Manu STN pen or not

[one]

Keep an eye out for a press release of a consultation with IFAB and a 'new iterpretation' of law 12 that this was a dive and even if it was a foul it should have been yellow (or something like that).


This sums up everything I dislike about the game now. Some dissent would have been icing on the cake.

 

[Peter Grove]

But just like Luis earlier, I think this means we will see a law change and an accidental careless foul in the box will be a downgrade yellow in future...

I don't think it will lead to a law change.

For one thing, it would run counter to decades of an IFAB philosophy of not considering intent when it comes to physical contact fouls.

Also, defenders are already very skilled at "accidentally" clipping a player's heels as they run behind them. I reckon IFAB know that if they were to make supposedly accidental contact in the penalty area into a lesser offence, you'd be likely to see a ten-fold increase in such "accidents".

 

[wazztie16]

Not really watching closely, but my view was that the contact on Cavani's foot was outside of the area. Yes, his toes were in the area, but the contact was outside and it was that initial contact that undoubtedly brought him down.

Falls into the "doesn't really matter" category though given the scoreline.

I saw it live, and initial gut thought was just outside.

Watching the replay, I'm glad VAR got the correct decision (imo).

 

[deusex]

Ignoring the dive by Martial.
So a defender that tries to pull out of a challenge and makes contact sees red when he'd have stayed on if he just slides in and wipes out the attacker.
Seems fair

 

[Big Cat]

Just another night in which the football plays second fiddle to the refereeing. It just shouldn't be like this

 

[JamesL]

Just another night in which the football plays second fiddle to the refereeing. It just shouldn't be like this

Not saying I disagree - but what's the answer?
For me it's either go back to all dogso's are red
Or we develop telepathy skills and we stop calling accidents as fouls
But then we'll need a revamp of law 12 to take out all references to careless.
A large percentage of accidents happen as a result of carelessness. If you run across the back of a defender there is a high chance you might make contact with them.
As someone with pace who found myself in this position a lot, I can confirm it really does not take a lot to take you down when you get unexpected contact when running. They are fouls clear as day. How we resolve the (perceived) injustice in the dogso law - over to you...

 

[Ryanj91]

Hang on, are we agreeing this is a penalty?

It looked a clear dive to me. He was on the way down and stuck out a foot to get the contact.

Martial even said it wasn't a penalty on the pitch

No pen, no red, yellow for Martial.

Worrying that this is programmed into players who are winning 6-0?

 

[JamesL]

Hang on, are we agreeing this is a penalty?

It looked a clear dive to me. He was on the way down and stuck out a foot to get the contact.

Martial even said it wasn't a penalty on the pitch

No pen, no red, yellow for Martial.

Worrying that this is programmed into players who are winning 6-0?

I think its a pen. The reverse angle shows bednarek making contact with the calf.
I think the slow mo is duping folks into thinking this is a dive but theres a clear contact on the calf from the defender.

 

[GraemeS]

Not saying I disagree - but what's the answer?
For me it's either go back to all dogso's are red
Or we develop telepathy skills and we stop calling accidents as fouls
But then we'll need a revamp of law 12 to take out all references to careless.
A large percentage of accidents happen as a result of carelessness. If you run across the back of a defender there is a high chance you might make contact with them.
As someone with pace who found myself in this position a lot, I can confirm it really does not take a lot to take you down when you get unexpected contact when running. They are fouls clear as day. How we resolve the (perceived) injustice in the dogso law - over to you...

The DOGSO-downgrade was always supposed to have been brought in because the triple-jeopardy of a penalty, rest of the game with 10 men and a suspension was seen as too harsh in the cases of non-cynical fouls. Simple solution to that issue is to allow a post-match review panel to remove the suspension if they are confident it was accidental - downgrades it to only double-jeopardy and takes away a huge amount of the complex decision making for the match-day referee.

 

[Kent Ref]

Hang on, are we agreeing this is a penalty?

It looked a clear dive to me. He was on the way down and stuck out a foot to get the contact.

Martial even said it wasn't a penalty on the pitch

No pen, no red, yellow for Martial.

Worrying that this is programmed into players who are winning 6-0?

For me it's a dive and Martial should be sanctioned. I believe the power to do this is already available to the FA.

 

[Big Cat]

I think its a pen. The reverse angle shows bednarek making contact with the calf.
I think the slow mo is duping folks into thinking this is a dive but theres a clear contact on the calf from the defender.

Are you seeing ghosts recently James? This lockdown is really taking a toll on some folk!

 

[JamesL]

Are you seeing ghosts recently James? This lockdown is really taking a toll on some folk!

Nope... Not a fan of stills as you know as they don't always tell the story but there are two contacts on martial
The 1st:

Left knee, clipping the calf which starts the tumble. This is the foul for me..
This is what everyone else is looking at, the secondary contact:


Which in isolation I'd say yes dive he's already going down. It's not a lot of contact but it's definitely the reason he goes down not the secondary which I think is what people are seeing as a dive.

Martial has not initiated any of that contact.

 

[one]

I think we can agree contact does not mean foul everytime. This contact was by no means careless. If you look at Martial's foot after contact, it did not move sideways at all (indicating any force in contact) however it did stay on the ground and drag forward, indicating simulation. Not only that the foot that was not contacted did the same, it got glued to wherever it was rather than stepping forward as a falling person usually does. Another sign of simulation. If that is not enough, chest out flung in the air with hand up and backward. These are all classic signs.

What I am not happy about is fair enough being deceived in real time, but after seeing the replay multiple times?

Not including that Martial deliberately left his right foot back longer than necessary to draw contact. Because that is not a good reason not to give the foul if the contact was significant enough to make it careless but this was not.

 

[Degnann]

The first angle here clearly shows contact

https://twitter.com/x/status/1356727973500583936

 

[one]

On a different incident, same game, does anyone know why after the first send off McTominay had to come off the field only to come back on immediately after?

 

[santa sangria]

Does anyone have an answer for me on the Cavani no pen... where in the book does it say a foul must be awarded at the very first point of contact?

(Given the idea of the "holding continues" law and the idea of advantage)

 

[JamesL]

On a different incident, same game, does anyone know why after the first send off McTominay had to come off the field only to come back on immediately after?

Treatment needs to be complete quickly. Around 25-30 seconds after you are ready to restart. If that's not the case the player needs to leave for "treatment".
I've noticed EPL refs almost always ask player to leave even with sanction. Rare that the process is completed timely enough.

Does anyone have an answer for me on the Cavani no pen... where in the book does it say a foul must be awarded at the very first point of contact?

(Given the idea of the "holding continues" law and the idea of advantage)

I haven't seen this incident but with holding this is a continuous foul, so you are in effect playing advantage until it gets into the area and you blow. That same foul is being committed.
From what you describe here, the foul is committed and awarded at the point of the foul, if this is just outside and then slightly carries onto the line, the foul is already committed and further contact is likely incidental to the foul.
Have you got a vid so we can see exactly how it plays out.

 

[one]

Does anyone have an answer for me on the Cavani no pen... where in the book does it say a foul must be awarded at the very first point of contact?

(Given the idea of the "holding continues" law and the idea of advantage)

I think you know the answer to that is that it doesn't. But it is an accepted convention and pretty much consistently applied across all leagues.

 

[JamesL]

I think we can agree contact does not mean foul everytime. This contact was by no means careless. If you look at Martial's foot after contact, it did not move sideways at all (indicating any force in contact) however it did stay on the ground and drag forward, indicating simulation. Not only that the foot that was not contacted did the same, it got glued to wherever it was rather than stepping forward as a falling person usually does. Another sign of simulation. If that is not enough, chest out flung in the air with hand up and backward. These are all classic signs.

What I am not happy about is fair enough being deceived in real time, but after seeing the replay multiple times?

Not including that Martial deliberately left his right foot back longer than necessary to draw contact. Because that is not a good reason not to give the foul if the contact was significant enough to make it careless but this was not.

This was reviewed as an upgrade to red, the penalty was never brought into question. The contact on the right leg of martial forces him over, that was the active foot in the run (no better way to phrase this, the Contact is as the left is planted and that right leg is transitioning into the next step.) is the fall exaggerated? Probably a little but I dont see this as martial initiating the contact, it's clumsy from the defender (similar to Luiz) but it's the primary contact which brings him down.
Again, when moving at speed it doesn't take a lot of impact to completely break the running mechanics.
As someone who sprints not too far shy as fast as a PL footballer (30km/h+) I can vouch for that fact, having been the victim of these types of fouls on a regular basis when playing myself.

 

[one]

If that's not the case the player needs to leave for "treatment".

He stood behind the line the whole of 16 seconds before coming on immediately after the restart. No treatment was required after he was assessed and got up.

I've noticed EPL refs almost always ask player to leave even with sanction. Rare that the process is completed timely enough.

I have noticed that too, and I am not surprised. I guess my question was rhetorical.