[Albion] Penalties chaos - Clattenburg & G.Neville clear it up

[Weststander]

Great analysis then on ITV, explaining on how decisions should be decided every time.

If the attacker initiates contact, for example by dangling a leg out to touch the defender, it's a foul by them and should be a freekick to the defending team. A simple as that. In reverse, a penalty.

NOT based on the waffle spurted put by fans and pundits, such as there was contact.

 

[PILTDOWN MAN]

Great analysis then on ITV, explaining on how decisions should be decided every time.

If the attacker initiates contact, for example by dangling a leg out to touch the defender, it's a foul by them and should be a freekick to the defending team. A simple as that. In reverse, a penalty.

NOT based on the waffle spurted put by fans and pundits, such as there was contact.

Hard to argue with that

 

[Acker79]

I like the idea of the whoever initiates contact is the offender, doesn't there need to be enough contact (or claiming of being fouled) for a foul (or a dive) to have occurred?

I always find it a little pathetic and archaic when a foul is given, or some sort of dangerous challenge is made illegal and some one will pipe up with 'it's a contact sport!'/'Are they trying to make it a non-contact sport?!'. As if outlawing scissoring someone's legs out from under them while they're not expecting it is somehow ruining the game we all grew up with. But seeing that Peru penalty, and the discussion from the Argentine one... are they trying to make football a non-contact sport? Neither of them look like the contact was enough (either in force, violence, or dangerousness) to constitute a foul. But when we all look at a video replay and see there was contact, are refs feeling forced to give them?

 

[Weststander]

I always find it a little pathetic and archaic when a foul is given, or some sort of dangerous challenge is made illegal and some one will pipe up with 'it's a contact sport!'/'Are they trying to make it a non-contact sport?!'. As if outlawing scissoring someone's legs out from under them while they're not expecting it is somehow ruining the game we all grew up with.

But seeing that Peru penalty, and the discussion from the Argentine one... are they trying to make football a non-contact sport? Neither of them look like the contact was enough (either in force, violence, or dangerousness) to constitute a foul. But when we all look at a video replay and see there was contact, are refs feeling forced to give them?

Agree with you. But do you feel like we're swimming against the new tide of opinion? Even old school players who would've confronted a diver, like Shearer and all the others, justify all pen winning dives with:

"A challenge the defender didn't need to make"
"Well there was contact"
"Naive by the defender"
"Well, he did leave his leg out"
"A coming together, giving the ref a decision to make".

All bollocks. Would it have been a foul in the centre of the pitch?

 

[KZNSeagull]

Great analysis then on ITV, explaining on how decisions should be decided every time.

If the attacker initiates contact, for example by dangling a leg out to touch the defender, it's a foul by them and should be a freekick to the defending team. A simple as that. In reverse, a penalty.

NOT based on the waffle spurted put by fans and pundits, such as there was contact.

Well I agree with that, but why did they not question Ronaldo's penalty last night then? He kicked the defender and fell over.

If this analysis were the actual laws that were upheld, Zaha would not win a penalty ever.

VAR is not working so far. The most clear cut penalty so far today (other than the French bloke playing Netball) was not given by the ref and not picked up by VAR. Clattenberg mentioned it in his analysis. Neither the Argie or French pens were pens. The Peru one was.

 

[SussexSeahawk]

Well I agree with that, but why did they not question Ronaldo's penalty last night then? He kicked the defender and fell over.

If this analysis were the actual laws that were upheld, Zaha would not win a penalty ever.

VAR is not working so far. The most clear cut penalty so far today (other than the French bloke playing Netball) was not given by the ref and not picked up by VAR. Clattenberg mentioned it in his analysis. Neither the Argie or French pens were pens. The Peru one was.

There has fairly clearly been only one mistake so far: the Pavon one that wasn't given. But it wasn't given by the ref, so if VAR wasn't at the world cup it still wouldn't have been a penalty. There was no delay to the game, so had there not been VAR there would have been exactly the same incident.

 

[KZNSeagull]

There has fairly clearly been only one mistake so far: the Pavon one that wasn't given. But it wasn't given by the ref, so if VAR wasn't at the world cup it still wouldn't have been a penalty. There was no delay to the game, so had there not been VAR there would have been exactly the same incident.

But the whole point of VAR is to get decisions right. I am all for it as long as it is used consistently and correctly.

The Pavon one was a clearly obvious mistake and VAR should have told the Ref to review it.
Messi should not have got a penalty as he ran into the defender, the defender did not foul him. Under Clattenbergs analysis, that should have been overruled by VAR.
The French one was borderline and it was not a clearly obvious mistake and the Ref's original decision should not have been overruled imo.
Ronaldo kicked the defenders leg and fell over, a classic modern way of getting a penalty. Under Clattenberg's analysis, that should have been overruled by VAR.

 

[Weststander]

Well I agree with that, but why did they not question Ronaldo's penalty last night then? He kicked the defender and fell over.

If this analysis were the actual laws that were upheld, Zaha would not win a penalty ever.

VAR is not working so far. The most clear cut penalty so far today (other than the French bloke playing Netball) was not given by the ref and not picked up by VAR. Clattenberg mentioned it in his analysis. Neither the Argie or French pens were pens. The Peru one was.

Because it was their beau CR?

 

[SussexSeahawk]

But the whole point of VAR is to get decisions right. I am all for it as long as it is used consistently and correctly.

The Pavon one was a clearly obvious mistake and VAR should have told the Ref to review it.
Messi should not have got a penalty as he ran into the defender, the defender did not foul him. Under Clattenbergs analysis, that should have been overruled by VAR.
The French one was borderline and it was not a clearly obvious mistake and the Ref's original decision should not have been overruled imo.
Ronaldo kicked the defenders leg and fell over, a classic modern way of getting a penalty. Under Clattenberg's analysis, that should have been overruled by VAR.

The point is to get MORE decisions right. So far it has. There is obviously then the question of whether getting those decisions right is worth it, but there has been minimal delay throughout the tournament, so I don't really think that applies to this current implementation. VAR isn't going to make all decisions correct: it isn't designed to, but it should reduce the number which it so far has.

 

[KZNSeagull]

The point is to get MORE decisions right. So far it has. There is obviously then the question of whether getting those decisions right is worth it, but there has been minimal delay throughout the tournament, so I don't really think that applies to this current implementation. VAR isn't going to make all decisions correct: it isn't designed to, but it should reduce the number which it so far has.

Whilst I agree that it will not get every decision right, it could at least be used to uphold the laws of the game as described by Clattenburg.

 

[seagulls4ever]

Well I agree with that, but why did they not question Ronaldo's penalty last night then? He kicked the defender and fell over.

If this analysis were the actual laws that were upheld, Zaha would not win a penalty ever.

VAR is not working so far. The most clear cut penalty so far today (other than the French bloke playing Netball) was not given by the ref and not picked up by VAR. Clattenberg mentioned it in his analysis. Neither the Argie or French pens were pens. The Peru one was.

It was nothing like Ronaldo's one. Ronaldo left his leg there waiting for the contact and the Spanish player fell for it and tripped him. Ronaldo didn't change his direction. It was won, but it was a clear penalty.

Aguero made a deliberate and clear movement towards the Icelandic player and ran into him, which was completely different.

 

[KZNSeagull]

It was nothing like Ronaldo's one. Ronaldo left his leg there waiting for the contact and the Spanish player fell for it and tripped him. Ronaldo didn't change his direction. It was won, but it was a clear penalty.

Aguero made a deliberate and clear movement towards the Icelandic player and ran into him, which was completely different.

The defenders leg didn't move, Ronaldo ran into it. It was done extremely quickly I grant you, but the defender did not trip him up, Ronaldo tripped over him.

 

[seagulls4ever]

The defenders leg didn't move, Ronaldo ran into it. It was done extremely quickly I grant you, but the defender did not trip him up, Ronaldo tripped over him.

Are you serious? There is a clear movement of his leg. He tries to stop it but it's too late. I'm not sure how you can even deny that.

Watch it again in slow motion, for your benefit: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/44408323

 

[KZNSeagull]

Are you serious? There is a clear movement of his leg. He tries to stop it but it's too late. I'm not sure how you can even deny that.

Watch it again in slow motion, for your benefit: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/44408323

Yes. The defender plants his left leg, does not move it, Ronaldo trips over it. Seems pretty clear to me. Under Clattenbergs analysis, that is a foul by Ronaldo.

 

[seagulls4ever]

Yes. The defender plants his left leg, does not move it, Ronaldo trips over it. Seems pretty clear to me.

So if a defender puts his leg in front of an attacker whilst trying to get the ball, misses, and the attacker trips over that leg, without changing his direction, then it's not a foul.

ok mate

 

[seagulls4ever]

Under Clattenbergs analysis, that is a foul by Ronaldo.

You added that after, but no, that's not what Clattenburg said at all.

 

[beorhthelm]

Well I agree with that, but why did they not question Ronaldo's penalty last night then? He kicked the defender and fell over.

dont think thats fair. this is the example that doesnt fit neatly into the comparsion made in OP. Ronaldo "invited" the foul but the Spainard obliged and was intent on stoping him. Ronaldo would have to jump over the leg to avoid it.

 

[Weststander]

You added that after, but no, that's not what Clattenburg said at all.

"Whoever initiates contact" is the fouler.

 

[KZNSeagull]

So if a defender puts his leg in front of an attacker whilst trying to get the ball, misses, and the attacker trips over that leg, without changing his direction, then it's not a foul.

ok mate

Ok, same scenario but the defender is on the ground with his leg flat, Ronaldo trips over his leg by dragging his foot along the ground (as they do) without changing direction and falls over, is that a foul?

In the original scenario, the defender is nowhere near the ball but does not trip the attacker, so if anything he is guilty of obstruction. Indirect free kick to Portugal at most.

 

[Weststander]

dont think thats fair. this is the example that doesnt fit neatly into the comparsion made in OP. Ronaldo "invited" the foul but the Spainard obliged and was intent on stoping him. Ronaldo would have to jump over the leg to avoid it.

I'm not saying it was or wasn't a pen, but there was an alternative for Ronaldo. An alternative that was the norm in the first 130 years of football, until the post-Klinsmann era of "going to ground".

For CR to use his power, reactions and balance to beat the slight coming together, and go on and score/create.

What a shame that the game has changed this way, and week by week more fans and punters are acclimatising to new endless claim for penalties by supreme athletes.