Liverpool penalty

This Forum is the main messageboard to discuss all things Claret and Blue and beyond
taio
Posts: 11520
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:17 am
Been Liked: 3220 times
Has Liked: 340 times

Re: Liverpool penalty

Post by taio » Sun Oct 06, 2019 12:41 pm

Spijed wrote:So are you saying that an attacker would never dive if they could help it, and always try and stay on their feet and score?
To be fair he didn't for a moment suggest that.

LeadBelly
Posts: 4178
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 11:07 am
Been Liked: 1002 times
Has Liked: 2044 times
Location: North Hampshire

Re: Liverpool penalty

Post by LeadBelly » Sun Oct 06, 2019 12:41 pm

No, I'm suggesting that referees/comentators need to bear in mind that when an attacker falls over its not necessarilly a dive or a foul.

Roosterbooster
Posts: 2583
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:22 pm
Been Liked: 689 times
Has Liked: 361 times

Re: Liverpool penalty

Post by Roosterbooster » Sun Oct 06, 2019 12:50 pm

Tall Paul wrote:The argument for the Mane penalty is that he was impeded with contact in the penalty area, not that he was kicked carelessly, recklessly or with excessive force.
He wasnt impeded. He just pretended he was. Hence why he didnt go down at the point of contact
It's a dive
Its cheating
Contact doesn't equal a foul
Its another example of VAR being pointless
In my book that's a clear and obvious error
I have no doubts about it
This user liked this post: Sproggy

Tall Paul
Posts: 7171
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:07 am
Been Liked: 2561 times
Has Liked: 690 times

Re: Liverpool penalty

Post by Tall Paul » Sun Oct 06, 2019 12:53 pm

Roosterbooster wrote:He wasnt impeded. He just pretended he was. Hence why he didnt go down at the point of contact
It's a dive
Its cheating
Contact doesn't equal a foul
Its another example of VAR being pointless
In my book that's a clear and obvious error
I have no doubts about it
I tend to agree, but that wasn't the point I was making. I was saying that I don't think that the part of the law that the penalty was given under was included in Rileybob's quote.

Although contact can equal a foul if that contact impedes the opponent.

Actually, having just watched it again, I think Albrighton's contact stops Mane from getting a shot away so it's probably a penalty under the law. Mane definitely dives as well. I'd like to see referees being able to book players for diving as well as giving the penalty.

Rileybobs
Posts: 16689
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:37 pm
Been Liked: 6903 times
Has Liked: 1471 times
Location: Leeds

Re: Liverpool penalty

Post by Rileybobs » Sun Oct 06, 2019 1:23 pm

Tall Paul wrote:You've missed a bit out, which is why most penalties are given and contact is cited:



The argument for the Mane penalty is that he was impeded with contact in the penalty area, not that he was kicked carelessly, recklessly or with excessive force.
The definition of impede is;

‘delay or prevent (someone or something) by obstructing them’

So he definitely wasn’t impeded. Pulling a players shirt or blocking a player is impeding. Mane was kicked - but not carelessly, recklessly or with excessive force.

Tall Paul
Posts: 7171
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:07 am
Been Liked: 2561 times
Has Liked: 690 times

Re: Liverpool penalty

Post by Tall Paul » Sun Oct 06, 2019 1:34 pm

Rileybobs wrote:The definition of impede is;

‘delay or prevent (someone or something) by obstructing them’

So he definitely wasn’t impeded. Pulling a players shirt or blocking a player is impeding. Mane was kicked - but not carelessly, recklessly or with excessive force.
Another definition of impede is:
"to make it more difficult for something to happen or more difficult for someone to do something"

Albrighton's contact made it more difficult for Mane to get a shot off so he definitely was impeded.

Claret
Posts: 1215
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:57 pm
Been Liked: 400 times
Has Liked: 655 times

Re: Liverpool penalty

Post by Claret » Sun Oct 06, 2019 1:39 pm

Tall Paul wrote:Another definition of impede is:
"to make it more difficult for something to happen or more difficult for someone to do something"

Albrighton's contact made it more difficult for Mane to get a shot off so he definitely was impeded.
Oh dear
These 2 users liked this post: Sproggy FactualFrank

Tall Paul
Posts: 7171
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:07 am
Been Liked: 2561 times
Has Liked: 690 times

Re: Liverpool penalty

Post by Tall Paul » Sun Oct 06, 2019 1:57 pm

Claret wrote:Oh dear
Good argument.

TVC15
Posts: 8211
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:09 pm
Been Liked: 3321 times
Has Liked: 601 times

Re: Liverpool penalty

Post by TVC15 » Sun Oct 06, 2019 2:15 pm

Tall Paul wrote:I tend to agree, but that wasn't the point I was making. I was saying that I don't think that the part of the law that the penalty was given under was included in Rileybob's quote.

Although contact can equal a foul if that contact impedes the opponent.

Actually, having just watched it again, I think Albrighton's contact stops Mane from getting a shot away so it's probably a penalty under the law. Mane definitely dives as well. I'd like to see referees being able to book players for diving as well as giving the penalty.
An even better solution would be if the referee could book or send off the player for diving and then let everyone know that but for the fact that the player dived and tried to deceive the officials it would have been penalty - so cheating has cost their team a penalty.
That rule would cut out most of the diving in penalty areas overnight - and even if a couple of mistakes were made by the officials in the subjective decision as to whether they dived or not - it would still be more than worth it.

Rileybobs
Posts: 16689
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:37 pm
Been Liked: 6903 times
Has Liked: 1471 times
Location: Leeds

Re: Liverpool penalty

Post by Rileybobs » Sun Oct 06, 2019 2:18 pm

Tall Paul wrote:Another definition of impede is:
"to make it more difficult for something to happen or more difficult for someone to do something"

Albrighton's contact made it more difficult for Mane to get a shot off so he definitely was impeded.
I disagree - I think the ref gave the penalty because he felt that the kick on Mane caused him to fall to the ground. I also disagree that Mane was in any way impeded by the contact. If you think otherwise then fair enough.

Surprised anyone thinks that warranted a penalty under the actual laws of the game.

Tall Paul
Posts: 7171
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:07 am
Been Liked: 2561 times
Has Liked: 690 times

Re: Liverpool penalty

Post by Tall Paul » Sun Oct 06, 2019 2:21 pm

Rileybobs wrote:I disagree - I think the ref gave the penalty because he felt that the kick on Mane caused him to fall to the ground. I also disagree that Mane was in any way impeded by the contact. If you think otherwise then fair enough.

Surprised anyone thinks that warranted a penalty under the actual laws of the game.
The only man that mattered thought it warranted one.

As you rightly said in your original post quoting the law, it's hard to make an argument that Albrighton's kick was careless, reckless or using excessive force so it's much more likely that the ref thought Mane was impeded with contact and gave the penalty for that reason.
Last edited by Tall Paul on Sun Oct 06, 2019 2:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Rileybobs
Posts: 16689
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:37 pm
Been Liked: 6903 times
Has Liked: 1471 times
Location: Leeds

Re: Liverpool penalty

Post by Rileybobs » Sun Oct 06, 2019 2:24 pm

Tall Paul wrote:The only man that mattered thought it did at the end of the day.
I wouldn’t say he was the only man that mattered. He was the only man who could make the decision though and the vast majority seem to think he got it wrong.

Tall Paul
Posts: 7171
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:07 am
Been Liked: 2561 times
Has Liked: 690 times

Re: Liverpool penalty

Post by Tall Paul » Sun Oct 06, 2019 2:28 pm

Rileybobs wrote:I wouldn’t say he was the only man that mattered. He was the only man who could make the decision though and the vast majority seem to think he got it wrong.
Of course he's the only man that matters, doesn't the law state "in the opinion of the referee" (or words to that effect)?

Rileybobs
Posts: 16689
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:37 pm
Been Liked: 6903 times
Has Liked: 1471 times
Location: Leeds

Re: Liverpool penalty

Post by Rileybobs » Sun Oct 06, 2019 2:32 pm

Tall Paul wrote:Of course he's the only man that matters, doesn't the law state "in the opinion of the referee" (or words to that effect)?
He’s the man who makes the decision but that doesn’t mean that the opinions of others don’t matter. It also doesn’t make his decision the correct one.
This user liked this post: FactualFrank

evensteadiereddie
Posts: 9585
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:45 pm
Been Liked: 3146 times
Has Liked: 10202 times
Location: Staffordshire

Re: Liverpool penalty

Post by evensteadiereddie » Sun Oct 06, 2019 2:50 pm

Aye, alright. I can see the ale's in charge again. Mind how you go in the park, fella.... ;)

yTib
Posts: 2714
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2016 6:39 pm
Been Liked: 704 times
Has Liked: 657 times
Location: Château d'If

Re: Liverpool penalty

Post by yTib » Sun Oct 06, 2019 2:53 pm

the only thing worse than cheating is those that endorse and even celebrate it.

football is doomed.
These 2 users liked this post: SussexDon1inIreland Lord Beamish

SussexDon1inIreland
Posts: 6217
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2016 8:23 pm
Been Liked: 1277 times
Has Liked: 8528 times
Location: Greystones Ireland

Re: Liverpool penalty

Post by SussexDon1inIreland » Sun Oct 06, 2019 2:59 pm

No penalty- even MOTD said it was soft. I could forgive Ref for being fooled by Mane's dive when he felt contact but with VAR having the slow mo replay they should be able to see that Mane feels the touch and a split second decided to throw himself down. Would be gutted if that was given against us.

Is it a conspiracy that the top clubs get these decisions??

Was at the Turf yesterday- great result.

UTC

evensteadiereddie
Posts: 9585
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:45 pm
Been Liked: 3146 times
Has Liked: 10202 times
Location: Staffordshire

Re: Liverpool penalty

Post by evensteadiereddie » Sun Oct 06, 2019 3:08 pm

"Is it a conspiracy that the top clubs get these decisions??"

I think as long as the incident under review is open to interpretation, then there is always going to be the possibility of the decision going the "popular" way.
At least with offside, it's generally one or t'other and can't be fiddled.

RingoMcCartney
Posts: 10318
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2016 4:45 pm
Been Liked: 2636 times
Has Liked: 2798 times

Re: Liverpool penalty

Post by RingoMcCartney » Sun Oct 06, 2019 3:13 pm

evensteadiereddie wrote:Aye, alright. I can see the ale's in charge again. Mind how you go in the park, fella.... ;)
And the white flag is finally waived!

:lol:

evensteadiereddie
Posts: 9585
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:45 pm
Been Liked: 3146 times
Has Liked: 10202 times
Location: Staffordshire

Re: Liverpool penalty

Post by evensteadiereddie » Sun Oct 06, 2019 3:19 pm

"Waived" - what a retard. :oops:

Aye, again, alright, Ringo. This is odd stuff even by your standards but just to save you further embarrassment, I'll simply repeat. I can see the ale's in charge.

Mind how you go in the park, fella.... ;)

RingoMcCartney
Posts: 10318
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2016 4:45 pm
Been Liked: 2636 times
Has Liked: 2798 times

Re: Liverpool penalty

Post by RingoMcCartney » Sun Oct 06, 2019 3:33 pm

evensteadiereddie wrote:"Waived" - what a retard. :oops:

Aye, again, alright, Ringo. This is odd stuff even by your standards but just to save you further embarrassment, I'll simply repeat. I can see the ale's in charge.

Mind how you go in the park, fella.... ;)
Aah I love, the old " you're drunk" fallback position you resort to when you've dried up on the retort front!. Its funny isn't it you see it as a red rag to a bull and all I see is a white flag!

:lol:

No doubt when theres nothing more to be said, you'll still be saying it! :lol:

The last words all yours . Fill yer boots buggerlugs

Lord Beamish
Posts: 5001
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 4:00 pm
Been Liked: 3435 times
Has Liked: 2881 times

Re: Liverpool penalty

Post by Lord Beamish » Sun Oct 06, 2019 3:34 pm

In fairness, it gets a rise out of you every time, Wrongo.
This user liked this post: evensteadiereddie

RingoMcCartney
Posts: 10318
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2016 4:45 pm
Been Liked: 2636 times
Has Liked: 2798 times

Re: Liverpool penalty

Post by RingoMcCartney » Sun Oct 06, 2019 3:38 pm

What do the following all have in common?

The referendum result

Leicester City winning the premier league

RingoMcCartneys posts.

They clearly eat away at the very soul of unhingededdie.

Lord Beamish
Posts: 5001
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 4:00 pm
Been Liked: 3435 times
Has Liked: 2881 times

Re: Liverpool penalty

Post by Lord Beamish » Sun Oct 06, 2019 3:43 pm

Rather like accusations of alcoholism do you, Wrongo.

evensteadiereddie
Posts: 9585
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:45 pm
Been Liked: 3146 times
Has Liked: 10202 times
Location: Staffordshire

Re: Liverpool penalty

Post by evensteadiereddie » Sun Oct 06, 2019 3:45 pm

This is all very creepy, Ringo. I've addressed all the "issues" you fantasise about.
Do you masturbate while posting about me ?
I'd rather you didn't keep trolling me. It's embarrassing for both of us.

simonclaret
Posts: 1161
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:59 am
Been Liked: 264 times
Has Liked: 3597 times
Location: North Yorkshire

Re: Liverpool penalty

Post by simonclaret » Mon Oct 07, 2019 1:35 pm

Baffling nonsense from Dermot Gallagher as usual:

https://www.skysports.com/football/news ... -ref-watch" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Liverpool pen correct. :shock:

Coleman should've seen red for first half challenge but "VAR recommended that it didn't meet the threshold so the matter was dealt with." :shock:

WTF! :?

Claret
Posts: 1215
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:57 pm
Been Liked: 400 times
Has Liked: 655 times

Re: Liverpool penalty

Post by Claret » Mon Oct 07, 2019 3:48 pm

This is what Gallagher said about the Mane penalty decision:

DERMOT SAYS: "We talk about it because of how Mane went down, he didn't go down too well, but I think it is a foul and once you give a foul, you have to give a penalty. The problem we have is that we talk about minimal contact and going down theatrically, he does do that, but I do think he was fouled."

Now, everyone can have their own opinion about whether it was a foul or not, and Gallagher thinks it was. I personally do not think it was a foul. Touching Mane's boot is not an offence. Even standing on his foot is not an offence if it has no effect.
To help clear away we need new rules:
1. The FA needs to grow a pair and recognise cheating when it stares them in the face, pass memos to referees to give guidance and begin a culture of NO CHEATING
2. Anyone caught diving or simulating should be given a ban.
3. The law should be changed so that the referee can REFUSE to award a free kick or penalty if a [player has attempted to exaggerate, simulate, dive or cheat in any way, EVEN IF THERE MAY HAVE BEEN A REAL FOUL.

Croydon Claret
Posts: 4098
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2016 4:03 pm
Been Liked: 1140 times
Has Liked: 767 times

Re: Liverpool penalty

Post by Croydon Claret » Mon Oct 07, 2019 4:34 pm

They seem to have concluded that it's a contact sport outside the penalty area, but not within it

Dyched
Posts: 5939
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2016 12:34 am
Been Liked: 1922 times
Has Liked: 446 times

Re: Liverpool penalty

Post by Dyched » Mon Oct 07, 2019 4:43 pm

Claret wrote:This is what Gallagher said about the Mane penalty decision:

DERMOT SAYS: "We talk about it because of how Mane went down, he didn't go down too well, but I think it is a foul and once you give a foul, you have to give a penalty. The problem we have is that we talk about minimal contact and going down theatrically, he does do that, but I do think he was fouled."

Now, everyone can have their own opinion about whether it was a foul or not, and Gallagher thinks it was. I personally do not think it was a foul. Touching Mane's boot is not an offence. Even standing on his foot is not an offence if it has no effect.
To help clear away we need new rules:
1. The FA needs to grow a pair and recognise cheating when it stares them in the face, pass memos to referees to give guidance and begin a culture of NO CHEATING
2. Anyone caught diving or simulating should be given a ban.
3. The law should be changed so that the referee can REFUSE to award a free kick or penalty if a [player has attempted to exaggerate, simulate, dive or cheat in any way, EVEN IF THERE MAY HAVE BEEN A REAL FOUL.
Ashley Barnes’ career is over then

RMutt
Posts: 1066
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:08 pm
Been Liked: 373 times
Has Liked: 88 times

Re: Liverpool penalty

Post by RMutt » Mon Oct 07, 2019 4:50 pm

I have this image of otherwise fit young men falling over because ‘they’ve felt contact’ and therefore have a right to, in the shops all over Cheshire. I bet they have crash mats in the bars in Alderley Edge.

Quickenthetempo
Posts: 17930
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:35 am
Been Liked: 3845 times
Has Liked: 2066 times

Re: Liverpool penalty

Post by Quickenthetempo » Mon Oct 07, 2019 5:04 pm

evensteadiereddie wrote:"Waived" - what a retard. :oops:

Aye, again, alright, Ringo. This is odd stuff even by your standards but just to save you further embarrassment, I'll simply repeat. I can see the ale's in charge.

Mind how you go in the park, fella.... ;)
Aren't you a former teacher?

Calling someone a retard in this day and age is not on, but for an ex teacher it's unforgivable.

I know you get angry and often at war with Ringo, but an apology should be forthcoming here.

FactualFrank
Posts: 25445
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2016 12:46 am
Been Liked: 6930 times
Has Liked: 11660 times
Location: Leeds

Re: Liverpool penalty

Post by FactualFrank » Mon Oct 07, 2019 5:09 pm

He overdid it but was still a foul.

Darnhill Claret
Posts: 2242
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 7:55 pm
Been Liked: 500 times
Has Liked: 997 times

Re: Liverpool penalty

Post by Darnhill Claret » Mon Oct 07, 2019 5:37 pm

A few ridiculous comments on this subject. Of course the refs opinion is the only one that matters in the awarding of a penalty. Right or wrong. Then I read that someone can stand on an opponents foot without it being a foul. The very act of standing on someone’s foot automatically impedes. Then I read that he was kicked but not unlawfully because there isn’t enough force applied and that the kick didn’t impede him. People have quoted the laws of the game and then ignored what they have written. Then the ridiculous notion that the awarding of a penalty should then be revoked if a player dives after being fouled. Some people go down theatrically but if they have been fouled that surely doesn’t matter. That a penalty should only be given if the attacking team first gains an advantage and then ‘the foul’ causes them to lose that advantage. Not sure why people want to over complicate things. If a foul is committed in the penalty area it is a penalty, nice and simple. Nothing else to consider.
This user liked this post: Tall Paul

evensteadiereddie
Posts: 9585
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:45 pm
Been Liked: 3146 times
Has Liked: 10202 times
Location: Staffordshire

Re: Liverpool penalty

Post by evensteadiereddie » Mon Oct 07, 2019 5:44 pm

Sorry you got so upset, tempo.

;)
Last edited by evensteadiereddie on Tue Oct 08, 2019 4:46 pm, edited 4 times in total.

ClaretFelix
Posts: 502
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:02 pm
Been Liked: 146 times
Has Liked: 123 times

Re: Liverpool penalty

Post by ClaretFelix » Mon Oct 07, 2019 5:55 pm

On the Liverpool thing, what's the craic with the white socks over their red ones?
Had they been given special dispensation, as I'm sure their kit is all red, and any deviation surely a breach of the rules?
Can't even get away with having different coloured under armour or sock tape at amateur level and I'm sure there was a case in the last few seasons where players have been found guilty of sponsorship breaches for wearing anti slip socks over their team kit.

Lord Beamish
Posts: 5001
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 4:00 pm
Been Liked: 3435 times
Has Liked: 2881 times

Re: Liverpool penalty

Post by Lord Beamish » Mon Oct 07, 2019 5:58 pm

ClaretFelix wrote:On the Liverpool thing, what's the craic with the white socks over their red ones?
Had they been given special dispensation, as I'm sure their kit is all red, and any deviation surely a breach of the rules?
Can't even get away with having different coloured under armour or sock tape at amateur level and I'm sure there was a case in the last few seasons where players have been found guilty of sponsorship breaches for wearing anti slip socks over their team kit.
I think a points deduction is in order.

Claret
Posts: 1215
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:57 pm
Been Liked: 400 times
Has Liked: 655 times

Re: Liverpool penalty

Post by Claret » Mon Oct 07, 2019 8:36 pm

Darnhill Claret wrote:A few ridiculous comments on this subject. Of course the refs opinion is the only one that matters in the awarding of a penalty. Right or wrong. Then I read that someone can stand on an opponents foot without it being a foul. The very act of standing on someone’s foot automatically impedes. Then I read that he was kicked but not unlawfully because there isn’t enough force applied and that the kick didn’t impede him. People have quoted the laws of the game and then ignored what they have written. Then the ridiculous notion that the awarding of a penalty should then be revoked if a player dives after being fouled. Some people go down theatrically but if they have been fouled that surely doesn’t matter. That a penalty should only be given if the attacking team first gains an advantage and then ‘the foul’ causes them to lose that advantage. Not sure why people want to over complicate things. If a foul is committed in the penalty area it is a penalty, nice and simple. Nothing else to consider.
You make some good points DC but I don’t think it should be a foul if whatever was done simply has no impact or effect (other than causing the opponent to dive, exaggerate, etc)
It’s ok for us to disagree on this and I very very strongly disagree with you.
This user liked this post: Darnhill Claret

Darnhill Claret
Posts: 2242
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 7:55 pm
Been Liked: 500 times
Has Liked: 997 times

Re: Liverpool penalty

Post by Darnhill Claret » Mon Oct 07, 2019 8:50 pm

That’s fine Claret, you’re only doing what I did.

Post Reply