's why we need technology. The NBA doesn't have this problems at all and it wouldn't be so hard to determine this things when the ball has stopped or have both teams the chance to ask for 3 TV Replays, as it happens in tennis with the hawk eye.

I AM A FAN WATCHING TV REPLAYS
I have no doubts that the striker lets himself fall easily when he feels the contact.

But from what I see, it seems that the defender is in fact stopping the progression of the striker and pushing him while attempting a failed tackle. If he is and he stops the striker by trying the tackle without touching the ball, then it's a penalty, no matter how "soft" it is.

I definitely miss some camera angles to determine clearly if it is a penalty or the striker is good at feigning contact besides being good at exaggerating the fall. But due to the unfairness of the striker letting himself fall, I would call it a NON PENALTY even if strictly applying the rules it may be.

WHAT THE RULES STRICTLY SAY
The only way a defender can alter the natural progression of the striker is by charging with the upper body considering the arms are sticked to the body.

In this case, the defender has altered the striker progression without touching the ball. If he had done that by CHARGING with the upper body, it wouldn't be a foul. But the moment you use your arms, your pelvis and your leg to stop the progression of the striker without touching the ball first, it is definitely a foul.

According to the rules, it's not even necessary to have contact to be a foul. Imagine a defender that slides towards me. I jump to elude him and by jumping I loose the speed I had so another defender grabs it or it goes out of bounds or simply I loose the chance to shoot. It's a foul, and a penalty if that happens inside the area, because the defender altered my progression without touching the ball.

As Gerd says, a penalty is a boolean thing, it can't be progressive. I would prefer the refs to whistle penalty for all contacts and have divers and cheaters SEVERELY banned thanks to TV technology.

This would make matches a lot more exciting, defending more difficult and attacking a lot more fair. I would like that, though I understand it's a case of different tastes. That's mine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom