That Penalty then?

[Bin Ont Turf]

I know you are, but what am I?

[JohnMcGreal]

If it was the other way round the penalty wouldn't have been given.

We'll never know.

But if that had happened, I'd imagine the majority of posters on here would be complaining that we weren't awarded a penalty, and they'd be right to complain.

It's a foul, despite the theatrics of the attacking player.

[Imploding Turtle]

We'll never know.

But if that had happened, I'd imagine the majority of posters on here would be complaining that we weren't awarded a penalty, and they'd be right to complain.

It's a foul, despite the theatrics of the attacking player.

Shut up. Stick to politics. You're not a proper claret!

[Carport]

The way the rules read

http://www.thefa.com/football-rules-gov ... misconduct" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

One of the following has to happen and the ‘guilty’ party has to have been careless, reckless or have used 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

Did NP’s movements actually constitute a challenge when you can see clearly that he’s pulled out? None of the other actions above seem to apply. If he was deemed to be still making a challenge at the point of contact was he seriously careless I’m so doing?

[TVC15]

IT - you seem to have conveniently ignored any points about the fact that Silva deliberately dived....which is indisputable

Or which law of the game says that any contact = foul ?

Very good point on the other "blatant cheating" thread about the Otamendi goal - are you saying that should have been a foul and the goal disallowed as on this one it's not even debatable that the contact was instigated by Otamendi ?

Or are you just going to keep posting that link and asking us all whether we have watched it and requesting we remove our Claret glasses ?

[RalphCoatesComb]

I didn't agree with the decision "live" yesterday and I still don't agree that it was, having watched MOTD, BUT it was a penalty. The referee said so and Aguero scored. End of.

Should Silva be embarrassed? Too right he should. The dying swan routine should be saved for after the match with his mates in the showers

[Imploding Turtle]

IT - you seem to have conveniently ignored any points about the fact that Silva deliberately dived....which is indisputable

Or which law of the game says that any contact = foul ?

Very good point on the other "blatant cheating" thread about the Otamendi goal - are you saying that should have been a foul and the goal disallowed as on this one it's not even debatable that the contact was instigated by Otamendi ?

Or are you just going to keep posting that link and asking us all whether we have watched it and requesting we remove our Claret glasses ?

In order. No i haven't. I've said repeately that he went down theatrically, but that that doesn't mean he wasn't fouled.

Where did i claim contact = foul?

What are you on about?

The link proves he was fouled. If i ask "have you watched the link" and you say you have an then still believe he wasn't fouled then that's when i have good reason to assume you're wearing your Burnley specs.

[claretspice]

Apologies if someone else has made this point and I've missed it - but there's an awful lot less contact on Silva, and there's a lot less impediment and Silva has done an awful lot more to create the contact, and the fall is a lot more theatrical, than was the case when Arfield was booked for diving at Everton. So we've got the rough end of both of those decisions.

Pope was reckless in making the challenge and Silva has made the most of it. That much is I think common ground. I don't think Silva had to make contact with Pope and I think he engineered it, and I don't think it was an impediment to Silva.

But this is all a consequence of the fact this concept of "if he's touched, he's entitled to go down" has crept into the game, and it was noticeable last night that Phil Neville changed his mind between talking on 5 Live at 5.30 (said no foul) and MOTD last night when he trotted out the, "he's been touched so he can go down" line.

If we're to give refs a fighting chance of making consistent decisions, we have to get away from this. We've got to get back the idea that there has to be an impediment for there to be a foul, and that players aren't therefore entitled to create the impediment by "taking contact". If that means Arfield gets booked for diving at Everton, then fine; at least that would be consistency. As it is, we've got a mess which is virtually impossible for refs to decipher and which essentially means that the better you are at cheating, the more likely the cards are to fall your way.

[Rileybobs]

The rule is ambiguous and that’s why there’s a split in opinion over this.

Does contact alone = a foul? Clearly not as there is contact all over a football pitch, including in the penalty area, as per the Ottamendi goal which rightly wasnt deemed a foul.

Did Pope trip Silva? Definitely not - look at what Silva does with his left foot before it touches the ground. Pope’s challenge did not make Silva lose his footing.

I don’t agree that Silva initiated the contact but o do believe that as soon as he felt a touch he flung himself to the ground. He even practically admits as much in his post-match interview.

Now if the referees deem that any ‘contact’ in the box is a foul then this needs to be consistently applied to attackers and defenders alike. It would ruin the game but at least we would have consistency. Or perhaps more sensibly, the law should clearly state that ‘contact’ which results in a player being tripped, impeded or disadvantaged should be punished with a free kick or penalty.

And when football fans trot out the ‘he was entitled to go down’ line it’s clear how much cheating has infected the game.

[Rileybobs]

Snap (ish).

[Imploding Turtle]

The way the rules read

http://www.thefa.com/football-rules-gov ... misconduct" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

One of the following has to happen and the ‘guilty’ party has to have been careless, reckless or have used 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

Did NP’s movements actually constitute a challenge when you can see clearly that he’s pulled out? None of the other actions above seem to apply. If he was deemed to be still making a challenge at the point of contact was he seriously careless I’m so doing?

Just because a player tries to pull out of a challenge doesn't mean he's absolved of any guilt (by the laws of the game) if he still trips the player. Joe Hart pulled out of the challenge last weekend but he still fouled Wood. And we were all whining about it not being given.

[TVC15]

In order. No i haven't. I've said repeately that he went down theatrically, but that that doesn't mean he wasn't fouled.

Where did i claim contact = foul?

What are you on about?

The link proves he was fouled. If i ask "have you watched the link" and you say you have an then still believe he wasn't fouled then that's when i have good reason to assume you're wearing your Burnley specs.

Can't tell whether you are stubborn or just thick - I suspect both.

Firstly there is a view held by many - including me - that Silva instigated the contact.

But putting that aside contact does not automatically equate to a foul - and given Silva subsequently dived how can you say whether he would have fallen or not ?

Are you seriously saying you the referee would have (or should have) given a penalty if the player would have remained on his feet ? And on the safe assumption that your answer to this is yes - can you point to one other example of a penalty been given when a player has remained on his feet with such a similar level of contact ?

Oh and you forgot to answer the Otamendi point !

[Imploding Turtle]

The rule is ambiguous and that’s why there’s a split in opinion over this.

Does contact alone = a foul? Clearly not as there is contact all over a football pitch, including in the penalty area, as per the Ottamendi goal which rightly wasnt deemed a foul.

Did Pope trip Silva? Definitely not - look at what Silva does with his left foot before it touches the ground. Pope’s challenge did not make Silva lose his footing.

I don’t agree that Silva initiated the contact but o do believe that as soon as he felt a touch he flung himself to the ground. He even practically admits as much in his post-match interview.

Now if the referees deem that any ‘contact’ in the box is a foul then this needs to be consistently applied to attackers and defenders alike. It would ruin the game but at least we would have consistency. Or perhaps more sensibly, the law should clearly state that ‘contact’ which results in a player being tripped, impeded or disadvantaged should be punished with a free kick or penalty.

And when football fans trot out the ‘he was entitled to go down’ line it’s clear how much cheating has infected the game.

Why are you looking at his left foot and not his right?

[Rileybobs]

Why are you looking at his left foot and not his right?

Because his left foot was about to land on the floor which would have resulted in him staying on his feet. As soon as his right foot was touched he flung his left foot in the air. He’s cheated and thrown himself to the ground - he wasn’t tripped.

[claretspice]

IT - quick question about this idea that contact automatically equals a foul. If that's the case, are we saying that any time a defender and attacker jostle at all - say when a ball comes into the box - its a foul?

If so, presumably you disallow City's second because Ottamendi leans on Mee? If course, he doesn't impede Mee and so I wouldn't see that as a foul, but presumably you do?

[Rileybobs]

I’m watching Goals on Sunday at the moment and it’s incredible how much ‘contact’ there is in the box from both attackers and defenders alike.

[ElectroClaret]

Watch the replay and just keep your eye on Pope's left arm.
(Never mind the foot-under-the-knee factor).

When he (Pope) goes down, his left arm makes clear hard contact with Silva's right shin.

It's a penalty.

[Sidney1st]

This is reminding me of the Barnes and Matic incident and how wrong the Turtle was about that as well.

I'd forgotten about that.
I had some fun with that one on social media.

[piston broke]

Throw it in here cos I haven't seen it mentioned elsewhere but after Popes initial save Matt Lowton tries to hoof it away and Silva leads with his studs to block the clearance.
Lowton clearly winces at the contact. I think the first of our players to surround the ref were asking for the FK.

[Imploding Turtle]

Can't tell whether you are stubborn or just thick - I suspect both.

Firstly there is a view held by many - including me - that Silva instigated the contact.

But putting that aside contact does not automatically equate to a foul - and given Silva subsequently dived how can you say whether he would have fallen or not ?

Are you seriously saying you the referee would have (or should have) given a penalty if the player would have remained on his feet ? And on the safe assumption that your answer to this is yes - can you point to one other example of a penalty been given when a player has remained on his feet with such a similar level of contact ?

Oh and you forgot to answer the Otamendi point !

"Firstly there is a view held by many - including me - that Silva instigated the contact."

How can a foot that is on the floor also simultaniously be instigating contact? Please apply a little bit of thinking to that question before shitting out an answer that makes no sense. Or is this where football meets quantum mechanics? Silva's Foot Theory™ - Where your foot can be planted on the ground while also moving to make contact with something. See also: Schrodinger's Cat.

Where did i say whether Silva would have fallen or not? Clue: I didn't.

How about Howard Webb saying that Raheem Sterling should have gone down instead of staying on his feet in order to be awarded a penalty?
http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/ ... ng-9669534" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The foul - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QWnh05gORyk" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Usually when players choose to try and remain on their feet in the box it's because there's a significant advantage. Sterling was fouled but he didn't go down. If he'd gone down he'd have got a penalty. Would that be a dive? Of course not. Would it have been something he didn't need to do? Obviously since he stayed on his feet. But he was still fouled, but remained on his feet because there was an advantage. If he'd gone down no one would have criticised him. If he'd gone down like he was shot then we'd have all mocked him, but we'd have also acknowledged that it was still a foul. So what's different this time? What's different is that this time it's against us.

And i didn't forget to answer the Otamendi question. I ignored it because it wasn't relevant. You asked it under the false belief that i have been saying that contact = foul. I haven't been saying that at all. Demonstrate relevance and i'll answer your question.

[Rileybobs]

Usually when players choose to try and remain on their feet in the box it's because there's a significant advantage. Sterling was fouled but he didn't go down. If he'd gone down he'd have got a penalty. Would that be a dive? Of course not.

Of course it would be a dive. If you fall to the ground of your own volition then it’s a dive.

[Imploding Turtle]

Maybe you're all correct. Maybe ankles are supposed to bend this way. Clearly no contact

[Rileybobs]

Maybe you're all correct. Maybe ankles are supposed to bend this way. Clearly no contact

Who said there’s no contact?

[Imploding Turtle]

Of course it would be a dive. If you fall to the ground of your own volition then it’s a dive.

Then we should define "dive". Are we talking about something for which there should be a booking? Because when i talking about players diving i'm talking about bookable offences.

[Imploding Turtle]

Who said there’s no contact?

A few people. And some are saying that the contact wasn't enough to be a foul.

If i made contact with your ankle with enough force that it bent inwards like that, would you be expecting a foul to be given?

[Rileybobs]

Then we should define "dive". Are we talking about something for which there should be a booking? Because when i talking about players diving i'm talking about bookable offences.

It’s pretty obvious to me that falling to the ground of your own will is diving. Whether you are the victim of ‘contact’ or otherwise. Contact is a fundamental part of the game.

[taio]

A few people. And some are saying that the contact wasn't enough to be a foul.

If i made contact with your ankle with enough force that it bent inwards like that, would you be expecting a foul to be given?

Most people agree there was contact. But those who say it shouldn't have been a penalty believe he initiated the contact. It's not that difficult to see the point being made even if you don't agree with it.

[The_Referee]

As an official referee let me end this discussion with a few points

- Those likening the foul to jostling at a corner are missing one vital factor. Contact when competing for a ball is fine but when one player has control of the ball and the other player contacts him then this is when it goes from jostling to being a foul

- Regardless of the flamboyant dive the Burnley goalkeeper contacted and obstructed the Man City attacker and therefore fouled him

- From reading the comments i fear that the majority will not be capable of following my final point but I will make it none the less. To judge it fairly ask yourself what your reaction would have been had this been a Burnley attacker and the Man City goalkeeper and the penalty had not been given. If your reaction would be good call referee now book our player for cheating then I accept your opinion that this is not a penalty. If you would have been screaming at the referee accusing him of bottling it and favoring the big team as im sure most of you would then you opinion lacks objectively and has no merit at all

- In summary The_Referee says the correct decision was reached in awarding Man City a Penalty

************END OF THREAD*************

[Diesel]

As an official referee let me end this discussion with a few points

- Those likening the foul to jostling at a corner are missing one vital factor. Contact when competing for a ball is fine but when one player has control of the ball and the other player contacts him then this is when it goes from jostling to being a foul

- Regardless of the flamboyant dive the Burnley goalkeeper contacted and obstructed the Man City attacker and therefore fouled him

- From reading the comments i fear that the majority will not be capable of following my final point but I will make it none the less. To judge it fairly ask yourself what your reaction would have been had this been a Burnley attacker and the Man City goalkeeper and the penalty had not been given. If your reaction would be good call referee now book our player for cheating then I accept your opinion that this is not a penalty. If you would have been screaming at the referee accusing him of bottling it and favoring the big team as im sure most of you would then you opinion lacks objectively and has no merit at all

- In summary The_Referee says the correct decision was reached in awarding Man City a Penalty

************END OF THREAD*************

B0llocks

[RalphCoatesComb]

As an official referee let me end this discussion with a few points

- Those likening the foul to jostling at a corner are missing one vital factor. Contact when competing for a ball is fine but when one player has control of the ball and the other player contacts him then this is when it goes from jostling to being a foul

- Regardless of the flamboyant dive the Burnley goalkeeper contacted and obstructed the Man City attacker and therefore fouled him

- From reading the comments i fear that the majority will not be capable of following my final point but I will make it none the less. To judge it fairly ask yourself what your reaction would have been had this been a Burnley attacker and the Man City goalkeeper and the penalty had not been given. If your reaction would be good call referee now book our player for cheating then I accept your opinion that this is not a penalty. If you would have been screaming at the referee accusing him of bottling it and favoring the big team as im sure most of you would then you opinion lacks objectively and has no merit at all

- In summary The_Referee says the correct decision was reached in awarding Man City a Penalty

************END OF THREAD*************

A question I've always wanted to ask a Referee. Were your parents married?

[Imploding Turtle]

A question I've always wanted to ask a Referee. Were your parents married?

I'm not entirely sure what i'm laughing at but this still made me laugh.

[taio]

If it was the other way round I'd have said the same. This claret specs thing is just ******** - many of those who feel it shouldn't have been a penalty have all previously said things about decisions that wouldn't have been in Burnley's favour.

As an aside I don't think the pundits and former top referee who don't believe it was a penalty own claret glasses

[The_Referee]

A question I've always wanted to ask a Referee. Were your parents married?

Yes

[Imploding Turtle]

Throw it in here cos I haven't seen it mentioned elsewhere but after Popes initial save Matt Lowton tries to hoof it away and Silva leads with his studs to block the clearance.
Lowton clearly winces at the contact. I think the first of our players to surround the ref were asking for the FK.

Leads with his studs and still gets the ball... you mean... like Barnes v Matic?

That's a good point though and if he did lead with his studs like that then that foul should have been given. But i think he might have just toe-poked it away and then Lowton kicked his studs, which isn't a foul. But that's going from memory because the replay i have doesn't show that part of the incident. When MOTD is up on BBC iPlayer i'll look out for it.

[The_Referee]

If it was the other way round I'd have said the same. This claret specs thing is just ******** - many of those who feel it shouldn't have been a penalty have all previously said things about decisions that wouldn't have been in Burnley's favour.

Then your incorrect opinion is entirely valid and I am also sure you incorrectly thought the referee was correct last week to deny Mr Wood a penalty against West Ham because Hart contacted the ball. You was of course wrong last week too because both were penalty's but at least you can form an objective opinion

[SonofPog]

When the right foot is planted on the ground it's facing in his direction of travel, (to the left) then he twists his ankle, his right foot for is now pointing away from him for no reason at all, this is before any contact by Pope, so was initiated by Silva.
If his foot is "trapped" well he releases it easily enough, Silva then makes no attempt to land on his left foot, which is suddenly flips backwards at th ankle, as his right "trapped leg" flies up and almost makes contact with his back.
It's a dive, contact or no, he made it look far far worse than any contact that was made, thereby winning a pen through simulation.

Just like we can never know the outcome of the game had it not been given, we can never know the outcome of any contact of Pope because Silva made no attempt to stay on his feet.

[claretspice]

As an official referee let me end this discussion with a few points

- Those likening the foul to jostling at a corner are missing one vital factor. Contact when competing for a ball is fine but when one player has control of the ball and the other player contacts him then this is when it goes from jostling to being a foul

- Regardless of the flamboyant dive the Burnley goalkeeper contacted and obstructed the Man City attacker and therefore fouled him

- From reading the comments i fear that the majority will not be capable of following my final point but I will make it none the less. To judge it fairly ask yourself what your reaction would have been had this been a Burnley attacker and the Man City goalkeeper and the penalty had not been given. If your reaction would be good call referee now book our player for cheating then I accept your opinion that this is not a penalty. If you would have been screaming at the referee accusing him of bottling it and favoring the big team as im sure most of you would then you opinion lacks objectively and has no merit at all

- In summary The_Referee says the correct decision was reached in awarding Man City a Penalty

************END OF THREAD*************

Thanks - always interesting to get a refs perspective.

But to be clear, you are saying that any contact on a player who has possession of a ball - lets say a centre half gently leaning into a player to make sure the ball runs out for a goal kick - is a foul, and if in the penalty area, a penalty?

That's the nub of this. The key question is, is any contact between an attacker and a defender, however inconsequential, a foul. The secondary question that your comments (interesting and useful though they are) don't answer is whether it matters that there would have been virtually no contact by Pope but for Silva identifying the opportunity and seeking it out, thereby exaggerating the impact of the foul (the exaggerated dive being a secondary issue).

In relation to the final point - I've already contrasted the incident yesterday with that which saw Arfield booked at Everton, which were in many respects similar. I think that was probably a 50/50 pen but certainly not a yellow card, but there was a good spread of opinion on this board so its a bit disrespectful to imply the entirety of the debate is predicated on bias.

[Sidney1st]

And just like that incident, this one's reminding me just how unobjective Burnley fans can be. But at least with the Barnes/Matic incident there was some subjectivity involved. My opinion was that Barnes did him. But here there's nothing ambiguous about the fact that Pope fouled Silva. You can see the foul in the replay. But still some Burnley fans are denying that reality, either because they like feeling injustice or because they're just blind.

IMG_1993.PNG (1.35 MiB) Viewed 2895 times

Nope Barnes didnt do Matic.

[Imploding Turtle]

IMG_1993.PNG

Nope Barnes didnt do Matic.

So how does Barnes' studs end up on Matic's shin a second later? Because Barnes is a dirty footballer.

[The_Referee]

Thanks - always interesting to get a refs perspective.

But to be clear, you are saying that any contact on a player who has possession of a ball - lets say a centre half gently leaning into a player to make sure the ball runs out for a goal kick - is a foul, and if in the penalty area, a penalty?

That's the nub of this. The key question is, is any contact between an attacker and a defender, however inconsequential, a foul. The secondary question that your comments (interesting and useful though they are) don't answer is whether it matters that there would have been virtually no contact by Pope but for Silva identifying the opportunity and seeking it out, thereby exaggerating the impact of the foul (the exaggerated dive being a secondary issue).

In relation to the final point - I've already contrasted the incident yesterday with that which saw Arfield booked at Everton, which were in many respects similar. I think that was probably a 50/50 pen but certainly not a yellow card, but there was a good spread of opinion on this board so its a bit disrespectful to imply the entirety of the debate is predicated on bias.

Contact even against a player in possession is definitely not always a foul but in this case the goalkeeper obstructed the attackers progress and so despite the theatrical dive which I do not condone the referee made the correct call.

I follow many football forums and as someone who seems sensible you will not be surprised the hear that almost always the fans think debatable penaltys that go against them were never a penalty and ones given for them were nailed on. I see no difference on this forum and whilst there are clearly objective sensible poster the majority cannot see beyond their own allegiance to their team

Your manager does not help as he has a history of whinging about refereeing decisions

[SonofPog]

"The goalkeeper obstructed the attackers progress"

This is the bit I disagree with personally, the attacker made no attempt to progress so we cannot know if he was obstructed or not.

[taio]

Contact even against a player in possession is definitely not always a foul but in this case the goalkeeper obstructed the attackers progress and so despite the theatrical dive which I do not condone the referee made the correct call.

I follow many football forums and as someone who seems sensible you will not be surprised the hear that almost always the fans think debatable penaltys that go against them were never a penalty and ones given for them were nailed on. I see no difference on this forum and whilst there are clearly objective sensible poster the majority cannot see beyond their own allegiance to their team

Your manager does not help as he has a history of whinging about refereeing decisions

How many times has Dyche been charged for criticising referees?

[Sidney1st]

So how does Barnes' studs end up on Matic's shin a second later? Because Barnes is a dirty footballer.

I don't need to explain it, I've proven Barnes was playing the ball and Matic was lunging to stop him, end of discussion.

[Imploding Turtle]

"The goalkeeper obstructed the attackers progress"

This is the bit I disagree with personally, the attacker made no attempt to progress so we cannot know if he was obstructed or not.

I guess when you put enough of your weight onto someones foot that their ankle bends unnaturally that doesn't count as "obstructing" any more. TIL.

[BennyD]

Yes

To each other?

[Imploding Turtle]

I don't need to explain it, I've proven Barnes was playing the ball and Matic was lunging to stop him, end of discussion.

I didn't say Barnes didn't play the ball. So well done in proving something that wasn't in dispute. What else can you prove? The planet is round? The sun is hot?

[SonofPog]

See my previous post, he moved his ankle before Popes leg was above his foot, Also we don't know how much weight if any of Popes leg was on his foot,

[The_Referee]

To each other?

Yes and probably unlike your dysfunctional family they were not related prior to the wedding

[claretspice]

Contact even against a player in possession is definitely not always a foul but in this case the goalkeeper obstructed the attackers progress and so despite the theatrical dive which I do not condone the referee made the correct call.

I follow many football forums and as someone who seems sensible you will not be surprised the hear that almost always the fans think debatable penaltys that go against them were never a penalty and ones given for them were nailed on. I see no difference on this forum and whilst there are clearly objective sensible poster the majority cannot see beyond their own allegiance to their team

Your manager does not help as he has a history of whinging about refereeing decisions

It seems to me that we both agree that the key question is whether the attacker was genuinely impeded by Nick Pope. And I suppose my point is that no-one really knows, because we don't know what would have happened had Silva tried to play on. By going down theatrically, in a way that bore no proportion to the contact, he made it absolutely impossible for the referee or anyone else to genuinely judge whether he'd been impacted. But my guess is that he'd have gone and got the loose ball had he tried without any problem. That's clearly where we disagree.

But I maintain - and I hope you agree - that until the law is applied in a way that is much less sympathetic to those who try to engineer contact or exaggerate it for their own ends, it will remain hugely confusing and you will inevitably get inconsistencies such as those which I hope you'll also agree exist in the way this incident was dealt with and that of Arfield at Everton was dealt with.

[The_Referee]

How many times has Dyche been charged for criticising referees?

I have no idea and no interest but I do know he cant half moan and whinge about them