That penalty.

[TopCat]

Didn’t need to get involved, Tarks was in control.

[Stacky_claret]

Funny game these days
From what I saw Benson didn’t even try to make a tackle and was trying to get out of the way lo

[Bin Ont Turf]

Funny game these days
From what I saw Benson didn’t even try to make a tackle and was trying to get out of the way lo

That's exactly what happened, and is exactly why it is never a penalty.

[Burnley1989]

I don’t think any player on the pitch would disagree if you asked them

[Colburn_Claret]

Been on the Wolvea forum, and they all seem to agree it was soft as xxxx.
No complaints too about the result, just their performance and Nunos team selection.

[BOYSIE31]

Their lad played for it and left his leg there
15 years ago no pen

[PeterWilton]

My first reaction to it was benson that was a stupid tackle but when I look at the replay it looks to me that silva leaves his leg and and initiates the contact which for me isn’t a penalty. I’m glad we won because wolves dived and cheated and whinged all game long. What’s everyone else’s thoughts?

Most obvious penalty I've ever seen.

[gandhisflipflop]

Most obvious penalty I've ever seen.

You can’t have seen much football then if that was the most obvious penalty you’ve ever seen.

[PeterWilton]

You can’t have seen much football then if that was the most obvious penalty you’ve ever seen.

Football sucks.

[boatshed bill]

Just seen it.
Penalty without doubt in this era,
but what a ponce going down like that.

[Spijed]

Just seen it.
Penalty without doubt in this era,
but what a ponce going down like that.

Barnes would be doing exactly the same though.

[Rileybobs]

Seen it back for the first time since the game and I was wrong to think that Benson was stood still. He made a movement towards Silva, and whilst it didn't constitute a challenge, he stepped across him and blocked his path. It was a totally manufactured foul as Silva could have avoided the leg, but it's a penalty.

Incidentally, I don't think it's likely that we would have won that at the other end, because Barnes aside, I don't think our forward players are canny enough to buy fouls. Wood, for example, is far too honest (nothing wrong with that), and he gets very little as a result. Referee's don't give fouls unless a player falls to the ground or exaggerates the contact.

[dsr]

Seen it back for the first time since the game and I was wrong to think that Benson was stood still. He made a movement towards Silva, and whilst it didn't constitute a challenge, he stepped across him and blocked his path. It was a totally manufactured foul as Silva could have avoided the leg, but it's a penalty.

Under what law is it a penalty? There's no way it could be said that Benson tripped him because their man threw himself down - he was on his way down before the contact. I don't think obstruction is a direct free kick offence yet - or is it?

I agree that most refs would give that as a penalty nowadays, because they're evidently being told to give as many penalties as they can. But I'm not clear under what official law, as opposed to unwritten law, they're doing it.

[boatshed bill]

Barnes would be doing exactly the same though.

I didn't realise that you knew him that well.

[mikeS]

How close was Pope to saving it!

[Tall Paul]

Under what law is it a penalty? There's no way it could be said that Benson tripped him because their man threw himself down - he was on his way down before the contact. I don't think obstruction is a direct free kick offence yet - or is it?

I agree that most refs would give that as a penalty nowadays, because they're evidently being told to give as many penalties as they can. But I'm not clear under what official law, as opposed to unwritten law, they're doing it.

The offence is impeding an opponent with contact.

[Zlatan]

The offence is impeding an opponent with contact.

Ahh so after all Barnes is right to fall down with contact...

of course I’m joking, but it does highlight why it’s not a penalty

[Burnley87]

That incident will be the best thing Benson will learn in his Career at the top level as long as he does Learn. Thankfully it didn’t cost us because it could of Knocked the Lads confidence for 6

[Burnley87]

That incident will be the best thing Benson will learn in his Career at the top level as long as he does Learn. Thankfully it didn’t cost us because it could of Knocked the Lads confidence for 6

[dsr]

The offence is impeding an opponent with contact.

So why didn't we get a free kick at the same time? Benson was impeded with contact. When 22 players are running round a pitch chasing 1 ball there is bound to be contact, which by definition involves both players, and also by definition both players are likely to be impeded. How does the ref decide who has caused the contact? Oh, I know - he gives a foul to whoever falls over.

Why didn't Wood get a penalty in the first half when he did that semi-overhead that just went past the post? The man behind him clearly impeded him with contact. For that matter, why wasn't the penalty given against Tarkowski who was behind the diver and was clearly impeding him with contact before he threw himself the other way? Why isn't a penalty given every time a defender touches a forward who is shiedling the ball?

There are two (of many!) enormous problems with the FA at present. One, they encourage diving (whether they realise it or not); two, they are using bogus penalties to increase the number of goals to offset the reduction in number of goals by the de facto change in the offside rule.

[Jakubclaret]

Whether you agree with it or not or the lack of consistency (god knows there’s enough) this is why the penalty was awarded explained better than I could.

https://www.thefa.com/football-rules-go ... misconduct

Edited later post for more clarification & submitted appropriate attachment relevant to the core subject.

[Zlatan]

Whether you agree with it or not or the lack of consistency (god knows there’s enough) this is why the penalty was awarded explained better than I could.

https://www.thefa.com/football-rules-go ... misconduct

Specifically, which part?

[Jakubclaret]

Specifically, which part?

Please attached.

https://www.thefa.com/football-rules-go ... nalty-kick

Save for future reference you’ll probably need it.

Specifically what constitutes a penalty kick, I’m not joining arguing the toss over whether it was or wasn’t a penalty or what happened earlier on in the game & whether so & so should have got a free kick for this that & the other.

[Zlatan]

Please attached.

https://www.thefa.com/football-rules-go ... nalty-kick

Save for future reference you’ll probably need it.

Specifically what constitutes a penalty kick, I’m not joining arguing the toss over whether it was or wasn’t a penalty or what happened earlier on in the game & whether so & so should have got a free kick for this that & the other.

OK then. Thanks. Please can I advise that if you don’t want to have a debate then you probably shouldn’t comment, I appreciate the links though, thanks.

[Jakubclaret]

OK then. Thanks. Please can I advise that if you don’t want to have a debate then you probably shouldn’t comment, I appreciate the links though, thanks.

It is possible to do 1 without the other, anyhow good day & have jolly Xmas & prosperous new year.

[Zlatan]

It is possible to do 1 without the other, anyhow good day & have jolly Xmas & prosperous new year.

Indeed, and a very merry Christmas to you too

[dsr]

Specifically, which part?

To interpret that law, the referee can more-or-less accurately point out that Benson challenged the Wolves man, and there was contact, which is a penalty. The law does not say who needs to initiate the contact. All the ref has to do is to decide that one of the players has made a careless challenge, and that's enough to be a foul.

Obviously there is a difficulty in how the referee reads the minds of 22 players to decide who is being careless and who is being careful. This is why they have brought in the unwritten rule that this sort of careless challenge be considered if, and only if, the forward dives. With the rider, of course, that if the dive is made without contact at all it is cheating and should be punished, but if you can dive enough so that the tip of one little finger has touched you, then the defender is at fault.

This is how the FA wants the game to be played.

[Colburn_Claret]

Soft as muck, but a penalty all the same. I'd have been fuming if it happened at the other end, and wasn't given.
The biggest problem is the inconsistency of refereeing, but on this occasion they called it right.

[rufus lumley]

I thought Fabio Silva took the penalty well and no goalkeeper in the world would have saved it.The 35 million Wolves paid for him looks a ludicrous amount of money and can only guess the fee was inflated so his agent could get a higher fee.

[Colburn_Claret]

I thought Fabio Silva took the penalty well and no goalkeeper in the world would have saved it.The 35 million Wolves paid for him looks a ludicrous amount of money and can only guess the fee was inflated so his agent could get a higher fee.

That Portuguese agent, who represents half the squad, must be making a fortune out of Wolves.

[Firthy]

Just watched this incident several times and should never be a penalty, Benson comes running in and hardly puts his leg out. Silva literally throws himself over making surte he contacts Bensons leg.

Just shows how the game has degenerated and the slightest pathetic touch is almost an automatic penalty. Even most of the people on this forum think it was a penalty, I doubt we would have thought the same thing twenty years ago, the football authorities and cheating/diving introduced into the game has brainwashed us all into thinking it's almost a non contact sport.

[boatshed bill]

Just watched this incident several times and should never be a penalty, Benson comes running in and hardly puts his leg out. Silva literally throws himself over making surte he contacts Bensons leg.

Just shows how the game has degenerated and the slightest pathetic touch is almost an automatic penalty. Even most of the people on this forum think it was a penalty, I doubt we would have thought the same thing twenty years ago, the football authorities and cheating/diving introduced into the game has brainwashed us all into thinking it's almost a non contact sport.

Whilst I totally agree with you about the state of the game it is a penalty. the rules are ruining the game in my opinion.

[Nonayforever]

I thought it was a penalty. Benson was far too eager to get involved in the game.

Looking at the subs bench, we had Stephens and Bardsley available. With just a few minutes remaining and two up i would have thought Dyche would have gone for the safe option.
Benson will have learnt from that mistake and i bet Dyche will have learnt as well.

[RalphCoatesComb]

Just watched this incident several times and should never be a penalty.

The Ref, even with VAR, doesn't get so many replays.

Benson was naive and Silva played for the penalty.

[dpinsussex]

Under what law is it a penalty? There's no way it could be said that Benson tripped him because their man threw himself down - he was on his way down before the contact. I don't think obstruction is a direct free kick offence yet - or is it?

I agree that most refs would give that as a penalty nowadays, because they're evidently being told to give as many penalties as they can. But I'm not clear under what official law, as opposed to unwritten law, they're doing it.

Law 12

A direct free kick is awarded if a player commits any of the following offences against an opponent in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force:


This was a careless challenge

[Firthy]

Law 12

A direct free kick is awarded if a player commits any of the following offences against an opponent in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force:


This was a careless challenge

This just highlights everything that's wrong with the modern game. IMO a penalty should only be awarded when a player is denied a goal scoring opportunity. Silva wasn't denied a scoring opportunity, he would never have scored from there and wouldn't have even been able to make one running away from the goal in that position. I've seen so many penalties given where players are running away from goal right on the outer corner of the penalty area in a totally harmless area and the slightest touch from a defender and they go down and get a penalty which is almost akin to giving them a goal.

The punishment far outweighs the crime and this is the reason for so much cheating and diving. The authorities really need to address this because penalties have been ruining the game for a long time and it has only got worse since VAR was introduced. With VAR, offsides and penalties the game is in danger of becomimg to sterile and taking any enjoyment out of the game for supporters and spectators.

[dpinsussex]

This justs highlights everything that's wrong with the modern game. IMO a penalty should only be awarded when a player is denied a goal scoring opportunity. Silva wasn't denied a scoring opportunity, he would never have scored from there and wouldn't have even been able to make one running away from the goal in that position. I've seen so many penalties given where players are running away from goal right on the outer corner of the penalty area in a totally harmless area and the slightest touch from a defender and they go down and get a penalty which is almost akin to giving them a goal.

The punishment far outweighs the crime and this is the reason for so much cheating and diving. The authorities really need to address this because penalties have been ruining the game for a long time and it has only got worse since VAR was introduced. With VAR, offsides and penalties the game is in danger of becomimg to sterile and taking any enjoyment out of the game for supporters and spectators.

Unfortunately that element of law has not changed for at least 10 years.
The interpretation of those laws has however changed.

Can't blame VAR for this one.

However, a foul is a foul and punishable by a direct free kick.

For it to be DOGSO to award a pen then allsorts of shenanigans will go on worse than it currently does.
Eg back to goal defenders around and the defender punches the attacker. Red card obviously but not obvious goalscoring opportunity. Restart IDFK???? Violent conduct restart has to be a direct FK.

The reason for a PK is that it is close to the goal when defenders are more desperate to prevent a striker scoring.

[dsr]

Law 12

A direct free kick is awarded if a player commits any of the following offences against an opponent in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force:


This was a careless challenge

That, again, is the problem. Yes, you can (and do) argue that simply by moving in a direction that crossed the path of Silva, Benson was making a challenge. And in fact if that is the argument, then Silva didn't need to dive, all he had to do was pat him on the shoulder and it became a careless challenge involving contact and a penalty. But how can you define a careless challenge? There are a hundred times a game when two players trying to get one ball will occupy the same space on the field. How can they define what is a challenge, and whether it is careless?

I'm not trying to belittle you or necessarily prove you wrong here. Plenty of other people think it was a penalty too. But serious question - if Benson's challenge was careless, would you as a ref have given a penalty if Silva had patted his shoulder and run on? Or was it Silva's dive that turned it from nothing into a penalty? And if it was Silva's dive, do you think that we should be doing something about it?

[Antmass]

I've lived in Portugal for years and that is considered fair game. It's so obviously not a penalty that it worries me that some people think it is.

[Taffy on the wing]

My first reaction to it was benson that was a stupid tackle but when I look at the replay it looks to me that silva leaves his leg and and initiates the contact which for me isn’t a penalty. I’m glad we won because wolves dived and cheated and whinged all game long. What’s everyone else’s thoughts?

DIVE!!!!!

[dpinsussex]

I'm not trying to belittle you or necessarily prove you wrong here. Plenty of other people think it was a penalty too. But serious question - if Benson's challenge was careless, would you as a ref have given a penalty if Silva had patted his shoulder and run on? Or was it Silva's dive that turned it from nothing into a penalty? And if it was Silva's dive, do you think that we should be doing something about it?

Out of courtesy I will try and answer your numerous questions relating to different scenarios.

Silva pats him on the shoulder and runs on - that simply isn't a challenge and certainly not something committed by the defender. If Benson had put his hand on Silvas shoulder and pulled him back then absolutely a penalty.

Silva didn't necessarily need to fall over in the manner he did. He felt the contact by Benson. It most certainly wasn't a full blooded challenge but it doesn't need to be nowadays in order for it to be a free kick.

Do something about diving? absolutely- the problem is as a referee you get one view in real time and to caution you have to be very sure that it was a dive. Remember VAR can not be used to issue a YC for a dive unless the referee has awarded the penalty incorrectly and the decision is overturned.

Did I think it was a dive? Not a chance. 100% penalty.

Hope that helps a little bit

[dsr]

Out of courtesy I will try and answer your numerous questions relating to different scenarios.

Silva pats him on the shoulder and runs on - that simply isn't a challenge and certainly not something committed by the defender. If Benson had put his hand on Silvas shoulder and pulled him back then absolutely a penalty.

Silva didn't necessarily need to fall over in the manner he did. He felt the contact by Benson. It most certainly wasn't a full blooded challenge but it doesn't need to be nowadays in order for it to be a free kick.

Do something about diving? absolutely- the problem is as a referee you get one view in real time and to caution you have to be very sure that it was a dive. Remember VAR can not be used to issue a YC for a dive unless the referee has awarded the penalty incorrectly and the decision is overturned.

Did I think it was a dive? Not a chance. 100% penalty.

Hope that helps a little bit

It helps, yes. We just have different views on what is a dive and what is not. I reckon that a dive is when you fall over when the opponent's actions have not been enough to make you fall over - and as a guide to what makes people fall over, I look at rugby where people are trying to stay on their feet. I reckon that if you feel a touch and throw yourself over, it's a dive. If one leg is tapped and you don't land properly on the other leg, it's a dive. If you see someone near enough to run into and deliberately run into him and fall over, it's a dive.

My point about touching is that Silva could easily have stayed on his feet and run after the ball. The fact that he did not do so makes no difference as to whether Benson fouled him, because a foul can only be committed by what he does to the foulee. Nothing Silva does can make any difference to whether Benson fouled him or not.

Your view is much nearer to the FA and referees' current view. I completely disagree with the FA's current view; I reckon about three quarters of currently-given free kicks and penalties, shouldn't be.

[Zlatan]

Silva didn't necessarily need to fall over in the manner he did. He felt the contact by Benson. It most certainly wasn't a full blooded challenge but it doesn't need to be nowadays in order for it to be a free kick.

The question is, and it relates to the part in bold, how can he have felt the contact and then started to go down if the contact was made after he commenced to go down?

VAR should have seen what I could see (and other of course) and that is the wolves player commenced his decent before any contact was made - he initiated the contact and as such was the cause of the contact.

[Stproc]

It’s just another step towards making football a non-contact sport. I use the word ‘sport’ in its loosest of forms.
The inconsistency, of course, is allowing defenders to grapple with opponents at every single corner and people don’t question it’s validity. Perhaps it is the screaming out in apparent agony that justifies the foul.

[Ric_C]

This was always going to happen with the advent of VAR. Any contact where the defender doesn't get the ball seems to now end up in a penalty. Remember Tarks in the England Italy game?

Thus dive merchants like Grealish, Salah and Sterling will prosper by dangling the old leg. And the worst this is that MOTD will not condone it. In fact Lineker usually has a sly dig each time Dyche has the audacity to call out diving.