Aye.It is that one mate. Tbh it probably should have been a penalty if he gives a freekick for it. It was a bit soft but if it is a foul, its inside the box
Excellent again, Ed.If sticking your leg across the tackling, advancing player and having him unavoidably touch your back is a foul, then I guess this would be a penalty.
It was highlighted on Sportscene with the Compliance Officer Circle. Eduard's hand in the face of Killie player barely got a mention.
Free kick to Rangers.If sticking your leg across the tackling, advancing player and having him unavoidably touch your back is a foul, then I guess this would be a penalty.
It was highlighted on Sportscene with the Compliance Officer Circle. Eduard's hand in the face of Killie player barely got a mention.
Here's a quote from a referee concerning similar types of situations:Doesn’t matter where the ball was. If he was fouled with any part of his body in the box it was a penalty
It really is simple and its alarming that so many fans dont seem to understand the most basic of rules.Here's a quote from a referee concerning similar types of situations:
"Situations in which it may not be a penalty kick: Attacker is on the line, but the “pull” is on a part of his body which has NOT YET entered the penalty area (perhaps being pulled by his trailing arm). In that case, the foul is still technically OUTSIDE the penalty area, so still a direct free kick only (until the moment the foul itself ‘carries to’ the line, and thus into the the penalty area).
Another example: if a player is tripped and lands inside the penalty but the trip was OUTSIDE, then it is still a direct free kick rather than a penalty kick."
This tends to support the idea that it was not a penalty if the contacted area was outside the box.
If sticking your leg across the tackling, advancing player and having him unavoidably touch your back is a foul, then I guess this would be a penalty.
It was highlighted on Sportscene with the Compliance Officer Circle. Eduard's hand in the face of Killie player barely got a mention.
That was the point I was trying to make in posting the quote. Unfortunately it's hard to tell from the video clip as to whether the contact was in the box (including on the line) or outside, so giving the linesman/referee the benefit of the doubt seems to be the right way to go.It really is simple and its alarming that so many fans dont seem to understand the most basic of rules.
Doesn't matter where the ball is or where a players feet are. All that matters is the point of contact (assuming that that contact constitutes a foul) - if the contact is made inside the box then it's a penalty, if it's on the line it's a penalty and if it starts outside the box (holding, pulling or grappling) but continues into the box then it's a penalty.
What's even more alarming is the number of people/pundits who are paid to comment on the game, or give an opinion, who likewise dont appear to be conversant with the rules.
It's not so much the foot at issue here, it's the contact between Kamara's torso and the St. Mirren player's hip/torso that is important, and that is looking to be very close to if not on the line, so it really can only be judged by someone in line with the play.Holy feck, are people saying that's a penalty? the boy stuck his foot out on purpose so Kamara would stand on it.
Deary me it's not even a foul
It raises another valid point which is that if the referee isn't certain then he can't give it. Irrespective of where he has managed to plant one of his feet if the referee has deemed the barge in the back as a foul then it's almost impossible to tell whether it's in or outside the box but in all probability it is, in fact, more likely to be outside and, as such, the referee was right.That was the point I was trying to make in posting the quote. Unfortunately it's hard to tell from the video clip as to whether the contact was in the box (including on the line) or outside, so giving the linesman/referee the benefit of the doubt seems to be the right way to go.
That’s their job.Let's bring in var
I wonder why sportscene don't call for it
If sticking your leg across the tackling, advancing player and having him unavoidably touch your back is a foul, then I guess this would be a penalty.
It was highlighted on Sportscene with the Compliance Officer Circle. Eduard's hand in the face of Killie player barely got a mention.
It’s not even a foul, nevermind worrying about if it’s a pen.If sticking your leg across the tackling, advancing player and having him unavoidably touch your back is a foul, then I guess this would be a penalty.
It was highlighted on Sportscene with the Compliance Officer Circle. Eduard's hand in the face of Killie player barely got a mention.
One of the problems is that watching in slow motion sometimes adds clarity and sometimes not. To my eyes the motion of the St. Mirren player directly after the foul seems more consistent with him being barged in the back than tripped/stepped on, as is Kamara's movements. In any case it's really a very quick judgement call and as such it's hard for the referee to not be criticized whatever the call was.I thought at the time Kamara ran into his back and that a foul outside was fair. On the replay I thought it was more their guy tripping Kamara by stretching out a leg. Difficult to call but I think players reactions normally help. In this case Kamara thinks it's a penalty but the Saints player is the one guy in their team not appealing so I still don't know what the truth is
This - he actually fouls Kamara...It wasnt a foul in the first place, th st Mirren player kicks Kamara's foot. But if he's giving it then it's a penalty because the contact was in the box.
Funny my big mate is a St. Mirren fan and hasn't mentioned this yet we have Rangers fans saying it was a pen ffs.
I have to ask- why should it have been a penalty if it was a free kick?Strange one in that the guy was already on his way down when he threw his leg into the box. It wasn’t a natural place for his leg to be at all.
Sneaky, but refs given the free kick so it should be a penalty
Because I’m not convinced it’s a foul given the way he’s playing for the penalty but if the foul is given it’s clearly in the box.I have to ask- why should it have been a penalty if it was a free kick?
When did it happen? What time? Roughly will do.Watch it again.
Sticks his foot inside the penalty area too. He should have been sent off and a penalty awarded to Rangers at the other end. I wish I was a referee - I'd show the bassas what's what.Mr Boo doesn't play the ball and obstructs Kamara then falls over.
So why have you waited untl 1 decision in a game against st m has gone our way to post this ? If they are honest refs dain their best then the same should go for performances like Clancy at the piggery, Madden with his amazing run of Rangers reds, Beaton v Hibs, McLean at easter road, Thomson over about 20 years or something.....why not comment on Gerrards views it took him one game to tells us he knew what to expect, or even Ally McCoist suggesting bias on national radio.
Ive still not seen this incident and probably should watch but theres other posters saying it wasnt a penalty or that it was a very tough call for the ref. Saying this evens it up is a bit like suggesting the press cannae be biased cos some of them said Rangers played quite well on Sunday.
And while i hate all the timmy stuff and usually ignore it as it makes no sense....i dont hear them moaning about refs at all. Lennon aint charging on the pitch these days the tim board and media are not looking to destroy refs lives or their careers and a few top officials are doing media work something i doubt Dougie McDonald, Hugh Dallas or Andy Davis would have been offered.
Andrew Dallas might be an honest ref i never said he wasnt but if you think this is the end of Rangers problems with the match officials, or that there wasnt one in the first place anyway, i say you are talking nonsense and theres nothing objective about your views at all.
Sense. Kudos. Just because a player has a foot in the box doesn’t make it a penaltyIf the point of contact is outside the box then its a free kick.
If it was the foot inside the box that the contact was on then its a penalty.
The ref didn't seem to think that the point of contact was between the feet in the box. Does anyone have a better view/image/video of the possible contact between the torsos?Sense. Kudos. Just because a player has a foot in the box doesn’t make it a penalty