Manu STN pen or not

[santa sangria]

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.

If that's the case, WTF is VAR playing it putting that foul on Cavani foul outside the box.

First contact, yes, outside, by an armpit, The crunch on the foot continues onto the line at least, there's probably still foot on foot contact inside the box. Then there's various amounts of leg to leg and leg to thigh contact as Cavani is "hacked down" in the box. Sorry I don't have a video.

It's a basic LotG question that is incredibly important if VAR is going to be used to determine if fouls should be given as DFKs or PKs - is the very very first initial contact the point of the foul?

 

[one]

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.

We can disagreed on most of those based on opinion. But a factual matter for (30km/hr) sprint, contact was made after two steps from a standing start.

 

[one]

If that's the case, WTF is VAR playing it putting that foul on Cavani foul outside the box.

First contact, yes, outside, by an armpit, The crunch on the foot continues onto the line at least, there's probably still foot on foot contact inside the box. Then there's various amounts of leg to leg and leg to thigh contact as Cavani is "hacked down" in the box. Sorry I don't have a video.

It's a basic LotG question that is incredibly important if VAR is going to be used to determine if fouls should be given as DFKs or PKs - is the very very first initial contact the point of the foul?

I am with you that it should be explicit in law (just like continuation of hold, or the point of freeze for offside), but it is not. And the accepted conventions is the first pont of contact for a foul is the location of the foul, even though additional contact later can be considered foul.

You can use the hold analogy and say it is not right but it does align with the offside analogy.

 

[JamesL]

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

Yep but once that assessment has taken too long (as bove 25-30 seconds after everyone ready to go) we revert to BAU no caution.

We can disagreed on most of those based on opinion. But a factual matter for (30km/hr) sprint, contact was made after two steps from a standing start.

I wasn't suggesting he was doing that speed though, more about interfering with the running mechanics of someone with that kind of pace/acceleration. One of Martials strongest points is his ability to accelerate really quickly from a standing position, Any level of interference with the mechanic of that is going to take you down.

 

[QuaverRef]

A penalty for that? Give over. I could have hit Martial harder in the thigh with a blade of grass. The fact both touches on him were on the side of his body and he’s fell forward says it all. 100% dive

 

[Kent Ref]

I still think players' like Marital, feel anything slight and go for a dive. I still feel this is NOT a penalty.

 

[PinnerPaul]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1356716886503936005

Yet to find a video but this still shows the offside line. Strugglimg to see an offside there

but what makes it worse, is that it is IMPOSSIBLE to freeze frame exactly on the initial contact with the ball (As per LOTG) - you just get to see a fuzzy image of the ball. Rewind a few frames and hey presto, it would still appear like teammate who made the pass had contact with the ball and as most attackers are moving forward, likely that offside would be even less 'clear' than it is - its been said before, but whatever happened to 'level'?

In reality you can't judge 'level' with the naked eye, so we go with benefit of the doubt to the attacker - given the limitations with the clarity of the images, why they can't do that with these VAR decisions is beyond me.

 

[PinnerPaul]

Dont see a change coming myself.

because 'intentional' is very difficult to judge and would result in some wildly inconsistent decisions by us all surely?

I agree with you btw, and just seen that you agree with my reasoning.

 

[RustyRef]

I do understand the split around whether it was a penalty or not, but the other issue this does draw out is regardless of the extent of contact Martial has thrown himself to the floor. Seemingly he said to Bednarek after that it wasn't a foul, so the question in that case should have been did he throw himself to the floor.

Match officials getting the blame here. but over the years the game has got harder and harder to referee because of the actions of players.

 

[Kent Ref]

I do understand the split around whether it was a penalty or not, but the other issue this does draw out is regardless of the extent of contact Martial has thrown himself to the floor. Seemingly he said to Bednarek after that it wasn't a foul, so the question in that case should have been did he throw himself to the floor.

Match officials getting the blame here. but over the years the game has got harder and harder to referee because of the actions of players.

Martial needs to be banned retrospectively.

 

[Big Cat]

Caution Martial for cheating and everyone goes home happy
The VAR process either did not or could not achieve this
Anyone awarding a PK when knowingly seeing a player intent on deception is letting the sport down imo
VAR has ramped up the controversy again because I could have handled MDs decision without the tech scrutiny

 

[Big Cat]

Martial needs to be banned retrospectively.

I 100pc agree but never gonna happen cos sponsors want the megastars on the FOP

 

[Degnann]

Has Martial dived though or exaggerated the fall?

Simulation
An action which creates a wrong/false impression that something has occurred when it has not

To me this would say and for 99% of any other cases of diving, feigning there has been contact when they has been none, when on this case there is clear contact

 

[wazztie16]

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)

For me, the front of the foot is on the line, the rear of the top of the foot is outside the box, the contact is on the rear.

So free kick just outside.

 

[RustyRef]

For me, the front of the foot is on the line, the rear of the top of the foot is outside the box, the contact is on the rear.

So free kick just outside.

Agree

 

[RustyRef]

Martial needs to be banned retrospectively.

It isn't that straight forward as there was contact. The problem is that players have been coached from a young age to go down if they feel any contact, many have even spoken publicly about it. Just look at Grealish, as great a player as he is, he spends more time on the ground than stood up and has absolutely perfected the art of drawing in the challenge, feeling any kind of contact and then falling over.

The problem is this isn't simulation as it is written, and football as a whole now expects a free kick if there is ANY contact. Sadly it is probably too late to do anything about it as it is an approach almost every player in the professional game uses. And not just attackers, defenders have mastered it for when they are in defensive positions shielding the ball and just fall over if they feel any contact at all.

 

[Big Cat]

Has Martial dived though or exaggerated the fall?



To me this would say and for 99% of any other cases of diving, feigning there has been contact when they has been none, when on this case there is clear contact

Chips on the table
I'm absolutely convinced that Martial was guilty of trying to deceive the Referee and I couldn't give a monkeys as to whether his leg was feathered by the defender's in the process. Some call it 'part of the game', some call it 'simulation'; I've always called it cheating and I see it as a scourge on the game and not something I'd be rewarding in my games (although, yes I've been cheated successfully myself, we all have)
It's reached the point where being adept at cheating, is a pre-requisite for being a 'top player'. There are a few exceptions and there are a lot of decent players who are not top players, because they aren't as inclined to cheat or haven't mastered it

 

[bloovee]

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".

"Not considering intent" went out of the window with "a genuine attempt to play the ball". It's ludicrous that a last ditch attempt to play the ball, even when it's really a hopeless attempt, means yellow but a pure accident (what Clattenburg used to call a "coming together") is a red. And if you think it was just the defender making it look accidental, then you've judged intent.

 

[one]

Has Martial dived though or exaggerated the fall?



To me this would say and for 99% of any other cases of diving, feigning there has been contact when they has been none, when on this case there is clear contact

I disagree the use of this logic. Lets see this in its entirety.

Cautions for unsporting behaviour:
• attempts to deceive the referee, e.g. by feigning injury or pretending to have been fouled (simulation)

Simulation is only ONE example of when a referee is being deceived . Any deceiving attempt is cautionable.

Simulation
An action which creates a wrong/false impression that something has occurred when it has not (see also Deceive); committed by a player to gain an unfair advantage

I don't believe Martial had exaggerated an unavoidable fall. I think he did it on a deliberate fall (The fall started before contact). But even if the fall was unavoidable the exaggeration was not to create an impression there was contact. It was to create an impression it was a foul. So we can not systematically rule Simulation. As argued in earlier posts, contact does not always mean foul. Take the fall and/or exaggeration out but leave the contact in, would the referee have given the foul? I don't think so. So Martial created an impression that a foul had occurred while it had not. That is Simulation.

Deceive
Act to mislead/trick the referee into giving an incorrect decision/disciplinary sanction which benefits the deceiver and/or their team

This also applies with the same logic as above. Martial's act was to deceive the referee into making an incorrect Penalty decision. Even if you don't qualify it as simulation you can qualify it as deceive.

The key point here is not to tie every reasoning to 'contact'. Yes there was contact. But was it careless? Not for me. No offence (or pun) intended but please don't be deceived by Martial's act the same way as the referee was.

 

[Degnann]

Players are taught from a young age to go down in the box if there is contact. Not to dive but we all know that there is very rarely a ref out there who will give a penalty unless a player hits the deck even if there’s sufficient contact. Not that I’ve ever seen.

i’ve seen decisions given and pundits agree that it wad a penalty for less contact.