Ian Wright

[Conroy92]

The problem is, who kicks who.

Kane's follow through means the man catches him. It is 100percent not a penalty.

[Conroy92]

It’s a clear penalty.

The defender hangs his foot in the air, studs showing and doesn’t make contact with the ball. Reckless.

Kane took the shot by normal, but made contact with the defenders foot because it was there recklessly. Kane could have avoided it by losing less power, trajectory on the ball, but then the defenders challenge would be impeding him.

Those are given all over the pitch every game.

Its like saying if I stood with my fist out and you ran into it I've punched you utter madness and a terrible decision

[Firthy]

At first I thought no penalty. But when you ask if it's a foul outside the box then the answer is yes so that makes it a penalty. Basically a foul inside the box.

He came in with his foot high and studs showing and that is exactly what makes it a foul. If they had just banged feet then no foul. But he gets Kane on the top of his foot with his studs and I think this is why they said it was a foul. Unfortunatley it is a foul in todays game, as soft as it is, that's the game these days.

foul.jpg (83.28 KiB) Viewed 1880 times

[bart_claret]

At first I thought no penalty. But when you ask if it's a foul outside the box then the answer is yes so that makes it a penalty. Basically a foul inside the box.

So have we got to the stage whereby defenders can't do their jobs if the ball is inside the box? Dumfries was fully entitled to attempt to block the shot to stop the ball going into the net. It's his job. The fact that Kane missed the target and ended up connecting with the boot of Dumfries doesn't make it a penalty for me.

[Neil]

One thing is pretty clear, nobody has a clue whether it was a pen or not which is a bit worrying.

Pundits are split and the VAR woman came straight on before the ref was called to the screen and said no pen.

[daveisaclaret]

So have we got to the stage whereby defenders can't do their jobs if the ball is inside the box? Dumfries was fully entitled to attempt to block the shot to stop the ball going into the net. It's his job. The fact that Kane missed the target and ended up connecting with the boot of Dumfries doesn't make it a penalty for me.

Of course he's entitled to attempt it. But the fact he missed the ball and got the man makes it a foul, same as anywhere else on the pitch.

[Raconteur]

One thing is pretty clear, nobody has a clue whether it was a pen or not which is a bit worrying.

Pundits are split and the VAR woman came straight on before the ref was called to the screen and said no pen.

It was quite funny when the woman var came on itv saying the var would recommend this as no penalty. This was at the same time as var sending the ref to the screen, which obviously meant they disagreed with her and thought it was a penalty

[thomo27]

When I played football it wasn't a foul, but in today's game the word reckless is used a lot, and Dumfries' action, high-ish with all 6 studs showing, falls into the 'reckless' category under the current rules and therefore why VAR recommended the ref go to the monitor in my opinion.
If his studs were not showing, its not a penalty even today.

[quoonbeatz]

One thing is pretty clear, nobody has a clue whether it was a pen or not which is a bit worrying.

Pundits are split and the VAR woman came straight on before the ref was called to the screen and said no pen.

Which is half the reason that it shouldn't have been given as it isn't a clear and obvious error. The other half being that it's not a foul.

[Tresor'sTracksuit]

Of course he's entitled to attempt it. But the fact he missed the ball and got the man makes it a foul, same as anywhere else on the pitch.

He didn't get the man. Kane literally kicks him on his follow through from a shot. Not sure why people can't understand this.

[Sproggy]

So have we got to the stage whereby defenders can't do their jobs if the ball is inside the box? Dumfries was fully entitled to attempt to block the shot to stop the ball going into the net. It's his job. The fact that Kane missed the target and ended up connecting with the boot of Dumfries doesn't make it a penalty for me.

He's not making a block though - he's challenging for the the ball and gets there late.

[CrosspoolClarets]

At first I thought no penalty. But when you ask if it's a foul outside the box then the answer is yes so that makes it a penalty. Basically a foul inside the box.

He came in with his foot high and studs showing and that is exactly what makes it a foul. If they had just banged feet then no foul. But he gets Kane on the top of his foot with his studs and I think this is why they said it was a foul. Unfortunatley it is a foul in todays game, as soft as it is, that's the game these days.

foul.jpg

Not only that but his foot was moving fast towards Kane, which was a bit reckless considering studs were showing. He didn’t just hang his leg out sideways in an attempt to block.

I didn’t think so at the time, but it was a penalty I think.

[Stalbansclaret]

Its like saying if I stood with my fist out and you ran into it I've punched you utter madness and a terrible decision

Excellent analogy. I’m amazed so many people seem to think it was a penalty !!

[martin_p]

Excellent analogy. I’m amazed so many people seem to think it was a penalty !!

But if a defender put his arm across the path of an attacker and he ran into it it would be a foul.

[Tresor'sTracksuit]

Can tell there's a lot of people on here who don't understand football.

[IanMcL]

Can tell there's a lot of people on here who don't understand football.

There is football and the game played at present.

[chekhov]

By today’s rules it’s a penalty. Can’t understand the fuss.

[ClaretPete001]

Conroy92 wrote: ↑Thu Jul 11, 2024 12:41 pm

'Its like saying if I stood with my fist out and you ran into it I've punched you utter madness and a terrible decision'

Excellent analogy. I’m amazed so many people seem to think it was a penalty !!

I'd hate to be in your courts if as Magistrates you can't tell the difference between an arm raised that someone walks into and one raised just as someone is jogging past and couldn't get out of the way. The latter clearly has intent and would be an assault.

If you took it literally it would be impossible to trip someone on the basis that it is the responsibility of the person running to avoid the outstretched leg?

Without resorting to hyperbole, it's the worst analogy in the history of analogies ever in the history of the Universe.

[Poulton-le-Claret]

Its like saying if I stood with my fist out and you ran into it I've punched you utter madness and a terrible decision

But Dumfries didn't just leave his foot there for Kane to kick. Dumfries' foot was moving towards Kane's foot at the point of impact.

[martin_p]

Conroy92 wrote: ↑Thu Jul 11, 2024 12:41 pm

Without resorting to hyperbole, it's the worst analogy in the history of analogies ever in the history of the Universe.

You’ve managed admirable restraint there!

[beddie]

By today’s rules it’s a penalty. Can’t understand the fuss.

Exactly this.

[pureclaret]

for me if you are blocking a shot you use your out or inside of your foot to also get control, if you go in with studs up its a risk of catching the opponents foot or leg even if you get the ball , if you don't get the ball any where else on the field its a free kick.
I don't get the expression in my day it wasn't offside or not a penalty or not handball, so it's not know , but the rules were different, like in my day no subs now 7 or 9 available but only 5 in 90 mins
Things change , for me if we did not get it I would have been disappointed if it was against us Id have been disappointed, but thats football

[Conroy92]

Conroy92 wrote: ↑Thu Jul 11, 2024 12:41 pm




I'd hate to be in your courts if as Magistrates you can't tell the difference between an arm raised that someone walks into and one raised just as someone is jogging past and couldn't get out of the way. The latter clearly has intent and would be an assault.

If you took it literally it would be impossible to trip someone on the basis that it is the responsibility of the person running to avoid the outstretched leg?

Without resorting to hyperbole, it's the worst analogy in the history of analogies ever in the history of the Universe.

I'm not sure yours is much better. If the person raising there arm did so in order to block a football hitting them in the face and someone ran into it I doubt it would be classed as assault personally. And rightly not. So i wouldn't like to be in your court room either . Tripping has nothing to do with this instance.

What we have seen is a player who has extended his leg and
at time of impact is raising his foot to block the shot. Hence why the studs area is showing to maximise the area he can block with. He is moving towards kane but not quite at the speed and intent some on here are suggesting. Then you've got kane. Who is running towards the defender attempting to strike through the ball.

Kane gets a clear shot through the ball and is not impeded by the defender in anyway. As he follows through the ball it is Kanes momentum that causes his foot to strike into the defenders boot.
If you watch it in real time there is nothing to say that had kane not of followed through the ball the defender may have stopped short of him? Especially considering the contact was minor.

Penalty. Not for me.
VAR. Absolutely not.

And I like England. Not as much as Burnley. But still. I try not to wear tinted specs and I call it as I see it.

[alboclaret]

Contact happens because the Dutch lad has his leg there and Kane follows thru and strikes his boot. That’s not a foul in my book.

Wright says it’s reckless. It clearly isn’t. The Dutch lad Dumfries doesn’t really challenge for the ball, he throws a leg up in hope he’ll get a block in. He doesn’t and Kane strikes him not the other way round.

If that goes against Stones, I’d be fuming.

It’s a bad shout, but I’ll take it - we’ve had plenty against us over the years.

Is it a foul when full back pumps it up field and someone slides Iin and fullback kicks bottom of his boot.
That's always a foul.
This is same just in the box.

[Claret Toni]

Kane is an absolute master of winning free kicks and this one is no exception. Stayed down as though he'd been shot to give VAR time to look at the incident. Only he knows whether he was really hurt or not.

The Dutch lad went in studs showing so any contact has the potential for a penalty.

In my day Kane would have been encouraged for getting his shot away; no more, no less. Of course, it's not my day anymore. We only had dirty bloody Argentinian Centre Halves to put up with.

[Wile E Coyote]

All irrelevant, Wright is useless, camera hogging "man of the people " he never has said anything of value as a pundit, its all about being seen, doing adverts, using his agent to pimp him about any and every media outlet going.
He spoke on BBC radio once about how he would rather see the struggling small town teams like us consigned to the bin, with no chance of returning unless we had the cash. He spouts generalised populist tripe.
No doubt a decent bloke in the real world, but his views are more in line with the SUN Newspaper and cosying up to whichever dunce company will give him his next cheque.

[dsr]

It's exactly the same as when Romero was sent off for Spurs earlier this season. He kicked the ball, and on his follow through, he kicked the man trying to block him.

Of course, in that case it was given as a foul and a red card against the man who did the kicking, not the man who was kicked. Same incident, opposite decision.

[MT03ALG]

The German Kicker Magazine stated that the penalty was a correct VAR decision. They also awarded the referee a mark of 2,5. Marks in Germany are the same as on school reports i.e. the best mark is 1 and the worst is 6. Ollie Watkins received a mark of 1,5. The worst mark for an England player was Rice with 4,5.

[ArmchairDetective]

It's not a pen for me. But I've noticed recently that it's becoming increasingly frequent that I disagree with decisions in football today

[ArmchairDetective]

Not sure what that's got to do with Ian Wright though. Not sure what he said but I doubt he's paid to be 'edgy'. Decent pundit as far as I'm concerned.

[bart_claret]

He's not making a block though - he's challenging for the the ball and gets there late.

Fractionally late admittedly but still trying to block the shot. Lets say he didn't challenge and Kane lashed it in. Don't think Koeman would be best pleased with him.

[Firthy]

Fractionally late admittedly but still trying to block the shot. Lets say he didn't challenge and Kane lashed it in. Don't think Koeman would be best pleased with him.

Regardless of whether or not he was making a challenge or blocking the shot, the fact is that he caught Kane on the top of his foot with his studs. If you go in with your leg that high at that speed with your studs showing and catch the player before or after he kicks the ball then it's a foul all day long in todays' game. And if it's inside the area then it's a penalty.