Coventry v Leicester

[RefereeX]

Far be it from me to criticise an official but has anyone seen the penalty in this game?

Unusual one as the player very clearly wins the ball but the follow through with his other leg is studs up and about knee high.

Great, brave call from the referee to give the penalty, but then only issues a yellow card. Seems unusual!

 

[JamesL]

Great spot for the pen. Thought at the time should have been a red. Even the two pundits agreed as well.

 

[DJIC]

Interesting, I would be going goal kick.

The red card even things up, how many would consider YC on height of contact or contact under the boot?

 

[Peter Grove]

Interesting, I would be going goal kick.

The red card even things up, how many would consider YC on height of contact or contact under the boot?

Goal kick? He's launched himself full tilt and planted his studs into the opponent's knee with force. It's a penalty and at least a yellow card.

 

[JamesL]

Interesting, I would be going goal kick.

The red card even things up, how many would consider YC on height of contact or contact under the boot?

Goal kick? It the ball went out of play it would be a corner.

 

[bmace3]

Watched this at work yesterday. Nailed on penalty and red for me. High, out of control and studs his opponents knee.

 

[DJIC]

https://www.skysports.com/watch/vid...ty-3-1-leicester-city-championship-highlights

Goal kick? It the ball went out of play it would be a corner.

If you are not giving a penalty then I think you give a goal kick, the player clearly plays the ball on to the striker.

The still picture is misleading, his intention & action is to kick the ball which he does, it is the follow through which causes him an issue.

It is only recently this would be considered a penalty, a player kicking the ball was not penalised for where their foot went after contact with the ball.

 

[JamesL]

https://www.skysports.com/watch/vid...ty-3-1-leicester-city-championship-highlights

If you are not giving a penalty then I think you give a goal kick, the player clearly plays the ball on to the striker.

The still picture is misleading, his intention & action is to kick the ball which he does, it is the follow through which causes him an issue.

It is only recently this would be considered a penalty, a player kicking the ball was not penalised for where their foot went after contact with the ball.

So he did. My memory of it didn't include that bit.

all the same, intention to play the ball, playing the ball etc aren't considerations.

This is a lunge, made at speed, point of contact very high. And to me clearly meets the excessive force criteria.

 

[Gabriel]

I agree this is definitely a penalty and a red card in my opinion. Thoughts on Leicester's RC? Clear red for me

 

[JamesL]

I agree this is definitely a penalty and a red card in my opinion. Thoughts on Leicester's RC? Clear red for me

Less of a red than the penalty, but yes, still red.
Wouldn't be surprised if overturned, not too dissimilar to the red card to the Hull player against Sheffield Wednesday.

 

[Gabriel]

red card to the Hull player against Sheffield Wednesday

Was that one overturned?

 

[JamesL]

Yes

 

[SammyT5]

Was that one overturned?

As discussed here recently though, the overturning of a decision doesn’t necessarily mean it was the wrong decision. The panel of 5 that makes these calls only has 1 actual referee on them.

 

[RustyRef]

As discussed here recently though, the overturning of a decision doesn’t necessarily mean it was the wrong decision. The panel of 5 that makes these calls only has 1 actual referee on them.

At most one referee, one of the 5 is from PGMOL but that doesn't necessarily mean they are an ex-referee.

 

[Kent Ref]

As discussed here recently though, the overturning of a decision doesn’t necessarily mean it was the wrong decision. The panel of 5 that makes these calls only has 1 actual referee on them.

Do these panels of 5 give reasons for over turning red cards?

 

[Peter Grove]

The still picture is misleading, his intention & action is to kick the ball which he does, it is the follow through which causes him an issue.

Not sure why you're mentioning this. When it comes to physical contact fouls, the player's intention has absolutely no bearing whatsoever.

It is only recently this would be considered a penalty, a player kicking the ball was not penalised for where their foot went after contact with the ball.

Again, I'm not sure where you're getting this. There has never been a time when the Laws of the Game said this.

There was a period (from 1995 to 2008) when the laws said that it was a foul if a player made contact with the opponent before the ball. This led some people (pundits and spectators mostly) to express the logical fallacy that this meant a player who got the ball first was not guilty of a foul.

However that was neither the meaning nor the intent of this clause (as the IFAB made clear when they removed the wording in 2008). So even during this period no referee was supposed to hold that getting the ball first was a free pass to clattering the opponent with the follow through of a careless, reckless or excessively forceful challenge.

As I say, spectators and pundits may have thought that way but that was never what the laws said or intended.

 

[socal lurker]

Back before the first great rewrite (early 90s?), the Laws did say that all penal (now DFK) fouls were intentional. But even then, that wasn’t what it really meant. The change in language to C/R/EF largely captured how the game was called More than creating a major change.

 

[DJIC]

Not sure why you're mentioning this. When it comes to physical contact fouls, the player's intention has absolutely no bearing whatsoever.



Again, I'm not sure where you're getting this. There has never been a time when the Laws of the Game said this.

There was a period (from 1995 to 2008) when the laws said that it was a foul if a player made contact with the opponent before the ball. This led some people (pundits and spectators mostly) to express the logical fallacy that this meant a player who got the ball first was not guilty of a foul.

However that was neither the meaning nor the intent of this clause (as the IFAB made clear when they removed the wording in 2008). So even during this period no referee was supposed to hold that getting the ball first was a free pass to clattering the opponent with the follow through of a careless, reckless or excessively forceful challenge.

As I say, spectators and pundits may have thought that way but that was never what the laws said or intended.

I think the interpretation rather than the laws have changed, I am fairly sure not that long ago that would not be a sending off given he cleared the ball, making full contact with the ball.

 

[socal lurker]

I think the interpretation rather than the laws have changed, I am fairly sure not that long ago that would not be a sending off given he cleared the ball, making full contact with the ball.

If you’re going to make such an assertion, you might try to back it up with some evidence of that interpretation you are fairly sure existed, especially when responding to someone like Peter who has been doing this a very long time. The standard is excessive force, and has been since the first great rewrite. I think the most you will find is examples, largely from the PL, where send offs didn’t happen. But as far as I can tell, the PL has long been out of step with most of the world in terms of what is a send off.

 

[DJIC]

If you’re going to make such an assertion, you might try to back it up with some evidence of that interpretation you are fairly sure existed, especially when responding to someone like Peter who has been doing this a very long time. The standard is excessive force, and has been since the first great rewrite. I think the most you will find is examples, largely from the PL, where send offs didn’t happen. But as far as I can tell, the PL has long been out of step with most of the world in terms of what is a send off.

Apologies, just expressing an opinion on a referee forum, not questioning Peter’s knowledge or integrity.