Penalty decision for Dundee

Fergie90 said:
Surely this doesn't apply if you can hurdle the challenge without being impeded though?

He could easily have stay up and scored imo.
Click to expand...
I wasn’t being specific to that incident mate, merely explaining to the poster how a penalty could be given with no contact!.

I haven’t watched it back yet, but it looked a penalty to me, so no point pondering over it :))
 
erskine bear said:
Charging out like that could be viewed as reckless or careless by the referee, the referee may interpret that situation as the attacker having to manoeuvre themselves out the way to avoid contact.

I don’t think this is anything new, I remember these discussions happening ten years ago, even in England?.

(The FA’s website, by the way)

I’ve not watched the incident back, don’t even know if there was contact, so not saying that’s what happened here, merely pointing out that contact isn’t essential for a foul.
Click to expand...
Then you need to watch the incident back.

If a keeper charges out, he’s not CHARGING OUT, he’s narrowing the angle. More times than not, this is because it’s now a one on one. The way the game is nowadays, if the striker thinks he can take a kick at the keeper and get his rewards, he will. His legs stop moving and he looks for the contact, instead of avoiding it.
Some say Red.
I call it cheating.
 
erskine bear said:
I wasn’t being specific to that incident mate, merely explaining to the poster how a penalty could be given with no contact!.

I haven’t watched it back yet, but it looked a penalty to me, so no point pondering over it :))
Click to expand...
Ah fair enough mate.

You are obviously spot on about the no contact rule. I haven't watched it back either to be honest but my take was he could have hurdled him and scored.

Lyon have likely burst my coupon already that's why I'm pondering over it :D
 
Captain Cutlass said:
I've seen it multiple times on tv and he left his trailing leg in and unsurprisingly caught McGlaughlins shin then did the full swallow dive.
Our keeper didn't "bring him down", he deliberately lowered his foot to make contact with his leg and "won" a penalty.
I said it earlier but I actually thought at the time Madden was going to book him for simulation!
Click to expand...
Now seen it on tv. Still not a penalty in my view. Deliberately kicked the keeper to make sure he'd fall over. Should have been booked for diving
 
erskine bear said:
There doesn’t need to be contact for a foul to occur, if the player has to avoid being impeded and loses possession etc, then he’s been fouled.

Seen it plenty of times with red cards, guy comes flying in two footed - the other player gets out the way, but the tackler is still sent off because he’s endangered the opponent and they’ve had to react.
Click to expand...
Totally agree with what you say above. Then I think of the amount of times you see defenders usher the ball out by sticking their arms out wide and moving side to side obstructing the attacker from reaching the ball, which is about 5 feet in front of them and not under the defenders control. Then I question whether I still agree with you or not. :)
 
TN8 said:
Can you just clarify that you have indeed just called a penalty a "nalty"? Thanks.
Click to expand...
If you can derive the fact that there is an apostrophied "nalty" to infer that I mean penalty, then what needs clarified?

Any more wit and you'd be a half wit.

fml, who needs enemies when you have friends like this.
 
Left his leg in to get the contact, but was 100% a pen. I couldn't believe CG let that ball bounce. Brutal.
 
To me it looked like McLaughlin got into that position and McMullan just fell over him. There surely were a short moment between McLaughlins movement and any contact and I really don't know what does the rulebook say about that. (If I go lying down in the ground and later someone stumbles on me)
But as it happened so quickly I'd say anyway that the ref got it right -> penalty but not red.
 
Dundee player should have been sent off for a deliberate kick at the keeper. Just because the keeper has his leg out doesn’t mean he can leave a foot in just to fall over it.
 
Some time ago Timothy claimed that there didn't need to be contact for a penalty to be awarded and quoted directly from the rules of the game. Unfortunately timmy only quoted part of the rules and a whole host of people seem to be buying into this idea that there doesn't need to be contact - which may well be true if a player throws a punch or aims a kick at an opponent but it's not the case for a tackle or attempted tackle even if it impedes the opponents progress.

What the rule states is that a direct free kick is awarded if a player commits any of the following offences against an opponent in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force:
  • charges
  • jumps at
  • kicks or attempts to kick
  • pushes
  • strikes or attempts to strike (including head-butt)
  • tackles or challenges
  • trips or attempts to trip
If an offence involves contact it is penalised by a direct free kick or penalty kick.

It then defines careless, reckless and using excessive force and gives the punishment for each.

It further clarifies that an "indirect freekick" is awarded if a player impedes the progress of an opponent without any contact being made.
 
erskine bear said:
I never said anyone went flying in, and I’m not conflating anything, was merely saying that you don’t need to make contact to foul someone.

Perhaps using a tackling example was a bit off topic, but regardless - the rules state that contact doesn’t need to happen for a foul to take place.

FWIW, I haven’t watched it back.
Click to expand...
How does that work? I'm not calling your post into question but that's about the stupidest rule they've come up with yet. How can a person be fouled without contact? It's self contradictory. I can see that in other areas of the pitch but not in the box.
 
Coza said:
I said in the match thread.

While still a stone waller that was a total dive.

The guy could have walked the ball into the net but tried to get McLaughlin sent off and win the pk so just fell over a leg that he could have easily hurdled.
Click to expand...
This is right. He slowed and waited for the challenge. The challenge came whilst trying to play the ball (hence yellow card).

Flip it the other way. If this is our forward, is anyone (anyone) suggesting it's not a penalty?
 
Eddie Doc said:
How does that work? I'm not calling your post into question but that's about the stupidest rule they've come up with yet. How can a person be fouled without contact? It's self contradictory.
Click to expand...
Because the attacking player has to evade the challenge, which then results in their momentum/control of possession being lost - so they’ve been “impeded”.

All down to how the referee interprets the specific incident though, so it’s not totally clear and cut!.
 
WinkieWATP said:
The wee no necked prick that dived was calling for big Jon to be red carded which is supposed to be a card in itself is it not?
Click to expand...
Only when we were to do it’s in the small print of the rules right next to let the opposition kick f*ck out of us but it needs to be impossible not to card the opposition before it looks suspicious and it has to be late in the game so won’t help us in anyway.
 
No Surrender said:
McLaughlin never touched him, the player dived in my opinion. Great save by him also.

Round ye Cumdog.
Click to expand...
At first in real time I thought penalty and the goalie is off then seeing the replay I thought wait a minute if you are running at goal you usually have one foot in front of the other so how did their player have both feet parallel before going over?

This leads me to these conclusion he played for contact, he knew if legit or not the keeper could have been sent off and lastly imo you could see in slow motion he levelled both feet parallel and appeared to shift his weight to push up to a forward roll and not a contact where you would fall with an out of control motion so imo it was a dive but I could be wrong would like to see it a few times?

Not sure there was contact and our keepers reaction was telling but as mentioned by someone on here there doesn't need to be contact if ref thought he was avoiding the challenge had to dive to prevent injury, who knows?
 
Last edited:
TN8 said:
Sounds stupid but it was both a dive and a penalty. And before anybody asks me to explain that, naw. I can't even explain it in my own head.
Click to expand...
I think the ref thought the same and perhaps that is why our keeper got a yellow?
 
It reminds me of a penalty Laudrup won against Hibs at Easter Road, I think the keeper was Leighton.

Everyone in the media and press went mental saying it wasn't a penalty as Laudrup just left his leg on the ground and let the keeper made contact.

For me it's still a penalty all day long.
 
erskine bear said:
Charging out like that could be viewed as reckless or careless by the referee, the referee may interpret that situation as the attacker having to manoeuvre themselves out the way to avoid contact.

I don’t think this is anything new, I remember these discussions happening ten years ago, even in England?.

(The FA’s website, by the way)

I’ve not watched the incident back, don’t even know if there was contact, so not saying that’s what happened here, merely pointing out that contact isn’t essential for a foul.
Click to expand...

Is contact essential for a player to fall down?
 
No Surrender said:
To me you’re glad that Dundee were given their penalty. You are also coming across as a bit of twat. Hope you enjoyed your defeat today.
Click to expand...
The only twat is the person starting the thread if we had a similar incident at the other end and not got a penalty you'd be greetin about it for a month
 
TN8 said:
Can you just clarify that you have indeed just called a penalty a "nalty"? Thanks.
Click to expand...
To be fair, it is much harder, and more wasteful of precious resources to type pe than '

Think about the environment FFS!
 
Captain Cutlass said:
I've seen it multiple times on tv and he left his trailing leg in and unsurprisingly caught McGlaughlins shin then did the full swallow dive.
Our keeper didn't "bring him down", he deliberately lowered his foot to make contact with his leg and "won" a penalty.
I said it earlier but I actually thought at the time Madden was going to book him for simulation!
Click to expand...
That was also my take on it.
I mentioned on another thread that McPake said J McG pulled the boy down by the jersey. What a complete and utter lying prick.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Latest posts

Back
Top