That Penalty then?

[The_Referee]

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.

I do agree with your last point but it is a double edged sword which we referees need to take some responsibility for. To expect players to not exaggerate contact and attempt to stay on their feet we referees need to recognise this and where a foul has been committed and a player has not thrown himself to the ground we should be brave enough to call a foul and award a penalty

[Imploding Turtle]

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.

Even if that is true - that he could still have got the ball - he was still fouled. Regardless of whether a player can stay on their feet or not, a foul is a foul. If you're running full pelt with the ball and i slide in on you in such a way that you knock you into a somersault, just because you landed on your feet and maybe keep running doesn't mean you weren't fouled. If you chase after the ball the referee puts his arms up signalling the playing of an advantage. If you don't then the referee blows for a free kick.

Silva didn't play for the advantage, probably because there wasn't one, but he was well within his rights to go down under the challenge to in effect make sure the referee didn't play an advantage that wasn't really an advantage. True enough the ref might have still blown for a penalty had Silva been able to stay on his feet, but i've no more got a problem with players choosing to take the foul instead of an advantage (by going down) than i do when players fall over because someone's pulling their shirt during a corner.

[Sidney1st]

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?

You claimed Barnes did Matic, on purpose because he's dirty.

I've proven he was playing the ball and Matic was lunging to stop him.

What happened in the seconds after was a collision that looks worse than it was, especially considered Matic rolled around, jumped up when he realised he wasn't getting anything and pushed Barnes from behind.
Not a single Chelsea player saw an issue with it either until it all kicked off.

There's nothing to prove, so stop being a tit.

[Bin Ont Turf]

[Imploding Turtle]

You claimed Barnes did Matic, on purpose because he's dirty.

I've proven he was playing the ball and Matic was lunging to stop him.

What happened in the seconds after was a collision that looks worse than it was, especially considered Matic rolled around, jumped up when he realised he wasn't getting anything and pushed Barnes from behind.
Not a single Chelsea player saw an issue with it either until it all kicked off.

There's nothing to prove, so stop being a tit.

You: "I've proven"
Also you: "There's nothing to prove"

[Sidney1st]

You: "I've proven"
Also you: "There's nothing to prove"

The second part was in regards to the shape of the planet and the sun being hot.

Still being a tit...

[FactualFrank]

If you're running full pelt with the ball and i slide in on you in such a way that you knock you into a somersault, just because you landed on your feet and maybe keep running doesn't mean you weren't fouled.

I think I'd actually pay to see that

[watsonsclarets]

Without reading too much into this if it was the other way round we would be talking penalty all day.

End of the day Pope made (contact) without touching the ball.(I wonder does Silva learn to "fall" like that it some skill).

I think we should have had 2 penalties against West Ham both Hart going through Wood and Barnes but that's football.

Consistency irks me!!

[TVC15]

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

Do you really ?
When does he do this other when asked about an incident ?

Compared to the abuse other managers give officials and the sending offs / subsequent bans have been given Dyche is an f'in saint.

[claretspice]

Even if that is true - that he could still have got the ball - he was still fouled. Regardless of whether a player can stay on their feet or not, a foul is a foul. If you're running full pelt with the ball and i slide in on you in such a way that you knock you into a somersault, just because you landed on your feet and maybe keep running doesn't mean you weren't fouled. If you chase after the ball the referee puts his arms up signalling the playing of an advantage. If you don't then the referee blows for a free kick.

Silva didn't play for the advantage, probably because there wasn't one, but he was well within his rights to go down under the challenge to in effect make sure the referee didn't play an advantage that wasn't really an advantage. True enough the ref might have still blown for a penalty had Silva been able to stay on his feet, but i've no more got a problem with players choosing to take the foul instead of an advantage (by going down) than i do when players fall over because someone's pulling their shirt during a corner.

You aren't reading what other people are writing at all, Imploding Turtle, and so you aren't taking account of what they are saying. This entire post is predicated on the presumption that the contact on Silva was sufficient to knock him out of his stride. In which case, as you say, its a foul. If you think that there was that much contact, then fair enough, that's your view, as it is The_Referee's view. But that isn't my view, its not the view of the MOTD pundits or Charlie Nicholas or Mark Halsey or countless others who have reviewed the incident and who are, at best, working on the "there's contact so he's entitled to go down" line, and who are mostly saying it wasn't a foul at all.

Advantage is entirely irrelevant, because it only becomes relevant once there's a foul. And my point is, just in case you've still missed, it there's no foul because the contact is initiated by Silva trying to make contact with Heaton, and in any event is minimal. It is, in my opinion, no different to the contact when a defender leans into an attacker, which is established as good defending.

[The_Referee]

Do you really ?
When does he do this other when asked about an incident ?

Compared to the abuse other managers give officials and the sending offs / subsequent bans have been given Dyche is an f'in saint.

You are clearly not capable of holding an objective discussion on this subject so I will leave it at that

[FactualFrank]

You aren't reading what other people are writing at all, Imploding Turtle, and so you aren't taking account of what they are saying. This entire post is predicated on the presumption that the contact on Silva was sufficient to knock him out of his stride. In which case, as you say, its a foul. If you think that there was that much contact, then fair enough, that's your view, as it is The_Referee's view. But that isn't my view, its not the view of the MOTD pundits or Charlie Nicholas or Mark Halsey or countless others who have reviewed the incident and who are, at best, working on the "there's contact so he's entitled to go down" line, and who are mostly saying it wasn't a foul at all.

Advantage is entirely irrelevant, because it only becomes relevant once there's a foul. And my point is, just in case you've still missed, it there's no foul because the contact is initiated by Silva trying to make contact with Heaton, and in any event is minimal. It is, in my opinion, no different to the contact when a defender leans into an attacker, which is established as good defending.

Tom Heaton must have done bloody well to make any contact.

[Sidney1st]

In Turtles defence, the majority of the football world were convinced Barnes fouled Matic and that he would get banned as a result.

I remember Merson's meltdown live on SSN, it was brilliant viewing.

Then Barnes rightly wasn't punished.

Naturally he's bound to be a bit confused with yesterday's incident.

[RalphCoatesComb]

the contact is initiated by Silva trying to make contact with Heaton

Are you sure?!

[The_Referee]

You aren't reading what other people are writing at all, Imploding Turtle, and so you aren't taking account of what they are saying. This entire post is predicated on the presumption that the contact on Silva was sufficient to knock him out of his stride. In which case, as you say, its a foul. If you think that there was that much contact, then fair enough, that's your view, as it is The_Referee's view. But that isn't my view, its not the view of the MOTD pundits or Charlie Nicholas or Mark Halsey or countless others who have reviewed the incident and who are, at best, working on the "there's contact so he's entitled to go down" line, and who are mostly saying it wasn't a foul at all.

Advantage is entirely irrelevant, because it only becomes relevant once there's a foul. And my point is, just in case you've still missed, it there's no foul because the contact is initiated by Silva trying to make contact with Heaton, and in any event is minimal. It is, in my opinion, no different to the contact when a defender leans into an attacker, which is established as good defending.

There is a distinct difference between an attacker moving unnaturally towards the defender to initiate contact and an attacker making no effort to avoid contact. In this case the Man City player just left his foot in a position for the goalkeeper to contact it rather than moving his foot deliberately towards the goalkeeper and away from the direction he was going.

It is because of this The_Referee concludes the correct decision was reached in awarding Man City a penalty and no further discussion on this point is required

[Rileybobs]

Does anyone else wonder whether The_Referee is in fact even A_Referee?

[TVC15]

You are clearly not capable of holding an objective discussion on this subject so I will leave it at that

WTF

Instead of getting on your high horse why don't you enlighten us all and provide examples of when Dyche was unnecessarily complaining about a referee ?

You ain't doing anything to destroy that myth that all referees are wa-nkers are you ?

Oh and you have just reinforced that widely held view by talking about yourself in the third person !

[The_Referee]

Does anyone else wonder whether The_Referee is in fact even A_Referee?

[PaintYorkClaretnBlue]

I think a player should try to stay on their feet too.

Silva was impeded. I'm sure you'll agree that having a goalkeepers knee on your foot is an impediment. Or having him clatter into your foot is an impediment. So had Silva tried to stay on his feet should a penalty have been given? Of course. Because there wasn't an advantage (he was going away from goal).

Just because he went down like he was shot doesn't mean he wasn't fouled. And nor does it mean a foul shouldn't have been given.

There was contact, I don’t deny that. However Silva dived, no doubt about it. If he had tried to stay upright we could have judged just how much he was impeded but he didn’t he dived like he’d been shot. If you think that the contact was sufficient for him to go down like he did then fair enough, if you don’t then Silva cheated by diving.

[The_Referee]

There was contact, I don’t deny that. However Silva dived, no doubt about it. If he had tried to stay upright we could have judged just how much he was impeded but he didn’t he dived like he’d been shot. If you think that the contact was sufficient for him to go down like he did then fair enough, if you don’t then Silva cheated by diving.

Your striker who came on as a substitute appeared to throw himself to the ground every time the ball came near him in the air. Do you consider him a cheat?

[Tall Paul]

Does anyone else wonder whether The_Referee is in fact even A_Referee?

I wonder whether he might be a Devils_Advocate

[PaintYorkClaretnBlue]

I wonder whether he might be a Devils_Advocate

I wondered if he may look like a turtle!!

[Rileybobs]

I wonder whether he might be a Devils_Advocate

My thoughts exactly.

[PaintYorkClaretnBlue]

Your striker who came on as a substitute appeared to throw himself to the ground every time the ball came near him in the air. Do you consider him a cheat?

There was one instance when Barnes felt some hands on his back so threw himself forward, exaggerating it for the referee, in that instance he was cheating, the hands in the back we’re not sufficient for him to fall forward like that.

[The_Referee]

I wondered if he may look like a turtle!!

Does he have a mustache?

[Dark Cloud]

Your striker who came on as a substitute appeared to throw himself to the ground every time the ball came near him in the air. Do you consider him a cheat?

Barnes? A cheat?? You really are having a giraffe!!!

[boatshed bill]

This "within his rights to go down" stuff is really getting on my t!ts !
Bunch of primadonas.

[JohnMcGreal]

It's worth noting Pope's body language in all of this. It's pretty clear that just after he committed himself, he realised he wasn't going to win the ball, and he was in real danger of committing a foul. He tried to pull out, but it was too late. His momentum took him through and he couldn't stop himself in time. He misjudged the situation, and he gave a penalty away as a consequence. I'm sure he'll be analysing his own performance after the match and no doubt he'll be critical of his decision making there. But he's a young keeper who's still learning. These things happen. It's not a big deal. He had a very decent game overall against top class players.

Criticise Silva by all means, because his reaction was well over the top. He made a meal of it, but it doesn't mean he wasn't fouled.

[Imploding Turtle]

You aren't reading what other people are writing at all, Imploding Turtle, and so you aren't taking account of what they are saying. This entire post is predicated on the presumption that the contact on Silva was sufficient to knock him out of his stride. In which case, as you say, its a foul. If you think that there was that much contact, then fair enough, that's your view, as it is The_Referee's view. But that isn't my view, its not the view of the MOTD pundits or Charlie Nicholas or Mark Halsey or countless others who have reviewed the incident and who are, at best, working on the "there's contact so he's entitled to go down" line, and who are mostly saying it wasn't a foul at all.

Wanna know what's fascinating? That some people are saying with absolute certainty that Silva could have stayed on his feet, but when it comes to the contact being enough to be a foul suddenly they're all maybe there wasn't enough contact but we'll never know".

Advantage is entirely irrelevant, because it only becomes relevant once there's a foul. And my point is, just in case you've still missed, it there's no foul because the contact is initiated by Silva trying to make contact with Heaton, and in any event is minimal. It is, in my opinion, no different to the contact when a defender leans into an attacker, which is established as good defending.

Identity issues aside i find it funny how you're accusing me of not reading what others are saying while you're still peddling the impossibility of Silva being the one who initiated contact. His foot was on the ******* ground. How can his foot be on the ground while at the same time initiating contact? How is that possible? Did he initiate contact by putting his foot on the ground exactly where he predicted Pope to be putting his knee? So i guess you're saying Silva can see the future. It's so ******* ridiculous that you're STILL peddling this rubbish. Do I really need to link the video again? Are we even talking about the same leg? I don't get how someone can seriously think that a standing foot can initiate contact.

And how can you say it's minimal contact when it bends his ankle the way it does? Have you ever bent your ankle that way? If you have, was it easy?

[RingoMcCartney]

This "within his rights to go down" stuff is really getting on my t!ts !
Bunch of primadonas.

If somebody had done something like that up Townley on a hang over heavy Sunday morning. Both sides would would offer him advice based on something on the lines of, "Geddup yer daft get!"

[claretspice]

Wanna know what's fascinating? That some people are saying with absolute certainty that Silva could have stayed on his feet, but when it comes to the contact being enough to be a foul suddenly they're all maybe there wasn't enough contact but we'll never know". ?

This has been made clear. I don't think there's very much contact, or indeed enough to warrant a penalty. But if Silva had carried on, and stumbled, or whatever, then perhaps he'd have proved me wrong. As it is, by throwing himself up in the air he reduced the whole thing to a guessing game.

Identity issues aside i find it funny how you're accusing me of not reading what others are saying while you're still peddling the impossibility of Silva being the one who initiated contact. His foot was on the ******* ground. How can his foot be on the ground while at the same time initiating contact? How is that possible? Did he initiate contact by putting his foot on the ground exactly where he predicted Pope to be putting his knee? So i guess you're saying Silva can see the future. It's so ******* ridiculous that you're STILL peddling this rubbish. Do I really need to link the video again? Are we even talking about the same leg? I don't get how someone can seriously think that a standing foot can initiate contact. ?

Of course its possible. He can put his foot on the ground (or more accurately, drag his foot along the ground). in a place where he knows he'll be touched, whether my Pope's knee or any other bit of Pope. There's no one seriously debating that this is what happens. We don't need to debate this further.

And how can you say it's minimal contact when it bends his ankle the way it does? Have you ever bent your ankle that way? If you have, was it easy?

I think you're making a massive deal out of this (even Stuart Brennan in the MEN who is one of the most one-eyed local reporters in the game described the contact as inconsequential), but the point is that if Silva hadn't made a point of making contact with Pope, his ankle would have been entirely unscathed.

[claretspice]

There is a distinct difference between an attacker moving unnaturally towards the defender to initiate contact and an attacker making no effort to avoid contact. In this case the Man City player just left his foot in a position for the goalkeeper to contact it rather than moving his foot deliberately towards the goalkeeper and away from the direction he was going.

It is because of this The_Referee concludes the correct decision was reached in awarding Man City a penalty and no further discussion on this point is required

Fair play, this is where we differ. I think Silva makes a point of being impeded. I don't think Silva's natural motion requires there to be any contact worthy of a foul at all. But this is a subjective matter - and I don't know that, with all the replays we all have, a referee is better qualified to take a definitive view on this in hindsight than the rest of us, so is entitled to say "no further discussion on this point is required" (of course, a referee's skill is to be able to know and apply the laws correctly in the heat of the moment).

[Imploding Turtle]

There's no talking to you. If you seriously think that Silva initiated contact by psychically predicting where Pope was going to be putting his knee, while at the same time touching the ball away from Pope and knowing that pope was going to pull his arms away (because if he wasn't then there'd be no need to use a standing leg to draw the foul) then you've lost the plot. Or Silva's legitimately a genius, with 360 degree vision, while also being stupid enough to swan dive and risk it looking like simulation.

You'd win Olympic gold in mental gymnastics.

[claretspice]

There's no talking to you. If you seriously think that Silva initiated contact by psychically predicting where Pope was going to be putting his knee, while at the same time touching the ball away from Pope and knowing that pope was going to pull his arms away (because if he wasn't then there'd be no need to use a standing leg to draw the foul) then you've lost the plot. Or Silva's legitimately a genius, with 360 degree vision, while also being stupid enough to swan dive and risk it looking like simulation.

You'd win Olympic gold in mental gymnastics.

No, I don't think Silva psychically predicted where Pope would put his knee. As I said, he just made sure he put his foot where he thought Pope would likely put any part of his body. He didn't need to put it there. As for the point about him being willing to risk doing something looking like simulation, I mean...really?

[Imploding Turtle]

No, I don't think Silva psychically predicted where Pope would put his knee. As I said, he just made sure he put his foot where he thought Pope would likely put any part of his body. He didn't need to put it there.

Yeah. That makes sense. **** Occam's Razor. There's no way Silva was not paying attention to Pope's knees and was using that part of the pitch slightly to his right to push off to his left, you know... where he put the ball. The correct explanation for him putting his foot there is that he was predicting the path of Pope's knees.

So when you think about it, Silva was deliberately getting in the way of Pope's knee, that's obstruction, isn't it? So what you're saying is that Silva actually fouled Pope.

As for the point about him being willing to risk doing something looking like simulation, I mean...really?

Nice of you to ignore a whole ton of context that went with that point.

[FactualFrank]

Nice of you to ignore a whole ton of context that went with that point.

CS can talk sense sometimes, but often he does seem to end with things like that. He realises he's wrong and then either goes back to a point where he was right, to try and cover the bit where he was wrong, or he changes direction.

[claretspice]

CS can talk sense sometimes, but often he does seem to end with things like that. He realises he's wrong and then either goes back to a point where he was right, to try and cover the bit where he was wrong, or he changes direction.

Absolutely no change of direction on this thread whatsoever, from either me or any of the numerous other people making roughly the same points.

[FactualFrank]

Absolutely no change of direction on this thread whatsoever, from either me or any of the numerous other people making roughly the same points.

And another change of direction - ignoring Turtle's reply and gunning for me. You're a predictable sod, I'll give you that.

[piston broke]

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.

Just been an incident in the Everton match. Bellerin led with his studs, played the ball, never touched the opponent. Pawson still gave the FK against him. Endangering an opponent I guess?

[claretspice]

And another change of direction - ignoring Turtle's reply and gunning for me. You're a predictable sod, I'll give you that.

If you call correcting an entirely unjustified, and incorrect, personal comment a "change of direction" or "gunning for you", then i suppose im guilty. Ive my own views on you and your posting style but then i choose not to make then a feature of this board. Can i suggest you do the same?

[Imploding Turtle]

Just been an incident in the Everton match. Bellerin led with his studs, played the ball, never touched the opponent. Pawson still gave the FK against him. Endangering an opponent I guess?

Your stream's lagging.

[FactualFrank]

Ive my own views on you and your posting style but then i choose not to make then a feature of this board. Can i suggest you do the same?

I'm sure you do. And it would no doubt take another 17 paragraphs to point out what normal folk could do in a few sentences. Your own views is fine, but try and put them across without the "Look at me" approach, which is clearly how you see yourself. That's all I ask.

Anyway, I've taken the heat away from your debate, so that'll do for me.

[Diesel]

My view 24hrs + later and with benefit of tv replays:

Pope has done very well, he's set himself knowing that Silva will have to go around him, he's made no attempt to try and get the ball, he doesn't have to, he's created a barrier.

Pope is pretty much stationary, Silva is moving forward, plants his foot underneath Nick's knee and does a triple salko all in a split second, absolute premeditated simulation.

He instigated the contact, he was moving, Nick had every right to set himself and make Silva go the long way round.

[Corky]

It seems to me that one of the things missing in all these debates is that we need a root and branch review of the whole process around when a penalty should and should not be given. Currently, just taking yesterday as an example, the penalty (no pun intended) is totally disproportionate to the crime. Silva no longer had a clear goalscoring opportunity yet because of his collision with Pope and subsequent theatrical dive City get a penalty from which they score. That seems unfair and I thought that you could be penalised for obstruction, even though in the penalty are, I may be wrong.

[Diesel]

Is there still such a thing as 'obstruction'?

[Diesel]

Something, perhaps that should taken in to account when reading my posts, If I was the referee I would give Burnley a penalty if the other team won the toss.

[Duffer_]

Something, perhaps that should taken in to account when reading my posts, If I was the referee I would give Burnley a penalty if the other team won the toss.

And that is one (of many) area(s) where we differ Diesel. I would give Burnley a penalty if the other team won or lost the toss. It would prevent them from arguing the toss.

UTC!

[Rick_Muller]

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*************

I’ll answer that by saying if any of our players dived like that cheating twohat I’d welcome the ban for them to learn not to cheat

[ontario claret]

His trailing leg comes into contact with Pope as Pope is trying to pull back. It was deliberately done in order to deceive the ref, and deserves further sanctions. End of discussion. Pope in no way initiated the contact.

[ontario claret]

Who, exactly, is this "The_Referee"? I'm not familiar with him on this site. I think his contribution should be red-carded.