Penalty v Everton

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.


What I'm trying to get is why people would even consider it to be a penalty. I was a defender years ago. I was crap but if I saw an opportunity to get to the ball I would take it. If I got the ball first (then man) and didn't hurt the player or go in high or dangerously or from behind then I had done my job properly. That's exactly what Gueye did. Where's the penalty ffs?

I agree that in real time it looks like a penalty. I can see why the ref gave it. But in slo mo everyone can see there's nothing wrong with the tackle. You just have to look carefully and think carefully about what happened.
 
Do you think he used careless, wreckless of excessive force?

I’d say it’s careless and I’ve had chances to watch replays of it now.

He steps across the line of Martial who is running through and the change of direction on the ball from his tackle is not significant enough to say he hasn’t impeded the progress of the player.

Is it the most nailed on pen you will ever see? No
Is it a penalty under the current rules? Yes

I do think the rules need to be changed as they’ve gone to far more contact has to be allowed otherwise defending is practically impossible and the rules favour the smaller, quicker players to much.
 
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.

I can see your point about the careless part but what about this one

  • Impeding the progress of an opponent with contact
This is probably the more relevant reason as again ball isn’t important and Gueye’s action stops Martial from progressing his run and despite the touch on the ball it is still I think within his control as he’d still make that ball before it goes out.

I think the contact on the ball is so minimal that it didn’t over rule the fact he then stops the player continuing.

The rules are so open you can make lots of arguments for and against these decisions even with VAR I still think the ref sticks to his decision as there isn’t even consensus between refs on pen or no pen.
 
JSP - Honestly please go and watch the replay and see how much contact he gets on the ball. It’s a great challenge. It looks like minimal contact because Martials left leg drags it back in the same direction.
 
I think the contact on the ball is so minimal that it didn’t over rule the fact he then stops the player continuing.

But that's the whole point. It does overrule it and I can tell you why. There is absolutely nothing in the rules that says anything about whether the ball contact is minimal or strong. How much he gets on the ball is therefore irrelevant because it would be in the rules if it was. This minimal contact thing is in your head and not in the rule book. At some point this information will filter through into your awareness and you will realise the mistake in your thinking process.


Gueye’s action stops Martial from progressing his run

....but again this is not relevant in any way shape or form. The rule book does not say that in the process of winning the ball the player must allow the player to continue forward and if he doesn't then its a foul. The defender is allowed to make an attempt to win the ball , yes? If by doing so he also stops the player from progressing then that's just tough. It's a legal tackle anyway. It's hard to see how Gueye could get his foot on the ball without almost definitely bringing Martial down. He puts his leg in there to win the ball presumably knowing that he would bring Martial down , but also trusting the rules knowing that if he makes contact with the ball he's Ok. The problem was the ref didn't see the contact.

What happens to the ball and Martial afterwards (as long as it's not dangerous) is totally irrelevant. All that matters is he got the ball first before Martial and it was ball first then man.

Again , at some point this realisation will hit you and you will understand that all talk of whether Martial would have got to the ball or how minimal the contact is just DOESN'T MATTER. It's not Gueye's problem. He stuck his leg out and got to the ball first. It wasn't dangerous. The rules cover him from anything that happens after that. It's like a defender's indemnity clause. Surely you know this.

That's the rules. Like it or not.
 
JSP - Honestly please go and watch the replay and see how much contact he gets on the ball. It’s a great challenge. It looks like minimal contact because Martials left leg drags it back in the same direction.

I made a point of going back to MOTD 2 again and watching it a few times they didn’t focus on it that much. Still feel under the current rules it’s a penalty I don’t think it’s a 100% like the one Everton got but I think there’s enough there to give the penalty.

Yes the defender touches the ball in attempting the tackle, Martial continues his forward momentum in the direction of the ball Gueye who’s coming sideways then stops him from continuing forward with a second contact that halts his progress.
 
IFAB definition of careless

  • Careless is when a player shows a lack of attention or consideration when making a challenge or acts without precaution. No disciplinary sanction is needed
Look guys there’s no point falling out over this it is all interpretation you see it one way I see it another and due to the way the laws work neither is right or wrong.

If you decide to make a tackle in modern football you have 2 things really to consider

1) can I tackle without making contact with the opponent at all
2) if I need to make contact will the ref consider it careless as that’s is the minimum criteria for fouls so basically keep contact to the absolute minimum.

As I’ve said I think the challenge fulfills 2 criteria’s for a foul which is why I think the ref gives the decision.

There will be softer pens given this season and more obvious ones not given but the vagueness of the rules of our game opens it up to this.
 
I made a point of going back to MOTD 2 again and watching it a few times they didn’t focus on it that much. Still feel under the current rules it’s a penalty I don’t think it’s a 100% like the one Everton got but I think there’s enough there to give the penalty.

Yes the defender touches the ball in attempting the tackle, Martial continues his forward momentum in the direction of the ball Gueye who’s coming sideways then stops him from continuing forward with a second contact that halts his progress.

Now that's the only possible argument one could make for a penalty. At least that makes sense. However , there's a big problem with it. That theory would require a second movement from Gueye. Gueye makes one movement towards the ball and makes contact with the ball. If in the process of that movement Martial then trips over his leg then that's not a foul. It happens all the time in football. The fact that he's coming sideways isn't relevant either. Do you think he made a second movement to bring Martial down after he made the tackle. If you do then he did it within 0.05 of a second. To me it looks like one movement.


What you have to ask yourself is this. Given the speed that this was happening, was it possible for Gueye to put his foot in there without bringing Martial down? I think the answer is clearly no given how fast Martial was running and the angle he was running at. But again that's not Gueye's problem. He got his foot on the ball. The rules cover him because he's made a successful tackle. He didn't "attempt" the tackle (as you say above) he made a tackle. The definition of a tackle is getting to the ball in some way that is legal and not dangerous. That's what he did. He's not responsible for anything after that.

The three questions that defenders ask themselves with tackling in the penalty area is 1) am I tackling from behind? 2) am I tackling my opponent before I get the ball? 3) am I doing anything dangerous , reckless , careless to my opponent? If the answer to these three is no and he gets a touch on the ball then he's entitled to feel robbed if a penalty is given. Look at the reaction of the Everton players. You can tell they know he's got to the ball and the ref has made a mistake. Gueye goes to his knees.
 
1) can I tackle without making contact with the opponent at all
2) if I need to make contact will the ref consider it careless as that’s is the minimum criteria for fouls so basically keep contact to the absolute minimum.


1) No he couldn't. It's almost impossible to make that tackle without making contact. Most tackles are like that.

2) The ref should not have seen that as careless because studs were not up. He didn't go in high or from behind or even lunging or two footed. He didn't even go to ground. Martial was not hurt in anyway. It was not dangerous or careless. If we take tackles like that out of the game then we might as well go and watch netball.
 
Try this one. Old Trafford v Liverpool. Mo Salah is through on goal. He half goes round De Gea , but De Gea stretches out and gets his finger tips on the ball deflecting it a few inches. A split second later the ball ricochets from De Gea's glove on to Salah's boot and the ball goes further forward. Another split second later (because of De Gea's momentum in diving) Salah's legs unavoidably clatter into De Gea's arms and inevitably he falls over. The ball did not go out and Salah would have been able to get to it and probably slide it into an empty net. Instead , Smalling gets back and clears it.

2 questions 1) is it a penalty? (given that you see De Geas touch on the ball) 2) Should De Gea have not gone for the ball just because he might bring Salah down afterwards?

Think carefully.....
 
I’m sorry JSP I can’t disagree with you more. The argument ‘got the ball’ does still apply in the rules of the law. It only doesn’t when it’s considered a careless or reckless challenge, which is why I posed the question was his challenge careless or reckless? If not it wasn’t a penalty by the laws of the game. If you think so then let’s stop the game of football from existing.

One thing I do hate is the blaze commentators that either go with ‘it wasn’t a foul he got the ball’ or ‘getting the ball doesn’t stop it from being a foul’ they aren’t black and white. It does stop it being a foul if it wasn’t reckless. If it was reckless then no it doesn’t stop it being a foul. As you said some people need to understand the rules of the game better.
 
I’m sorry JSP I can’t disagree with you more. The argument ‘got the ball’ does still apply in the rules of the law. It only doesn’t when it’s considered a careless or reckless challenge, which is why I posed the question was his challenge careless or reckless? If not it wasn’t a penalty by the laws of the game. If you think so then let’s stop the game of football from existing.

One thing I do hate is the blaze commentators that either go with ‘it wasn’t a foul he got the ball’ or ‘getting the ball doesn’t stop it from being a foul’ they aren’t black and white. It does stop it being a foul if it wasn’t reckless. If it was reckless then no it doesn’t stop it being a foul. As you said some people need to understand the rules of the game better.


For once I totally agree with you. :) It wasn't reckless and he got the ball. It is as simple as that.
 
For once I totally agree with you. :) It wasn't reckless and he got the ball. It is as simple as that.

@IDFD

My work here is complete I finally got you two to agree on something. Where do I collect my reward? :cool:

Anyway the games about opinions I still think it's a penalty you two don't.
 
I'm on the fence, I can defo see why it was given, and I'm glad it was. If I had to drop one side, I'd say penalty. I don't think you can tap a ball slightly and use that as an excuse to take a player out.
 
I don't think you can tap a ball slightly and use that as an excuse to take a player out.

Please try and understand that it's not about what you or I "think" , it's about the rules of the game. What you feel about "slight" touches or some possible intent on the part of Gueye is just irrelevant. What you have also forgotten is that with penalties you have to be sure. The benefit of the doubt is with the defending team. The rule for refs is "if in doubt don't give it" . Therefore , the very fact that people are saying maybe it was / wasn't means that it isn't a pen. It's like LBW in cricket.

A player is allowed to go for the ball - its in the rules. He can tackle any way he likes and get whatever touch he can get (slight or heavy) as long as he doesn't get his opponent first (man then ball) or do something reckless , dangerous (eg studs up). That's the rules .End of. What you think or feel or what I think or feel is irrelevant if that player has not broken the rules.

You can argue that the rules are stupid if you like , but that's a different argument. If you want to say that the rules are stupid then start another thread. This thread is about whether it was a penalty or not. Don't mix up the two. I think you are mixing up an argument against the rules and an argument against Gueye's tackle and this is causing you to have muddled thinking where you start including your own intuition and feelings. That's not how it works in these particular cases because you cannot come up with any logical reason why it's a foul according to the actual rules.

As the rules stand it's not a penalty. You cannot argue that Gueye intended to take Martial out because that's mind reading. I could equally argue that he fully intended to make the tackle. There's no evidence strong enough to suggest any intention on Gueye's part and it would just be your mind thinking that he was taking Martial out. All he has to do is make a movement to the ball in a non dangerous way and succeed in making contact with the ball. Whether in making that contact he also takes out the player is just tough. You might think it's unfair but as the rules stand in 2018 its allowed. It really is that simple.

I don't know what has to happen for you to realise that if , in the motion of tackling the ball (however slightly) , you end up taking a player out then that is allowed under the rules. In any case even if you could somehow prove that he decided to get a touch on the ball and at the same time intentionally block Martial , the worst that you could say is that he was very cleverly making use of the rules to defend really well.
 
In
@IDFD

My work here is complete I finally got you two to agree on something. Where do I collect my reward? :cool:

Anyway the games about opinions I still think it's a penalty you two don't.


I'm not sure you deserve a reward yet. In order to get your reward this thread will have to go to VAR first then maybe a panel . LOL
 
of course it's down to interpretation.

The whole ball to hand, hand to ball for hand ball is a joke. Some penalties are given there that should never be given.

And the ref has to deem if the tackle is reckless or careless.

The direct free kick rule states.

Impeding the progress of an opponent with contact

This could be argued in this case

Anyway, I don't care, it was given we won. That should be it really.
 
And the ref has to deem if the tackle is reckless or careless.

...and in this case its neither because Martial wasn't even close to being injured , nor were studs high , and there was no lunge or two footed movement , and he didn't leave the ground. There was nothing dangerous about that tackle other than the fact that Martial fell over (he got up straight away completely unscathed)

Impeding the progress of an opponent with contact

This could be argued in this case


No it can't because this rule only applies when there is no contact with the ball. This rule is for off the ball contact and blocking etc not tackling. Tackling is obviously exempt from this rule. If this applied to tackling then there would be 20 penalties a game. You are allowed to impede the progress of an opponent in the process of challenging for and winning the ball.


Anyway, I don't care, it was given we won. That should be it really.


That's fine if you don't care and you are more concerned about winning. Just don't pretend that you are having an honesty objective discussion about rules. When I looked at the replay I just saw Red shirt and Blue shirt , that's what you have to be able to do to work out the truth of a situation. The fact that we won is irrelevant to a discussion about whether it was a penalty or not.

I'm glad he gave the penalty but I also know it wasn't one.
 
Your point 2, nowhere in the rules does it say its for off the ball contact.

Of course I am having oblective discussion. But like all discussions on this forum you won't accept anything but your own opinion.

You think it wasn't a penalty and wont even tolerate any discussion contrary even when the rules are posted, I can see why it was given, the rules are a bit vague, we won, move on.
 
Your point 2, nowhere in the rules does it say its for off the ball contact.

You are right , its talking about fouls for which free kicks and penalties are given but it's not talking about tackling. I'm not sure where the specific rule is for tackling and challenging for the ball but what I do know is that its perfectly legal to tackle a player and get the ball , and if in the process of doing so you make contact with someone and impede a players progress then it's not a foul.

This happens every week when you watch football. Someone slides in or sticks out a leg and gets the ball and the attacker is impeded , knocked over or trips over his legs etc etc. When this happens the ref does not call for a foul unless it is reckless , dangerous or shows a lack of care for the opponents safety. Obviously that's because tackling a player is exempt from being a foul (unless it's dangerous). You cannot impede a players progress unless you are winning the ball (or making contact with) in some way. Which part of this is a problem for you? Please explain what you see on the pitch every week.


But like all discussions on this forum you won't accept anything but your own opinion.

The rules of football are not my opinion. The rules do not care about my opinion or yours. They are what they are. What I will not accept is something that's not logical. If you told me that if a player head butts another player then he shouldn't be sent off then is that my opinion versus yours? No , of course not. You argument is with the rules of the game , not with my "opinion". Please try to understand this.

You think it wasn't a penalty and wont even tolerate any discussion contrary even when the rules are posted,

But you completely misunderstood the rules and when they apply and don't apply. It's no good just posting rules without understanding their exemptions. For example , there is a rule that says you should not handle the ball , yes ? But does that mean when a player is doing a throw in its handball? No. Because that rule is not applicable to throw ins , just like the normal rules of fouling take on a different meaning when tackling the ball.


I can see why it was given, the rules are a bit vague, we won, move on.

I can see why it was given too , but not for the same reasons as you. I think the ref just didn't see Gueye's contact on the ball , it was just too fast and too slight for him. In full speed I might have given it too. If he had had access to VAR though he would have overturned it after seeing the touch from Gueye. You think the ref saw everything and gave it anyway. I do not.

I think the rules have grey areas when it comes to what is dangerous play or not. Some refs will tolerate more physical contact than others (eg premier league versus CL) , but when it comes to winning the ball without endangering an opponent the rules are quite clear really.

I would agree that Gueye's tackle doesn't look quite right and that it seems a bit unfair that he can stick out a leg , get a slight touch on the ball and in doing so put Martial on his bum in the penalty area. I get it that it doesn't look right somehow. However , whatever it looks like to any of us is yet again irrelevant because he's not done anything that the rules say he can't. He's allowed to challenge for the ball in that way as long as he makes contact with the ball before the player and it's not dangerous. The rules do not care about what we think or feel about that.
 
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.


One last try then. Here are some examples of some great , classic tackles (which are obviously not fouls). Pay special attention to the Bobby Moore tackle v Brazil on around 30 seconds. It has a lot of similarities with the Gueye tackle. The Brazil player goes down and has his progress impeded (but no penalty ) . Moore sticks out a leg in a similar way and gets contact with the ball. Yes? Moore's tackle is not dangerous , neither was Gueye's. Now here's your problem - why in your opinion is Moore's tackle not a penalty but Gueye's is? (I do hope that you recognise that Moore's was a legal tackle? )

Think about it. If you say that Moore's is obviously not a penalty because his tackle was more successful and he came away with the ball then that is muddled thinking. The law does not say that the more successful a tackle is the more legal it is. If Moore had just got a slight touch on the ball like Gueye and the ball had ended up behind him about 5 yards , that would be a less successful tackle but crucially it would be just as legal. The success or lack of success of any tackle or where the ball ends up is of NO consequence to how legal it is.

Do you understand that what happens after a tackle like that is made is totally irrelevant. Whether its a tackle like Moore's where he ends up looking great and coming away with the ball - Or a tackle like Gueye's which looks messy and just didn't work out for him is just unimportant to a ref. Successful tackles are no more legal than unsuccessful tackles , they are both legal tackles.

Has the penny finally dropped? Please think about it clearly before one of dies.
 
One thing I would say is Gueye didn't get a slight touch on the ball. He got an absolutely massive touch on the ball. Sent it in the opposite direction and it ricocheted off of Martials left leg and made it look like it was a slight touch because the ball then headed back in the same direction it was travelling before the touch and I think that's what's thrown a lot of you. Along with Martial throwing himself at the ground like Chris Kyle was in the crowd.
 
Not wanting to wade back into this but you can't compare a tackle by Moore in the 70's to a tackle in the modern game the rules and the way they are enforced are totally different the game has changed radically especially when it comes to what you can and can't do in tackles. You can't even compare current football to the game as it was played 20 years ago contact is constantly being reduced when rules are changed or interpretation guidance is given to refs. It just isn't an apples for apple comparison.

I'm still not seeing the Gueye got a massive touch on the ball stuff maybe I've not seen the angle that proves that but from the ones I've seen he gets minor contact that doesn't take the ball away from Martial who is still moving forward in direction of the ball past Gueye. Martial then goes Gueye's leg which is blocking his forward momentum which is why I think it's a penalty.
 
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.


1:09 - Martials left leg puts it back in the direction it seemed to be travelling.
 
you can't compare a tackle by Moore in the 70's to a tackle in the modern game the rules and the way they are enforced are totally different the game has changed radically especially when it comes to what you can and can't do in tackles. You can't even compare current football to the game as it was played 20 years ago contact is constantly being reduced when rules are changed or interpretation guidance is given to refs. It just isn't an apples for apple comparison.

Nonsense! You are clutching at straws and have confused two things that don't belong together. Why do I say this? Because Moore's tackle was not a foul then and would not be a foul now. Your point is only relevant if you actually think that the game has changed in such a way that Moore's tackle would now be considered to be a foul in today's game.

So here's the question you have to answer - do you think that Moore's tackle would be a penalty now? I'm sure you are going to have a really really hard time arguing that it would be. On what basis would you make a case for that? Given that Moore did not go in high with studs showing or lunged off the ground , or go in two footed or in any way put the other player in danger of injury. So if you accept that Moore's tackle would be fair now then the next step is to ask yourself why you think Gueye's tackle is a penalty if Moore's is not.

All this talk of the "rules then compared to the rules now" is just a smokescreen to obscure the basic truth. The basic rules have not changed other than to define the amount of force that is deemed "careless, reckless or excessive" and that's basically to deal with things like two footed or high challenges , out of control lunges and "studs up" situations and tackling from behind (eg scissor tackles) that can cause bad injuries.

Those changes to the rules would not have affected Moore's tackle because he did none of those things. The recent changes were not introduced to stop robust , physical but clean tackling from taking place on the field. FIFA still recognise that football is a physical contact sport and that players will fall over when tackled.

If Smalling made a tackle like Moore's next week you would be cheering him. You would be furious if the ref gave a penalty, You are right that the game has changed and there are awful tackles that you see from the past that would now be sending off offences. The gaping hole in your point is that Moore's tackle is not one of these :rolleyes:
 
Mr C and JSP - If you could just grasp this one thing your minds would be so much clearer on this....

THE AMOUNT OF CONTACT THE TACKLER MAKES ON THE BALL IS IRRELEVANT! IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE TO HOW LEGAL ANY TACKLE IS OR ISN'T. HAVE YOU UNDERSTOOD THIS YET ?
 
I couldn't watch the video but assuming it's the famous Moore tackle from the 1970 world cup they are not comparable because Moore wins the ball and stops it going before the player goes over his legs a perfectly legal tackle then and now. The Gueye tackle the ball is still going past him despite his attempt at the tackle so the fact he gets the ball doesn't mean anything as the ref would deem that Martial is still in control of the ball and Gueye then blocks him from getting to it and therefore a foul has been committed. Again when comparing anything it must be apples for apples you are comparing apples to oranges the two things are not the same and as I stated the level of contact allowed in 1970's is totally different to 2018 but in 1970 or 2018 that tackle by Moore is perfectly within the rules in 1970 the tackle by Gueye is probably fine.

As for what FIFA considers how the game is played if your tackle endangers the safety of the opponent regardless of how clean the tackle is in it's execution you will be penalised for it. The rules and how they're enforced are there to protect the players now and the instructions to refs are clear if they feel you opponent has put the opponents safety at risk in how he's challenged for the ball it has to be a foul that would include knocking the opponent off his feet.
 
Ahh video was working fine when I posted it last night, I'll find a comparable video which shows the touch Gauye got from the correct angle and the ball going off in a different direction before hitting Martial.
 
Mr C and JSP - If you could just grasp this one thing your minds would be so much clearer on this....

THE AMOUNT OF CONTACT THE TACKLER MAKES ON THE BALL IS IRRELEVANT! IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE TO HOW LEGAL ANY TACKLE IS OR ISN'T. HAVE YOU UNDERSTOOD THIS YET ?

Ooooh red font and capitals must be getting serious Haha!

I said very early on getting the ball wasn't important and I still feel it's a penalty nothing you say is going to change that so think I'll just call it a day here on this topic as we're going round in circles.

Just imagine how boring the midweeks would be if we didn't have referee decisions to talk about.
 
I think it would be very hard for the ref to see if the tackler gets the ball, the direction the tackler kicks the ball suggests it should have been going out for a throw but because Martial kicks it on after the tackler gets the ball, the ref assumes the tackler hasn't won the ball. That Martial touch after the tackle wins the penalty.
 

Login or Register

Forgot your password?
or Log in using
Don't have an account? Register now
Back
Top