A&H

Plymouth Vs Derby County - Penalty

The Referee Store
Doesn’t seem to be much in the contact, if any at all, and would totally back a no PK call here.

Not reckless for me or anything of the sorts, but in full speed it did look like the player went down very theatrically.

Would be interested in other thoughts
 
if there's any contact, it's massively exaggerated and the fall is a dive/simulation
 
Careless kick of the opponent. Penalty.
It doesn't matter how slight the contact is, there is contact and the defender's action is careless.
There would be very few complaints about this one if it wasn't in the box.
 
CaptainsPlease said:
Careless kick of the opponent. Penalty.
It doesn't matter how slight the contact is, there is contact and the defender's action is careless.
There would be very few complaints about this one if it wasn't in the box.
Click to expand...
I cant disagree more tbh. this approach/thought process encourages simulation
 
es1 said:
I cant disagree more tbh. this approach/thought process encourages simulation
Click to expand...
The approach/thought process is based on the facts and what the laws say.
Kick or attempt to kick - yes it was a kick.
Was it careless (lack of attention/consideration when making the challenge) - yes, though obviously nothing more than that.

There is a lot of focus in this thread on the attacker's actions, but simulation can only be penalised when there isn't a foul. The first questions should always be about the defender's actions. The DCFC commentators are doing the same, focusing on the attacker's actions rather than their defender's.

There also seems to be a misplaced expectation on referees to have a higher threshold for fouls in the penalty area, due to the consequences being more significant. Really the expectation should be on defenders to be particularly careful with their challenges in the area, because a foul should be penalised regardless of where on the pitch it takes place.
 
CaptainsPlease said:
The approach/thought process is based on the facts and what the laws say.
Kick or attempt to kick - yes it was a kick.
Was it careless (lack of attention/consideration when making the challenge) - yes, though obviously nothing more than that.

There is a lot of focus in this thread on the attacker's actions, but simulation can only be penalised when there isn't a foul. The first questions should always be about the defender's actions. The DCFC commentators are doing the same, focusing on the attacker's actions rather than their defender's.
Click to expand...

the attacker's actions are the only ones that are noteworthy. If there's contact by the defender it is trifling at best and certainly doesn't constitute a foul and does not cause the attacker to fall over. that is the definition of simulation.
 
CaptainsPlease said:
There also seems to be a misplaced expectation on referees to have a higher threshold for fouls in the penalty area, due to the consequences being more significant.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure you can say it is misplaced when the head of refereeing in UEFA is quoted as saying as much during the Euros.
 
es1 said:
the attacker's actions are the only ones that are noteworthy. If there's contact by the defender it is trifling at best and certainly doesn't constitute a foul and does not cause the attacker to fall over. that is the definition of simulation.
Click to expand...
The point about mentioning the contact even if a slow-motion replay might make it appear less significant than at full speed, is because the existence of the contact makes it a 'kick on the opponent' so it does not need to be considered what the defender was attempting. Just whether it was careless, not careless or something worse.

Players often fall or stop when they think they have been fouled even if that has not caused them to fall - to prompt the referee to make a decision on the spot rather than look for advantage. If a player has been fouled then there can be no simulation, the way the laws are currently written.

A law change to penalise unwarranted falling (which I do think this is a case of, even though there has been a foul) could be an interesting trial i.e. if players want a foul rather than advantage then they would have to stop while standing rather than falling.
 
I don't think this is simulation (unless no contact and it's not definitive either way) but I also don't think it is a penalty.

The contact, if there is any is so minimal, the outcome doesnt match the contact that happens.

Player reaction here says a lot. If you look at the Plymouth reaction, it's very minimal and half hearted which makes me think they also don't really think a foul has occurred and are appealing because that's what you do.
 
JamesL said:
I'm not sure you can say it is misplaced when the head of refereeing in UEFA is quoted as saying as much during the Euros.
Click to expand...
If I'm not mistaken, this comment is in the context of VAR checks where it is accepted there needs to be a suitable threshold to avoid 're-refereeing'.
 
CaptainsPlease said:
If I'm not mistaken, this comment is in the context of VAR checks where it is accepted there needs to be a suitable threshold to avoid 're-refereeing'.
Click to expand...
Not quite:

"Rosetti said that a step on the foot, which has been punished in several cases in the tournament, was a foul but former Serie A and international referee Rosetti said that officials wanted to have a high bar for penalty awards.

"The penalty is something important in football, a serious moment in football, we don’t like soft penalties, we want clear penalties , we want to see a clear action of the defender, clear fouls from the defender," he said.

Rosetti highlighted the decision not to award a penalty for a slight step on the foot of Raheem Sterling in England's match with Scotland as an example of not punishing "marginal" or slight contact."

I think this clip falls perfectly into marginal or slight contact.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top