The Penalty Incident when Vydra was Fouled

[Rowls]

Why isn't this been dscussed?

Particularly from the camera behind the goal / towards the BL-Beehole corner. Shows clearly that Vyrda is tripped as he goes to shoot.

The claim for an Arsenal handball penalty is subjective. The penalty against Vydra is clear-cut: He is tripped as he goes to shoot.

Does anyone have the footage of it?

[Buxtonclaret]

With you here, Rowls.
I reckoned at the time he was clipped.
Should have been a pen.

[IWOODLOVETT]

Vyds kicked the opponent’s foot - no pen.

[cricketfieldclarets]

Never a penalty.

[MT03ALG]

It was NOT in the Burnley penalty area therefore NO penalty !!

[cricketfieldclarets]

As for the handball. Also think that should’ve been a penalty against us.

But then equally we should’ve got the one v wba.

Overall the ref had an excellent game IMO.

[Tribesmen]

No pen move on

[Rowls]

Vyds kicked the opponent’s foot - no pen.

Vydra was aiming to kick the ball. The Arsenal player was behind him. So it's impossible that it happened as you describe it.

[ClaretTony]

As for the handball. Also think that should’ve been a penalty against us.

But then equally we should’ve got the one v wba.

PGMOL explanation is that Pieters was too close to his opponent - not sure what their explanation was for the pen we should have got against West Brom.

Don't think we should have had a penalty for Vyds, don't think they should have had a penalty for that either. And thankfully, they shouldn't have had one when they were given one.

[Rowls]

It wasn't even shown after the game. If somebody has the footage of it from the camera angle that captures it properly it is a CLEAR penalty and one that VAR should have easily picked up on.

[IanMcL]

Why are we discussing a possible Burnley penalty?

Pure fantasy!

[ClaretMat]

It definitely deserved some analysis after the game at least as it was a big moment in the game. Saka didnt get the ball and affected Vydra's ability to get a clean strike.

[Rowls]

It definitely deserved some analysis after the game at least as it was a big moment in the game. Saka didnt get the ball and affected Vydra's ability to get a clean strike.

This is exactly what I saw and if it was Saka who tripped Vydra then it is a clear cut penalty.

I don't think this one is even up for debate. It is clear cut.

[huw.Y.WattfromWare]

He put his foot across to block his swing. Apart from Pieters on Jimenez, last year, these are very rarely given. Even though the blocker hasn’t got control of the ball.

[Peter Loo]

No penalty on Vydra for me.

[Rileybobs]

Vydra kicked Saka. Never a penalty although looked one in real time.

[Rowls]

He put his foot across to block his swing. Apart from Pieters on Jimenez, last year, these are very rarely given. Even though the blocker hasn’t got control of the ball.

They are "rarely given".

This is a red herring. It's either a foul or not a foul.

The rarity of these offences being properly enforced is neither here nor there. It's a foul.

What we really need is footage of the incident.

It would at very least add a little bit of context to all this Arsenal whingeing and the monopolizing of the post-match talk which is apparently all about a penalty decision which is, at best, subjective.

[Rowls]

Vydra kicked Saka. Never a penalty although looked one in real time.

I really don't know how people can be saying that Vydra kicked Saka when Vydra is clearly aiming to kick the ball and Saka is behind him.

Are you claiming that Vydra tried deliberately back heel Saka mere milliseconds before taking a shot on goal?

[Leyland Claret]

Never a pen on Vydra. Vydra kicked the back of Saka’s foot in the process of shooting

[Rileybobs]

I really don't know how people can be saying that Vydra kicked Saka when Vydra is clearly aiming to kick the ball and Saka is behind him.

Are you claiming that Vydra tried deliberately back heel Saka mere milliseconds before taking a shot on goal?

No. Saka’s foot was between Vydra’s foot and the ball. Vydra went to kick the ball and in doing so kicked Saka’s foot.

[conyoviejo]

No penalty for me..

[Dark Cloud]

Not a pen unfortunately, I have to agree. But a shame the way it played out because with proper contact on the ball he could well have scored a great goal.

[Rowls]

Never a pen on Vydra. Vydra kicked the back of Saka’s foot in the process of shooting

No. Saka’s foot was between Vydra’s foot and the ball. Vydra went to kick the ball and in doing so kicked Saka’s foot.

Here's the relevant law:

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:

charges
jumps at
kicks or attempts to kick
pushes
strikes or attempts to strike (including head-butt)
tackles or challenges
TRIPS or attempts to trip

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

A trip, as you can see above, is clearly defined as a foul by the laws of the game.

Saka was trying to win the ball. I do not believe he won the ball.

The way you're using the verb 'to kick' is strange. It is also neither here nor there in this context. No player was kicked during the foul (not unless anyone is trying to claim against all credibility that Vydra deliberately attempted to "kick" Saka with a crafty and calculated back-heel at the same time as to execute a shot on goal). Vydra was tripped by Saka's unsuccessful attempt to win the ball. This is self evident. It's obvious. Vydra ends up in a pile on the floor. He is tripped.

There are only a limited number of ways you can possibly believe it wasn't a foul: You either have to complete a set of mental gymnastics so improbable and bizarre (see above paragraph) that they defy logic, reason and credibility. Or you wilfully ignore the definitions and create a scenario that avoids the rules altogether. Or else you aren't aware of the law. Or don't understand law as it is written down

Unless Saka got a toe to the ball, it's a clear foul. Vydra is tripped. A trip is a foul. A foul in the penalty box is a penalty.

[claretandy]

It's a no from me, Kicked Saka's foot as he swung forward to kick the ball.

[IWOODLOVETT]

Here's the relevant law:



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

A trip, as you can see above, is clearly defined as a foul by the laws of the game.

Saka was trying to win the ball. I do not believe he won the ball.

The way you're using the verb 'to kick' is strange. It is also neither here nor there in this context. No player was kicked during the foul (not unless anyone is trying to claim against all credibility that Vydra deliberately attempted to "kick" Saka with a crafty and calculated back-heel at the same time as to execute a shot on goal). Vydra was tripped by Saka's unsuccessful attempt to win the ball. This is self evident. It's obvious. Vydra ends up in a pile on the floor. He is tripped.

No pen - look in the papers tomorrow.

[longhair]

No pen for me

[Rowls]

It's a no from me, Kicked Saka's foot as he swung forward to kick the ball.

This is actually when are where he was tripped.

It's a clear free kick as described in law 12.

A free kick shall be awarded if a player trips an opponent.

[Rileybobs]

Here's the relevant law:



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

A trip, as you can see above, is clearly defined as a foul by the laws of the game.

Saka was trying to win the ball. I do not believe he won the ball.

The way you're using the verb 'to kick' is strange. It is also neither here nor there in this context. No player was kicked during the foul (not unless anyone is trying to claim against all credibility that Vydra deliberately attempted to "kick" Saka with a crafty and calculated back-heel at the same time as to execute a shot on goal). Vydra was tripped by Saka's unsuccessful attempt to win the ball. This is self evident. It's obvious. Vydra ends up in a pile on the floor. He is tripped.

There are only a limited number of ways you can possibly believe it wasn't a foul: You either have to complete a set of mental gymnastics so improbable and bizarre (see above paragraph) that they defy logic, reason and credibility. Or you wilfully ignore the definitions and create a scenario that avoids the rules altogether. Or else you aren't aware of the law. Or don't understand law as it is written down

Unless Saka got a toe to the ball, it's a clear foul. Vydra is tripped. A trip is a foul. A foul in the penalty box is a penalty.

You can use as many words as you like, it doesn’t make you right. Saka didn’t trip Vydra.

[Tall Paul]

Here's the relevant law:



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

A trip, as you can see above, is clearly defined as a foul by the laws of the game.

Saka was trying to win the ball. I do not believe he won the ball.

The way you're using the verb 'to kick' is strange. It is also neither here nor there in this context. No player was kicked during the foul (not unless anyone is trying to claim against all credibility that Vydra deliberately attempted to "kick" Saka with a crafty and calculated back-heel at the same time as to execute a shot on goal). Vydra was tripped by Saka's unsuccessful attempt to win the ball. This is self evident. It's obvious. Vydra ends up in a pile on the floor. He is tripped.

There are only a limited number of ways you can possibly believe it wasn't a foul: You either have to complete a set of mental gymnastics so improbable and bizarre (see above paragraph) that they defy logic, reason and credibility. Or you wilfully ignore the definitions and create a scenario that avoids the rules altogether. Or else you aren't aware of the law. Or don't understand law as it is written down

Unless Saka got a toe to the ball, it's a clear foul. Vydra is tripped. A trip is a foul. A foul in the penalty box is a penalty.

Only if it's careless, reckless or with excessive force.

I'd like to see it again.

[Rowls]

Saka didn’t trip Vydra.

Then how do you explain Vydra being tripped up?

Vydra tried to kick the ball and was tripped. Saka tried to kick the ball and tripped Vydra.

[Rileybobs]

Then how do you explain Vydra being tripped up?

Vydra tried to kick the ball and was tripped. Saka tried to kick the ball and tripped Vydra.

If I go down the street now, kick someone’s foot and fall over, will that person be guilty of tripping me?

[Rowls]

Only if it's careless, reckless or with excessive force.

I'd like to see it again.

That's not what the law says I'm afraid.

The bit about "careless, reckless or excessive force" is distinct from the offence of tripping.

Edit - sorry, I'm istaken here.

It's clearly under the definition here of "careless" in that it is not a deliberate foul.

But it is still clearly a foul because Saka clearly trips Vydra.

The idea that this is somehow not a free kick is just a miscomprehension that has apparently gathered momentum. You don't need to know anything about the sport to understand this - you only have to been able to read and comprehend English to an adult degree and understand the rule in question.

All these people saying it's not a penalty "for them" simply don't appear to understand how clear cut and well defined the rule is here.

If a player is tripped it is a foul.

[IWOODLOVETT]

No pen.

[huw.Y.WattfromWare]

They are "rarely given".
This is a red herring. It's either a foul or not a foul.
The rarity of these offences being properly enforced is neither here nor there. It's a foul.

The grey area is control of the ball. To me if you are not playing the ball just stopping the opponent it should be a pen. but they are so rarely given I wasn’t surprised.

[DAVETHEVICAR]

No penalty at either end for me

[Tall Paul]

That's not what the law says I'm afraid.

The bit about "careless, reckless or excessive force" is distinct from the offence of tripping.

What? It's right there in your quote.

[Rowls]

The grey area is control of the ball. To me if you are not playing the ball just stopping the opponent it should be a pen. but they are so rarely given I wasn’t surprised.

Yes there is a slight grey area here.

So then we can look at whether Saka had control of the ball or won the ball during the incident.

He did not have control of the ball.

He did not win the ball.

Ergo, it is a foul.

[Rowls]

What? It's right there in your quote.

See my edit above ^^

I got that wrong. They keep re-writing this rule.

However, the thing that has not changed is the fact that tripping an opponent is a foul.

[taio]

Never a pen for me. Didn't think it was in real time or when I saw the reply. I thought the Pieters one was at that time.

[Rowls]

All these people saying it's not a penalty "for them" simply don't appear to understand how clear cut and well defined the rule is here.

If a player is tripped it is a foul.

[Rowls]

The even sadder thing is that had Vydra gone down screaming then it might have been given.

We'd have benefitted from having the crowd in there today.

[DCWat]

Never in a million years a penalty and not a trip. A trip in this scenario suggests that Saka intended to trip Vydra, which wasn’t the case.

Saka was committing no offence in the position that he was in. It was simply unfortunate that Vydra caught Saka’s leg when going for the shot.

A penalty for that would be condoning the strikers that leave their leg out intentionally to try and cheat a penalty.

I can see why Vydra claimed but a penalty it was not.

[Staniola]

Saka put his foot/leg in the arc of Vydra’s swing of his leg to prevent him getting a clear contact on the ball. It’s an old pro’s trick, which refs rarely pick up and that’s why they do it regularly. It’s a penalty.

[Devils_Advocate]

Never a pen and will be surprised if it even makes the highlights as it was such a nothing incident

Good thread though

[huw.Y.WattfromWare]

All these people saying it's not a penalty "for them" simply don't appear to understand how clear cut and well defined the rule is here.

If a player is tripped it is a foul.

The counter argument could be that Matty kicked his standing foot.

[SalisburyClaret]

A few minutes later Lacazette kicks Pieters foot and Pieters gets booked.
Lacazette did squeal 3 times like a stuck pig though

[Tall Paul]

See my edit above ^^

I got that wrong. They keep re-writing this rule.

However, the thing that has not changed is the fact that tripping an opponent is a foul.

That's not a fact though. It's only a foul if the referee thinks it's careless etc...

[taio]

All these people saying it's not a penalty "for them" simply don't appear to understand how clear cut and well defined the rule is here.

If a player is tripped it is a foul.

Most people thought he wasn't tripped though.

[jojomk1]

Vydra kicked the back of Saka'a foot
No pen
I'm surprised he didn't get sent off for the malicious challenge but he clearly can't scream as loud as Lacazette

Move on !

[BleedingClaret]

Why isn't this been dscussed?

Particularly from the camera behind the goal / towards the BL-Beehole corner. Shows clearly that Vyrda is tripped as he goes to shoot.

The claim for an Arsenal handball penalty is subjective. The penalty against Vydra is clear-cut: He is tripped as he goes to shoot.

Does anyone have the footage of it?

To me this is like a lot of incidents these days your instinct is they’re not a foul but you also know that they are given especially to the Harry Kane level of player
If you can initiate contact with someone’s foot to get a decision what’s the different here
I just looked and thought seen them given, but not for us!