Penalty v Everton

IDFD

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2017
Messages
2,644
Age
31
#2
For me defender makes a great challenge, gets the ball and Martial is making a meal of the contact (as he should everyone else does it). I’ll take it all day long but think it’s harsh.
 

Itsallinthemind

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2018
Messages
307
#5
Definite pen for me, however @IDFD would be furious if it was given against United.

What say you?
Looking at it completely objectively the only way the ref gives that is if he doesn’t see the defenders contact on the ball. It's not even harsh , it's just a mistake. For a penalty there has to be no doubt. For me it’s a decent tackle as he gets the ball and VAR would have overruled the decision because once you see the ball contact then it’s very hard if not impossible to say it’s a clear and obvious foul. I'm not sure what Gary Neville is saying. He seems to not even consider the possibility that its not a pen. It's as if he hasn't even seen the defender get his foot on the ball.

I’m certain the ref will look at it later and realise his mistake. But hey , that’s football. You get these in a season.
 

Itsallinthemind

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2018
Messages
307
#8
Of course he took his leg away - after he got the ball. That's called a tackle. Pause it at the moment when the defender makes contact with the ball (0:39) and you will see that it looks fractionally before the contact with the leg. There's no evidence of him "coming through" Martial's leg to get to the ball. What happens after that (as long as it's not dangerous) is irrelevant. there's a very slight second movement after the tackle but in real time it's nothing. He's always going to bring Martial down as a result of sticking his foot in to win the ball. That makes it a tackle we can't be sure about therefore no penalty. Just because we are United fans doesn't mean we can't be objective.

Having said that , in real time I might well have given it , but if I had I would have been wrong.
 

IDFD

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2017
Messages
2,644
Age
31
#9
In real time I thought it was a dive. Then saw the replays and saw it’s just one of those 50/50’s (IMO). All of the Sky Studio thought it wasn’t a penalty but then loads of other sources think it was.

I think it’s one of those you could get all the refs in the premier league together and they’d be split on it.
 

jsp

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2012
Messages
6,940
#11
Not even sure there's a debate to be had similar to the Xhaka one on Zaha yesterday if you dangle that leg out and block the attackers run it will be a penalty unless you clearly kick the ball away. The defender might have got a small touch on the ball but not enough to make it impossible for Martial to get the ball and touching the ball is not grounds for a fair tackle.

When I saw the highlights last night I was suprised it was even debated as for me it's as nailed on as the one at the other end.
 

Red Warrior

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 8, 2017
Messages
1,774
Age
46
#12
His leg was right across Martials body, Martial did make a meal of the subsequent dive but its clear cut.
 

jsp

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2012
Messages
6,940
#13
That was not a dive I'm sorry but if you're running at near full speed and someone steps across you there's no way you stay on your feet you will be knocked over.
 

Red Warrior

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 8, 2017
Messages
1,774
Age
46
#14
So you don't think the bit where he threw his arms up in the air was a bit theatrical? I'd call it a dive. He didn't need to do that, he was already going down. He did it after he knew the leg had been thrown out in front of him. Have another watch.
 

IDFD

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2017
Messages
2,644
Age
31
#15
Not that what I think he says is gospel but thought I’d post his opinion

Clattenburg wrote for the Daily Mail: "That was not a penalty. Idrissa Gana Gueye clearly got a touch on the ball and you could see it change direction.

"After the Everton midfielder won the ball, Anthony Martial exaggerated his movement to make it look like a penalty.

"With his assistant on the far side unable to help him, referee Jon Moss would have wanted to get a better angle to assess the challenge."
 

IDFD

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2017
Messages
2,644
Age
31
#16
That was not a dive I'm sorry but if you're running at near full speed and someone steps across you there's no way you stay on your feet you will be knocked over.
I agree you go down. But just because you’re going down doesn’t make it a foul. You also don’t go down the way he did if going down naturally.
 

Mr C

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2017
Messages
1,856
#18
I think it's a difficult one, so fair enough to give it.

For me, he got the ball. but no enough, if he hadn't have taken Martial out, he could have still got to the ball.
 

jsp

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2012
Messages
6,940
#19
I've only seen the replay once or twice to be honest to me it looked like a penalty all day maybe not by 1990's standards but by 2018 standards that is a penalty.

Gueye didn't change the direction of the ball it was heading towards the goal line when Martial kicked it and was still going that way when he got the slightest contact on the ball and stepped across Martial's line which didn't deviate from what I saw. He didn't change direction to run into the defender like Willian did yesterday for those who've seen that incident.

As for Clattenburg's comments was that list line a dig at Jon Moss who's notoriously slow at keeping up with play.
 

Itsallinthemind

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2018
Messages
307
#20
His leg was right across Martials body, Martial did make a meal of the subsequent dive but its clear cut.

Yes , it was but its irrelevant because he put his leg in that position to win the ball (which he did). It's very easy. If he makes contact with the ball its not a penalty , if he missed the ball it is. How is this different from Smallings tackle? If Smalling gets the ball it's not a penalty. Whether he brings the player down afterwards in the movement to win the ball makes no difference at all to the decision unless it's dangerous.
 

Itsallinthemind

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2018
Messages
307
#21
I think it's a difficult one, so fair enough to give it.

For me, he got the ball. but no enough, if he hadn't have taken Martial out, he could have still got to the ball.
Unless I've completely misunderstood the rules for the last 30 years it doesn't matter "how much" contact he got on the ball , only that he made contact. There are no rules that say if you only get a "feathery" touch on the ball that that is "not enough" , any contact is enough. The fact that he takes Martial out in the motion of getting to the ball makes no difference either , otherwise some of the greatest tackle ever seen in the history of football would be fouls. Where the ball ends up after the tackle is also irrelevant. The fact that Martial can't get to the ball afterwards is also irrelevant because in order to win the ball the defender is almost guaranteed to bring him down. There's no way to avoid the possibility of bringing him down in the motion of the tackle , so it's legal.

Think about some of the basic criteria for a legal tackle....

1) It's not dangerous our studs up or overly aggressive.
2) It's not from behind or between the players legs
3) Contact is on the ball first and not the player first then ball
4) The non tackling leg isn't used to bring the player down.
5) The motion to win the ball is what brings down the player.

I think that tackle fulfils all of these.

Here's an easy way to work it out. If the contact he had got on the ball was enough to knock the ball quickly out for a corner so that Martial had no chance of getting it would it be a penalty? If you think that obviously it wasn't a penalty if the ball went for a corner then why? The point is that where the ball ends up after the tackle is irrelevant , all that matters is that he got the ball first legally by sticking his leg out and not the player. That is the only criteria.
 

Itsallinthemind

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2018
Messages
307
#22
Gueye didn't change the direction of the ball

...but he did, you can see it with your own eyes. You then say.......

when he got the slightest contact on the ball

...and this is what makes the difference between a penalty and no penalty. Contact with the ball is still contact with the ball , just like if the ball is over the line by 1 cm then its still a goal just the same as if its nestled in the net. Once you accept that there was contact however slight then you have a difficult time saying its a penalty. You would have to demonstrate that it was dangerous , or that it was leg first then ball or some second movement to bring down Martial.

I'm convinced the ref gave it for no other reason than because he didn't see the contact on the ball.
 

jsp

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2012
Messages
6,940
#23
...but he did, you can see it with your own eyes. You then say.......

...and this is what makes the difference between a penalty and no penalty. Contact with the ball is still contact with the ball , just like if the ball is over the line by 1 cm then its still a goal just the same as if its nestled in the net. Once you accept that there was contact however slight then you have a difficult time saying its a penalty. You would have to demonstrate that it was dangerous , or that it was leg first then ball or some second movement to bring down Martial.

I'm convinced the ref gave it for no other reason than because he didn't see the contact on the ball.
Direct free kick offences
A direct free kick is awarded when a player commits any of the following in a manner considered by the referee to be careless , reckless or using excessive force:
  • Kicks or attempts to kick an opponent
  • Trips or attempts to trip an opponent ~ Tick
  • Jumps at an opponent
  • Charges an opponent
  • Strikes or attempts to strike an opponent
  • Pushes an opponent
  • Tackles an opponent
Or commits any the following offences:
  • Holds an opponent
  • Impeding the progress of an opponent with contact ~ Tick
  • Spits at an opponent (considered Violent Conduct as the spit is considered an extension of the body)
  • Handles the ball deliberately (except for the goalkeeper within their own penalty area).[1]:36
If a player commits a direct free kick offence within their own penalty area, a penalty kick is awarded irrespective of the position of the ball, provided the ball is in play.

Getting the ball is not a get out clause you can get the ball and still get a red card you can get the ball and still give away a penalty the challenge has to be considered fair.

The touch on the ball by Gueye was minimal it slighlty alters the direction of the ball but in my opinion for that tackle to be fair he'd need to kick the ball either clearly out of play behind the goal, or change the direction towards a throw in. He gets a little stud on the ball which maybe changes the direction slightly away from goal but Martial would still easily have kept the ball in play had he been able to continue his run.

I honestly don't even see where the fuss is on this one.

People really need to understand the laws of the game.
 

IDFD

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2017
Messages
2,644
Age
31
#24
So you’re concluding then JSP that football is now completely a non contact sport?

He also made more contact on the ball than you’re making out. Massively more. The ball doesn’t only change direction it moves in the complete opposite direction the only reason it looks like it doesn’t is because it then ricochets back off of Martials left leg.

Martial moves the ball, he reads it beats Martial to it and Martial trips over and makes a meal of it. Perfect challenge. Now defenders aren’t allowed to make a challenge. The game is obviously f^cked. Vidic is a lucky boy he’s retired.
 

Itsallinthemind

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2018
Messages
307
#25
Trips or attempts to trip an opponent ~ Tick
But there's no evidence that he attempted to trip Martial is there. If he did attempt to trip him he did a brilliant job of making it look like he was tackling him. Are you suggesting that he won the ball "by accident"?

Impeding the progress of an opponent with contact ~ Tick
This obviously doesn't apply when making a tackle otherwise more than half of the good tackles we see would be fouls.

You've got the rules right but your application of them is a mess.
 

Itsallinthemind

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2018
Messages
307
#26
in my opinion for that tackle to be fair he'd need to kick the ball either clearly out of play behind the goal, or change the direction towards a throw in. He gets a little stud on the ball which maybe changes the direction slightly away from goal but Martial would still easily have kept the ball in play had he been able to continue his run.

But what you don't understand is that your "opinion" is just not relevant in this case because there is nothing in the rules that says anything about the level of contact being a consideration. Contact is contact and that's it. There is also nothing in the rules about where the ball ends up. Therefore , that is also not relevant.


What you need to understand is that if there has been contact on the ball by the defender (however slight) then that's what's called a tackle. That's what gives the defender the right to say it's not a penalty - because it's a tackle. From that point on (once you have accepted he got the ball) the only grounds for a penalty is to show that it's not a legal tackle , and that would mean showing he took his leg first , or it was dangerous or from behind etc etc.

All the rules you quoted above are only relevant to tackling if there is no contact on the ball. I think you are completely not realising how much that little contact on the ball changes absolutely everything and totally changes the decision making process.

Do you understand how contact with the ball makes the defender innocent unless shown otherwise? Rather than what many here apart from IDFD seem to be saying.
 

jsp

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2012
Messages
6,940
#28
So you’re concluding then JSP that football is now completely a non contact sport?

He also made more contact on the ball than you’re making out. Massively more. The ball doesn’t only change direction it moves in the complete opposite direction the only reason it looks like it doesn’t is because it then ricochets back off of Martials left leg.

Martial moves the ball, he reads it beats Martial to it and Martial trips over and makes a meal of it. Perfect challenge. Now defenders aren’t allowed to make a challenge. The game is obviously f^cked. Vidic is a lucky boy he’s retired.
I'm only quoting the laws of the game and this is the important bit "careless , reckless or using excessive force" now it's obviously not excessive force but it is careless and the foul is stopping the players forward momentum. You can still make contact with an opponent as long as it doesn't fulfill one of those 3 levels of criteria the ball is not considered when judging a foul hence why almost any contact with the player now results in a foul.

Not saying I like the rules the way they are it's gone way to far one way just saying these are the rules of the game but they are left massively open to the refs to interpret some refs say no contact whatsoever others allow a lot more because the rules are not black and white they are very grey.
 

jsp

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2012
Messages
6,940
#29
Did it really take 3 posts to get your response down.

My point wasn't to attack you or anyone else my point was read what the laws of the game actually say and as you say the ball is not relevant to the decision making process.
 

Itsallinthemind

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2018
Messages
307
#31
Did it really take 3 posts to get your response down.

My point wasn't to attack you or anyone else my point was read what the laws of the game actually say and as you say the ball is not relevant to the decision making process.
I don't think you are attacking me and I am not attacking you. I'm just a bit taken aback by your lack of critical thinking in relation to the laws. I'm only using so many words on this because I'm having to explain to you what should be obvious , namely , he got the ball first with a (non dangerous) tackling leg therefore we have very little case to say it's a penalty. It's like you don't understand what a tackle actually is. It's not a personal thing against you , I just find it hard to believe that you can't see that.

The contact with the ball is very relevant to what decision you arrive at. Just as the fact that Smalling missed the ball turns what could have been a great tackle into a penalty.
 

Itsallinthemind

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2018
Messages
307
#32
I'm only quoting the laws of the game and this is the important bit "careless , reckless or using excessive force" now it's obviously not excessive force but it is careless and the foul is stopping the players forward momentum.

How is it careless? I think you have just misunderstood that part of the rule. The context of that part of the rule is obviously referring to endangering an opponent hence "careless , reckless or using excessive force" . It's the same sort of language used in driving laws "careless , reckless , without due care and attention". It's not referring to dangling out a leg to tackle a player. In fact you could make a case that Gueye was more likely to get himself injured in the motion to win the ball than Martial. He goes in with a straight leg exposing the side of his knee.

Martial was in no danger of injury , no more so than any normal tackle that we see and accept every game we watch. If you mean "careless" as in "lazy" or "sloppy" then that's not relevant. If you say "careless" as in likely to bring down Martial then again it's not relevant because in tackling bringing a player down is allowed ( as I'm sure you know)

The only context in which "careless" is relevant to a penalty is the danger to the player's safety. Martial was hardly in that much danger of injury. It is , as IDFD said , a contact sport after all. How do you think he was "careless"?

Martial was just about to try a sharp turn to the left. Gueye saw this and reacted. He saw an opportunity to win the ball and took it. He stuck his leg out to get the ball. He made contact with the ball. In the process of making that movement he inevitably got his leg in the way of Martial and brought him down. That's called a tackle and it's perfectly legal as long as it's not dangerous.
 

Mr C

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2017
Messages
1,856
#34
I don’t think any of us are the type of hardcore fans who say a decision is fair just because it’s United.

So it’s probably fair to say it’s not clear cut and you can see why the ref gave it.

Some of the penalties they give for handball I don’t get either.
 
Top