The Penalty Incident when Vydra was Fouled

[IWOODLOVETT]

I make that Rowls 2 Others 17 (are you Donald Trump in disguise, Rowls?)

[JohnMac]

Laws of the Game state:

"When playing at Turf Moor, the Arsenal Football Club will be given every opportunity to score a goal in added time either through a Penalty after being Tazered from behind or Handling the Ball into the net from an Offside Position"

I'll settle for the luck both for and against that we had today.

[Rowls]

A trip in this scenario suggests that Saka intended to trip Vydra, which wasn’t the case.

Nobody is suggesting the trip was deliberate but you've got the law entirely wrong. The trip does NOT have to be deliberate.

I've already posted the relevant law.

Here it is again:

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

It only has to be a trip and it clearly is.

He does not win the ball.

It is therefore a foul.

This is clear and simple.

[Rowls]

Laws of the Game state:

"When playing at Turf Moor, the Arsenal Football Club will be given every opportunity to score a goal in added time either through a Penalty after being Tazered from behind or Handling the Ball into the net from an Offside Position"

I'll settle for the luck both for and against that we had today.

I'm very happy that VAR overturned the blatantly wrong decision but we shouldn't be grateful for having one blatantly wrong decision over-turned when another is just plain ignored.

The point of VAR was to look at these things objectively but this is objectively not being done.

[keith1879]

I make that Rowls 2 Others 17 (are you Donald Trump in disguise, Rowls?)

18 now.....that was not even close to being a penalty .....either at the time or on the replay.

[Rowls]

I make that Rowls 2 Others 17 (are you Donald Trump in disguise, Rowls?)

"Law 341

Fouls will be decided not by judging if an incident fits a certain criteria or definition but by voting system."

I don't think.

If the "score" is 2-17 then it means 17 people have got the law wrong and only 2 have got it right. No more, no less.

[Rowls]

18 now.....that was not even close to being a penalty .....either at the time or on the replay.

See above.

It's not about how many people are interpretting the law incorrectly. It is about whether the incident fits the description and criteria in the law, which it clearly does.

[Rowls]

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 !

WHOAAHHHH!!!!! Hang on!!

Are you *really* trying to claim that when he has a shot at goal, Vydra thinks that he'll kick a player who is behind him and execute a cheeky foul at the same time as trying to get his shot away?

How cunning and vindictive do you think Vydra is? Why would he try and foul a player behind him when he has a shot on goal???

[Rileybobs]

"Law 341

Fouls will be decided not by judging if an incident fits a certain criteria or definition but by voting system."

I don't think.

If the "score" is 2-17 then it means 17 people have got the law wrong and only 2 have got it right. No more, no less.

Not sure why I’m entertaining this but here goes...your whole point is based on your perception that Vydra was tripped. Are you saying that when somebody kicks another person and falls over they have been tripped?

[keith1879]

Does it become a penalty if the same poster says it is over and over and over and over and over again?

[Rileybobs]

WHOAAHHHH!!!!! Hang on!!

Are you *really* trying to claim that when he has a shot at goal, Vydra thinks that he'll kick a player who is behind him and execute a cheeky foul at the same time as trying to get his shot away?

How cunning and vindictive do you think Vydra is? Why would he try and foul a player behind him when he has a shot on goal???

Saka’s foot wasn’t behind Vydra. It was in front of him, which is how he kicked it. Have you even seen the incident back?

[Rowls]

Not sure why I’m entertaining this but here goes...your whole point is based on your perception that Vydra was tripped. Are you saying that when somebody kicks another person and falls over they have been tripped?

If Vydra was not tripped how or why does he end up on the floor?

You're claiming somehow that he "kicks" a player who is behind him? How? By back-heeling him? At the same time as shooting????

This is just bonkers.

[dsr]

I think the point is that, as has been clearly shown many times this season, that when a forward is attempting to play the ball and a defender's foot gets in the way and the two feet make contact and the forward falls over, it is a penalty. They are given all the time.

In this case, the forward was trying to play the ball and a defender's foot got in the way and the two feet made contact and the forward fell over. This is, it seems, entirely different from the scenario where penalties are given. I am not entirely clear as to why.

I don't think it should be a penalty, but in the way the laws have been interpreted all season, for consistency, it would have been. But then. so would Pieters' first, so it's even.

[Rowls]

Does it become a penalty if the same poster says it is over and over and over and over and over again?

No.

In just the same way that it doesn't become "not a penalty" if the "score" that IWOODLOVETT is keeping gets to 1,000,000 vs 2.

It is only a penalty or not when judged against the rules of the game.

The rules of the game say a trip is a foul. Vydra was tripped. Therefore it was a foul.

[Burnley1989]

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.

Your on your own mate with this one mate, we’ve all been there

[Rileybobs]

If Vydra was not tripped how or why does he end up on the floor?

You're claiming somehow that he "kicks" a player who is behind him? How? By back-heeling him? At the same time as shooting????

This is just bonkers.

Are you claiming that the only way someone can end up on the floor is if they are tripped? Bonkers.

As I posted above, despite Saka’s body being behind Vydra, his foot was in front of Vydra’s. Pretty crazy I know, but the human body is amazing. When Vydra kicked his foot in a forward motion he connected with Saka’s foot which was planted in front of the ball. It’s very very simple. Why are you even talking about back-heels?

[Rowls]

Saka’s foot wasn’t behind Vydra. It was in front of him, which is how he kicked it. Have you even seen the incident back?

I saw it once live and then only one good replay.

It hasn't been shown since.

But the "reasoning" people have on here for not giving it doesn't fit in with the laws of the game. The reasons for not giving it only fit in with a widely held misinterpretation of the laws of the game.

Saka may have got his foot in front of Vydra's foot but Saka does not win the ball and Saka clearly trips Vydra. This is a foul under the laws of the game.

[Rowls]

Are you claiming that the only way someone can end up on the floor is if they are tripped? Bonkers.

No I haven't claimed that is the only way somebody could end up on the floor. That's just silly.

I'm saying he was tripped here. You don't think Vydra is tripped by the action?

He ends up in a heap on the floor. He isn't pushed.

Unless he has taken a dive he is clearly tripped.

[Rowls]

Your on your own mate with this one mate, we’ve all been there

It doesn't matter whether it's one versus one million here.

The law of the game is written down and if you follow the law of the game it's a foul.

[JohnMac]

I'm very happy that VAR overturned the blatantly wrong decision but we shouldn't be grateful for having one blatantly wrong decision over-turned when another is just plain ignored.

The point of VAR was to look at these things objectively but this is objectively not being done.

I class the luck for us as them hitting both bar and post.

[Rileybobs]

I saw it once live and then only one good replay.

It hasn't been shown since.

But the "reasoning" people have on here for not giving it doesn't fit in with the laws of the game. The reasons for not giving it only fit in with a widely held misinterpretation of the laws of the game.

Saka may have got his foot in front of Vydra's foot but Saka does not win the ball and Saka clearly trips Vydra. This is a foul under the laws of the game.

I think maybe you should watch the incident again then because you’re completely wrong.

Saka didn’t need to play the ball, he is entitled to put his foot wherever he wants. Had he made the connection with Vydra’s foot then your point would be valid. But it was Vydra who kicked Saka, which is why a penalty was not awarded. A player does not commit a trip when their standing leg is kicked. You’re trying to reverse the laws of physics to suit your argument.

[Rileybobs]

No I haven't claimed that is the only way somebody could end up on the floor. That's just silly.

I'm saying he was tripped here. You don't think Vydra is tripped by the action?

He ends up in a heap on the floor. He isn't pushed.

Unless he has taken a dive he is clearly tripped.

Have you ever tripped up the stairs? If you have, did the stair trip you?

[DCWat]

Nobody is suggesting the trip was deliberate but you've got the law entirely wrong. The trip does NOT have to be deliberate.

I've already posted the relevant law.

Here it is again:

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

It only has to be a trip and it clearly is.

He does not win the ball.

It is therefore a foul.

This is clear and simple.

No, I think it’s you that is misinterpreting the law.

Had Saka committed a trip on Vydra, penalty all day long. However, that just isn’t what happened.

Vydra kicked Saka in his attempt to kick the ball. It wasn’t Saka that caused the trip, it was Vydra himself through his own kicking action.

As I said before, if strikers were to get a penalty for trailing a leg or kicking a player and going down, we’d be playing into the hands of strikers that look to go down at every opportunity.

A trip occurred but it wasn’t Saka’s fault that Vydra kicked his leg. No penalty.

[Rowls]

OK then, let's look at it the other way round:

Let's examine the "Vydra kicked Saka" theory.

1. Who has control of the ball? I'd say it is clearly under the control of Vydra at the time of the trip. Therefore Saka is attempting to win the ball from Vydra. Vydra is attempting a shot at goal. I think we could all agree on this?
2. That the two players make contact is again unquestionable. So should this contact be judged as a "trip" or a "kick"?
3. How on earth could Vydra be "kicking" a player who is behind him? Admittedly, he gets his foot in front of Vydra's foot ... but that to me sounds like how you trip somebody up.
4. If you think that Vydra has kicked Saka then a FK needs to be given to Saka under the laws of the game. Who on here thinks that it is an Arsenal FK?????

There are two key points if we're considering the "Vydra kicked Saka" POV:
1. Vydra has control of the ball. It is his to lose and Saka must make a challenge to win the ball back and prevent Vydra getting his shot away.
2. For Vydra to have "kicked" Saka you'd have to believe he does so maliciously whilst attempting to get his shot away or you need to believe that Saka is somehow in control of the ball and therefore Vydra is "challenging" him when he is attempting the shot??

None of these scenarios seem anywhere near plausible to me.

Vydra has the ball. Saka makes a challenge. Saka does not win the ball. Saka trips Vydra. This is what happened and it is, by definition, a free kick under law 12 of the game.

This isn't a voting poll. It is law 12 of the game.

[superdimitri]

I think Leno pushing Brownhill over for our corner was a penalty. Saka clipped Vydra's heal, was an accident.

[Rowls]

No, I think it’s you that is misinterpreting the law.

Had Saka committed a trip on Vydra, penalty all day long. However, that just isn’t what happened.

Vydra kicked Saka in his attempt to kick the ball. It wasn’t Saka that caused the trip, it was Vydra himself through his own kicking action.

As I said before, if strikers were to get a penalty for trailing a leg or kicking a player and going down, we’d be playing into the hands of strikers that look to go down at every opportunity.

A trip occurred but it wasn’t Saka’s fault that Vydra kicked his leg. No penalty.

Vydra is in possession. Not Saka. Saka is trying to win the ball. Vydra is trying to kick the ball.

Vydra's kicking action is Vydra playing football. In no way is this comparable to striking "trailing a leg" which is cheating if they use it to attempt to justify a foul by diving and kicking if they make contact with a player.

It is a free kick under the laws of the game.

Had Vydra gone down screaming there is a good chance the ref would have given it.

It is a free kick.

[HahaYeah]

Nope.

[Rileybobs]

Vydra is in possession. Not Saka. Saka is trying to win the ball. Vydra is trying to kick the ball.

Vydra's kicking action is Vydra playing football. In no way is this comparable to striking "trailing a leg" which is cheating if they use it to attempt to justify a foul by diving and kicking if they make contact with a player.

It is a free kick under the laws of the game.

Had Vydra gone down screaming there is a good chance the ref would have given it.

It is a free kick.

Have you ever tripped up the stairs? If you have, did the stair trip you?

[ClaretMat]

Think the point on strikers leaving a trailing leg is a good one. They've been doing it for seasons and getting pens for it, rightly or wrongly (wrongly in my opinion). Aguero and Vardy in particular springing to mind (Zaha also, but wouldn't call him a striker).

The incident looked to me like Saka had a flick at the ball, missed and it affected Vydra's(who was in control of the ball),ability to hit the ball cleanly(I only saw one replay though) . It would have been soft no doubt but certainly dont think it isnt something that cant be up for discussion and the award could have been justified. None of these decisions are black and white, all come down to interpretation of the laws of which Rowls pointed out the relevant one here.

[Peter Loo]

He won't have it will he

[Rowls]

I think maybe you should watch the incident again then because you’re completely wrong.

Saka didn’t need to play the ball, he is entitled to put his foot wherever he wants. Had he made the connection with Vydra’s foot then your point would be valid. But it was Vydra who kicked Saka, which is why a penalty was not awarded. A player does not commit a trip when their standing leg is kicked. You’re trying to reverse the laws of physics to suit your argument.

I'd love to see the incident again but don't think it will change my opinion.

Im confident of that because what you've typed out above boils down to this: You don't think it's a foul because Saka is -and I quote- "entitled to put his foot wherever he wants".

This is true.

But if, in the act of putting his "wherever he wants", he trips a player in a challenge and fails to win the ball then he has committed an offence under law 12 of the game.

You've pretty much just summed up my position for me. Saka has chosen where to put his foot.

So when the position of the foot in question trips up Vydra it becomes a foul. If it hadn't cause Vydra to trip it wouldn't be a foul. But it does. So it's a foul.

It is NOT Saka's standing leg. It is the leg he is using to try to win the ball.

If it had been Saka's standing leg it would be correct. It is the leg he has challenged (unsuccessfully) for the ball with.

[Rowls]

Have you ever tripped up the stairs? If you have, did the stair trip you?

Stairs don't move.

If I trip up the -static- staris then I have tripped up the stair. This would be my fault.

If the stairs ever magically move of their own accord then the stairs will have tripped me. This would be the stairs' fault.

[Rileybobs]

I'd love to see the incident again but don't think it will change my opinion.

Im confident of that because what you've typed out above boils down to this: You don't think it's a foul because Saka is -and I quote- "entitled to put his foot wherever he wants".

This is true.

But if, in the act of putting his "wherever he wants", he trips a player in a challenge and fails to win the ball then he has committed an offence under law 12 of the game.

You've pretty much just summed up my position for me. Saka has chosen where to put his foot.

So when the position of the foot in question trips up Vydra it becomes a foul. If it hadn't cause Vydra to trip it wouldn't be a foul. But it does. So it's a foul.

It is NOT Saka's standing leg. It is the leg he is using to try to win the ball.

If it had been Saka's standing leg it would be correct. It is the leg he has challenged (unsuccessfully) for the ball with.

But the act of Saka putting his foot where he did didn’t cause the trip. In the same way that my staircase being where it always has been didn’t cause me to trip up it.

[Rileybobs]

Stairs don't move.

If I trip up the -static- staris then I have tripped up the stair. This would be my fault.

If the stairs ever magically move of their own accord then the stairs will have tripped me. This would be the stairs' fault.

Thanks for proving my point. Vydra kicking Saka’s standing foot caused him to trip over. Ergo, no penalty. Cheers.

[Rowls]

Think the point on strikers leaving a trailing leg is a good one. They've been doing it for seasons and getting pens for it, rightly or wrongly (wrongly in my opinion). Aguero and Vardy in particular springing to mind (Zaha also, but wouldn't call him a striker).

The incident looked to me like Saka had a flick at the ball, missed and it affected Vydra's(who was in control of the ball),ability to hit the ball cleanly(I only saw one replay though) . It would have been soft no doubt but certainly dont think it isnt something that cant be up for discussion and the award could have been justified. None of these decisions are black and white, all come down to interpretation of the laws of which Rowls pointed out the relevant one here.

Spot on.

Pundits can call it "soft" all they like.

It doesn't change the facts of the matter though - that it is a clear cut foul and free kick.

[Rowls]

Stairs don't move.

If I trip up the -static- staris then I have tripped up the stair. This would be my fault.

If the stairs ever magically move of their own accord then the stairs will have tripped me. This would be the stairs' fault.

Thanks for proving my point. Vydra kicking Saka’s standing foot caused him to trip over. Ergo, no penalty. Cheers.

But Saka's foot was moving. He put it there "freely" as you said yourself.

He tripped Vydra from behind.

It is NOT Saka's standing foot. It is the foot he is challenging -unsuccessfully- for the ball with.

[4:20]

PicsArt_03-06-06.18.36.jpg (220.53 KiB) Viewed 2036 times

[Elizabeth]

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.

The reason it wasn’t shown after the game is that it wasn’t even close to being a penalty . You must have that footage you’re asking for

[Staniola]

Sean Dyche has just referred to it in his post match interview. He says it was a penalty. Q.E.D.

[box_of_frogs]

Not even close to being a penalty. Take the claret tinted specs off!

[beeholeclaret]

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

I thought this was the most ridiculous decision of the afternoon. It rewards cheating and squealing like a big baby.

With regards to the Vydra incident, its Arsenal we are playing therefore its a penalty for me!

They are still about 6-1 up on us over the last 10 years on dodgy decisions in their favour that have cost us a point or three!

[Uwe Noble]

But Saka's foot was moving. He put it there "freely" as you said yourself.

He tripped Vydra from behind.

It is NOT Saka's standing foot. It is the foot he is challenging -unsuccessfully- for the ball with.

Well argued Rowls. You've certainly given me some food for thought when I hopefully see a replay.

[cricketfieldclarets]

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.

I wouldn’t worry. Because it wasn’t. But even if we missed out on one they definitely did too.

A point is a good one today.
I’d be more bothered about woods miss.

[Zlatan]

There have been so many penalties awarded against us in the past few years where players have “left a leg out” and have been “entitled to go down” and those saying this was definitely not a penalty are likely to be those who have argued that the ones against us are “just part of the modern game”.

I understand what Rowls is so frustrated about, and I am too. Had that been Harry Kane, Spurs would have most likely “won” a penalty, and it would be debated till the cows come home using words like “contact” and “entitled to go down” in all the media coverage.

Yet, it was Vydra, and he tried his best to stay upright and do the right thing. There was “contact”, had he dropped like he was shot he would have been “entitled to go down”, but we would never have “won” a penalty, not us, not Burnley.

That’s the injustice for me. It would have been soft, but if others get them for that then we should too.

[Rowls]

I wouldn’t worry. Because it wasn’t. But even if we missed out on one they definitely did too.

A point is a good one today.
I’d be more bothered about woods miss.

But I don’t think they did miss out on one. Theirs is one that *can* get given from time to time but is down to a subjective interpretation.

Apparently, the current guidance given to refs on how to interpret the law indicates it as more likely to be given than not.

But this interpretation is bad they’ve already agreed to scrap it after a single season.

Nobody argues it didn’t hit his hand. But that’s not the point; the point with handball is “was it deliberate?” And when you’ve asked that there’s a shed load of interpretation and guidance on how to come to a conclusion on the question.

But take a look at the stills all the Arsenal juveniles are posting on Twitter which they think “proves” it’s a handball: they show about a yard between Pieters arm and Lacazette’s foot when the ball is kicked meaning he only has a yards travelling time to get his arm out of the way. This is of course impossible and more than enough reason why the correct decision was reached on that incident.

Let’s watch the Vydra penalty again in MOTD (if they even show it).

If Saka gets a touch on the ball it’s not a penalty. If Saka doesn’t touch the ball then it definitely is a penalty and cannot, under any reasonable interpretation of the law, be anything but a penalty.

I’ll hold my hands up and admit I’m wrong if Saka got a touch on the ball. Otherwise is a penalty.

[cricketfieldclarets]

But I don’t think they did miss out on one. Theirs is one that *can* get given from time to time but is down to a subjective interpretation.

Apparently, the current guidance given to refs on how to interpret the law indicates it as more likely to be given than not.

But this interpretation is bad they’ve already agreed to scrap it after a single season.

Nobody argues it didn’t hit his hand. But that’s not the point; the point with handball is “was it deliberate?” And when you’ve asked that there’s a shed load of interpretation and guidance on how to come to a conclusion on the question.

But take a look at the stills all the Arsenal juveniles are posting on Twitter which they think “proves” it’s a handball: they show about a yard between Pieters arm and Lacazette’s foot when the ball is kicked meaning he only has a yards travelling time to get his arm out of the way. This is of course impossible and more than enough reason why the correct decision was reached on that incident.

Let’s watch the Vydra penalty again in MOTD (if they even show it).

If Saka gets a touch on the ball it’s not a penalty. If Saka doesn’t touch the ball then it definitely is a penalty and cannot, under any reasonable interpretation of the law, be anything but a penalty.

I’ll hold my hands up and admit I’m wrong if Saka got a touch on the ball. Otherwise is a penalty.

A blatant hand ball isn’t a pen, but a trip that wasn’t a trip and needed multiple replays to see anything is?

[Zlatan]

A blatant hand ball isn’t a pen, but a trip that wasn’t a trip and needed multiple replays to see anything is?

It wasn’t handball though, it was ball to arm and Pieters arm was not in an unnatural position, so rightly not given (albeit subjective). I get why Rowls is arguing black and white on the trip, if there is any contact between Saka and Vydra then it is an impedance to Vydra ergo a “trip”, so should have been considered to be a penalty.

[Polesworth]

Sean thinks it was a pen and so do I. I think if this had been at the other end and an Arsenal forward had been put off shooting by a Burnley players foot VAR would have taken a much longer look. They'd have had to with half the Arsenal team surrounding ref complaining and another Arsenal player rolling about on the floor screaming.
The bias towards the 'big' teams needs investigating or is it just that they are just better at conning the match officials. In these days of late offside flags and refs having time to consider possible controversial decisions, why did the ref immediatly run straight to Pieters brandishing the red card after his block on the line? Then there's the keepers foul on Ben at Leeds......

[Rowls]

A blatant hand ball isn’t a pen, but a trip that wasn’t a trip and needed multiple replays to see anything is?

Handball the offence is not the same thing as “the ball touched his hand”.

There’s no debate it touched his arm. The debate is around the interpretation of whether it should’ve classed as “deliberate”.

The interpretation of this is wordy, difficult and subjective.

The wording on whether a trip constitutes a foul however is clear, concise and very objective and easy to officiate.

[Rowls]

It also didn’t need any replays.

I saw it clearly on first view.

The replays should only have been used to confirm it by VAR because the referee somehow and remarkably missed it.

Anyway, goodnight cricket fields.