Never a penalty...he threw himself down

[Hipper]

.....it wasn't and its a very slippery slope if this continues to happen.....p1ss poor decision.

It's been happening for a while and there doesn't seem to be much that is done about it.

It suits the big teams that nothing is. They are the ones that get into the penalty area most and therefore get the most opportunities.

I don't know what the FA or referees can do. I do know that managers can stop it if they wanted to. Hughton, Pochetinno, Guadiola et al can stop it. Clearly they don't want to.

[dsr]

"Alli fell into the leg" stated the commentator

So for the 2nd week running we concede a penalty where the ball is going out of play and in no danger of being a goalscoring threat and the opposing player has initiated contact. Have the rules changed?

Yes. The rule as it is now applied is that if two players touch, the ref has the option of giving a foul. Obviously they don't want to give a foul every time two players touch, so they restrict it (by and large) to when a big team needs a boost. So if Burnley, say, are drawing 0-0 against, say, Man City, Arsenal, or Tottenham, then the ref can use his option to give a penalty.

He knows perfectly well that as long as there is contact, however slight, the risible diving panel will back him up if it's a "top 6" club he is favouring.

[dsr]

It's been happening for a while and there doesn't seem to be much that is done about it.

It suits the big teams that nothing is. They are the ones that get into the penalty area most and therefore get the most opportunities.

I don't know what the FA or referees can do. I do know that managers can stop it if they wanted to. Hughton, Pochetinno, Guadiola et al can stop it. Clearly they don't want to.

The FA could stop encouraging refs to give free kicks for every tiny little contact. They could also explain to the refs and other interested parties that the offence is "tripping", not "touching". Never once did either Poll or the MotD sheep think to question whether Alli was actually tripped or whether he threw himself down. They didn't think it relevant.

[what_no_pies]

It was definitely a penalty. Kevin Long has been found out a few times already tonight.

Bloody hell. You realise he's facing Harry Kane with the pace, trickery and movement of Son, Alli and Eriksen behind him. Been excellent when called upon in the main and today faced one of the form strikers in world football.

[THEWELLERNUT70]

Yes. The rule as it is now applied is that if two players touch, the ref has the option of giving a foul. Obviously they don't want to give a foul every time two players touch, so they restrict it (by and large) to when a big team needs a boost. So if Burnley, say, are drawing 0-0 against, say, Man City, Arsenal, or Tottenham, then the ref can use his option to give a penalty.

He knows perfectly well that as long as there is contact, however slight, the risible diving panel will back him up if it's a "top 6" club he is favouring.

Ah that explains things, thanks

[THEWELLERNUT70]

Why the question marks?
I think my point was clear enough.
Tarkowski doesn't do something daft. Long doesn't play.
But as I implied (to some extent), you can't keep going back and saying "if only".
As someone else suggested, blame last week's referee for not red carding Alli and Kane. You could go on and on.

Tarkowski wouldn't have played today regardless with a Steele plated and heavily pinned hand

[Hipper]

The trouble is the players have taken control from the ref. By going down it forces the ref to make a decision.

This is all part of the general trend of weakening authority. Generally speaking in football in the 60s etc. players accepted referees decisions. This deliberately falling over after contact didn't exist. Now players are in practical terms controlling the refs. It is true that sometimes refs did not award fouls for minor infringements, in part to keep the game flowing. Now if a player so decides, if he is in anyway fouled (or thinks he is) he goes down. Usually pundits and even referees seem to accept this.

I'm so glad I no longer referee. I'm sure I would have given up as I would see no reason to put up with this crap. In fact, like some on here have said, I'm giving some thought to giving up all interest in the game generally. Whilst Spurs beat us fair and square in the end, and were so superior to us, it looked for a long time to be a case of a their more talented side only being able to win by a hugely dubious penalty decision. What is the point of it all if that can happen?

[boyyanno]

Why the question marks?
I think my point was clear enough.
Tarkowski doesn't do something daft. Long doesn't play.
But as I implied (to some extent), you can't keep going back and saying "if only".
As someone else suggested, blame last week's referee for not red carding Alli and Kane. You could go on and on.

But isn't "going back and saying if only" exactly what you're doing in regards to the penalty?