Was it a pen ?

[Tall Paul]

So, as you both concur that it is unlikely that Mason would have awarded a penalty had Ramsey stayed on his feet it is reasonable to argue that Ramsey’s exaggerated action contributed to the awarding of the penalty. As such, he should be up before the simulation panel.

I agree that's a reasonable argument.

Of course I acknowledge that had the “push” been of sufficient force to floor him in the first instance then it would have been a foul, however from the footage and photos I have seen from various angles, as someone who has played the game, I cannot agree at all the the placement of Tarks hand on Ramsey’s back was a push I anyway whatsoever. If a fully fit grown man who is a professional footballer is unable to stay upright with the slightest of touches he really has a problem, either Vertigo or he is a cheat.

I asked this earlier, how much force does a push need to be in order to be a foul? The laws just say a push is a foul, nothing about whether the push is enough to make the player fall over.

I think it's a foul by the letter of the law, but they're very rarely given.

[Rick_Muller]

You can pinpoint the moment Tarkowski realizes he ****** up and dived to try to get away with it

Get away with what exactly?

[Dyched]

Get away with what exactly?

GBH

[BFCmaj]

It’s the fact that Ramsay takes a step back into Tarkowski before his ridiculous swan dive that makes it even more unpalatable. Not a penalty in my eyes.

[dsr]

I agree that's a reasonable argument.



I asked this earlier, how much force does a push need to be in order to be a foul? The laws just say a push is a foul, nothing about whether the push is enough to make the player fall over.

I think it's a foul by the letter of the law, but they're very rarely given.

Remember that the laws don't say that a push has to be with the hands. So basically every time two players touch, there is a foul (unless it's shoulder to shoulder within playing distance of the ball, the one aspect of touching that is specifically allowed). So if two players attack the same ball, they are both fouling each other and a drop ball should be awarded; if one of them is moving fractionally away at the moment of touching, then it is a free kick or a penalty. That is the definition of a foul in the way you are heading - the merest touch by definition has force behind it, so the merest touch becomes a foul. In this case, Ramsay backed into Tarkowski and Tarkowski came forward into Ramsay - simultaneous fouls by both players, drop ball.

Even if you restrict pushes to pushes with the hands, it is very hard for a defender to avoid touching a man who is backing into him. Obviously he can jump for the ball with his hands behind his back, but you lose a lot of leverage that way which gives the forward a big advantage. Certainly applying your rules, you will have to accept that most contested headers will result in a free kick or penalty (or drop ball).

Getting away from this reductio ad absurdem, it's pretty clear that if Burnley players and Arsenal players had spent the entire match backing into someone and throwing themselves forward, we wouldn't have had a 5-5 draw all on penalties. The ref wouldn't give them all. But this one, he chose to give. Why, I don't know. Presumably he didn't feel the same pressure on him if he'd given another nine - or even three or four - earlier in the game. Presumably he saw Ramsay's Great Leap Forward, saw that Tarkowski's hands had been on Ramsay's back, and could not conceive of any reason for Ramsay to fall like that except that he had been pushed with great force. Or perhaps he was like you and thought that's a push, only a couple of inches and not enough to make any difference, and there must have been dozens of similar pushes all over the field that I didn't see, but I've seen that one so I'll give it.

If a push with that amount of force is a penalty, then the game is a lottery, and a lottery that will be won by the cheats. The FA want to take action and explain that very very slight contact does not make a foul - no, not even if the player springs forward as if out of a cannon.

[Tall Paul]

In this case, Ramsay backed into Tarkowski and Tarkowski came forward into Ramsay.

Ramsay's Great Leap Forward,...Ramsay's back, ... Ramsay ...

Gordon Ramsay? Ramsay McDonald? Ramsay Bolton? Ramsay Street?

Remember that the laws don't say that a push has to be with the hands. So basically every time two players touch, there is a foul (unless it's shoulder to shoulder within playing distance of the ball, the one aspect of touching that is specifically allowed). So if two players attack the same ball, they are both fouling each other and a drop ball should be awarded; if one of them is moving fractionally away at the moment of touching, then it is a free kick or a penalty. That is the definition of a foul in the way you are heading - the merest touch by definition has force behind it, so the merest touch becomes a foul. In this case, Ramsay backed into Tarkowski and Tarkowski came forward into Ramsay - simultaneous fouls by both players, drop ball.

Even if you restrict pushes to pushes with the hands, it is very hard for a defender to avoid touching a man who is backing into him. Obviously he can jump for the ball with his hands behind his back, but you lose a lot of leverage that way which gives the forward a big advantage. Certainly applying your rules, you will have to accept that most contested headers will result in a free kick or penalty (or drop ball).

Getting away from this reductio ad absurdem, it's pretty clear that if Burnley players and Arsenal players had spent the entire match backing into someone and throwing themselves forward, we wouldn't have had a 5-5 draw all on penalties. The ref wouldn't give them all. But this one, he chose to give. Why, I don't know. Presumably he didn't feel the same pressure on him if he'd given another nine - or even three or four - earlier in the game. Presumably he saw Ramsay's Great Leap Forward, saw that Tarkowski's hands had been on Ramsay's back, and could not conceive of any reason for Ramsay to fall like that except that he had been pushed with great force. Or perhaps he was like you and thought that's a push, only a couple of inches and not enough to make any difference, and there must have been dozens of similar pushes all over the field that I didn't see, but I've seen that one so I'll give it.

If a push with that amount of force is a penalty, then the game is a lottery, and a lottery that will be won by the cheats. The FA want to take action and explain that very very slight contact does not make a foul - no, not even if the player springs forward as if out of a cannon.

I don't know why you're referring to my rules. The law says that to be a foul the push must be careless, reckless or with excessive force, which renders most of the nonsense about players merely touching each other redundant.

In this case, the referee probably thought Tarkowski's actions were careless, possibly influenced by Ramsey's reaction.

I'm not defending Ramsey or the referee (I'm especially not defending Ramsey, he clearly cheated), just saying that I understand why it was given. I even think it was technically correct.

[dsr]

I'm not defending Ramsey or the referee (I'm especially not defending Ramsey, he clearly cheated), just saying that I understand why it was given. I even think it was technically correct.

But my point is that if it was a technically correct penalty, then Mason ought to be in the dock for missing dozens of other fouls, several of which would have been penalties.

[Tall Paul]

But my point is that if it was a technically correct penalty, then Mason ought to be in the dock for missing dozens of other fouls, several of which would have been penalties.

Yes, I don't disagree with that point.

The problem isn't necessarily that this was given as a foul, it's that other similar incidents aren't. Either the FA need to clarify the rules or the referees need to apply them consistently as they are written. If contact like this in the area is going to be given as a penalty, all contact in the area should be given as penalties.

[Hipper]

Common sense has to be applied.

I agree there is far too much pushing going on, not just in penalty areas. The little nudge in the back before going for the ball has been a standard tactic by defenders for years - I was told to coach this on an FA coaching course!

In the penalty area it is both defenders and attackers that are pushing. If defenders get caught it's a penalty. If in attacker is penalised, it's just a free kick. The advantage is with the attackers and that is why refs have to be very cautious in these incidents at corners etc..

The problem isn't necessarily that this was given as a foul, it's that other similar incidents aren't. Either the FA need to clarify the rules or the referees need to apply them consistently as they are written. If contact like this in the area is going to be given as a penalty, all contact in the area should be given as penalties.

The Ramsay/Tarkowski incident was easier because it did not involve other players and you could see the play developing. The ref could see there was a goal scoring opportunity and therefore a reason for fouling Ramsay. It wasn't just about the possible push but the whole situation.

[Caernarfon_Claret]

Remember that the laws don't say that a push has to be with the hands. So basically every time two players touch, there is a foul (unless it's shoulder to shoulder within playing distance of the ball, the one aspect of touching that is specifically allowed). So if two players attack the same ball, they are both fouling each other and a drop ball should be awarded; if one of them is moving fractionally away at the moment of touching, then it is a free kick or a penalty. That is the definition of a foul in the way you are heading - the merest touch by definition has force behind it, so the merest touch becomes a foul. In this case, Ramsay backed into Tarkowski and Tarkowski came forward into Ramsay - simultaneous fouls by both players, drop ball.

Even if you restrict pushes to pushes with the hands, it is very hard for a defender to avoid touching a man who is backing into him. Obviously he can jump for the ball with his hands behind his back, but you lose a lot of leverage that way which gives the forward a big advantage. Certainly applying your rules, you will have to accept that most contested headers will result in a free kick or penalty (or drop ball).

Getting away from this reductio ad absurdem, it's pretty clear that if Burnley players and Arsenal players had spent the entire match backing into someone and throwing themselves forward, we wouldn't have had a 5-5 draw all on penalties. The ref wouldn't give them all. But this one, he chose to give. Why, I don't know. Presumably he didn't feel the same pressure on him if he'd given another nine - or even three or four - earlier in the game. Presumably he saw Ramsay's Great Leap Forward, saw that Tarkowski's hands had been on Ramsay's back, and could not conceive of any reason for Ramsay to fall like that except that he had been pushed with great force. Or perhaps he was like you and thought that's a push, only a couple of inches and not enough to make any difference, and there must have been dozens of similar pushes all over the field that I didn't see, but I've seen that one so I'll give it.

If a push with that amount of force is a penalty, then the game is a lottery, and a lottery that will be won by the cheats. The FA want to take action and explain that very very slight contact does not make a foul - no, not even if the player springs forward as if out of a cannon.

It's quite simple. It has to be one of three things.

Careless
Reckless (yellow card)
With Excessive Force (red card)

Apart from number three it's not about force it's about whether a player has taken precautions to make sure the player he's pushing isn't going to be injured. It might be argued that pushing a player (whilst you're both running) in the back isn't being careful enough.
Whereas if you are both stationery facing each other and jostling for position then you are being careful enough.

This would also apply to a trip, tackle...

[Tall Paul]

The Ramsay/Tarkowski incident was easier because it did not involve other players and you could see the play developing. The ref could see there was a goal scoring opportunity and therefore a reason for fouling Ramsay. It wasn't just about the possible push but the whole situation.

If there was a goalscoring opportunity why wasn't Tarkowski sent off? He certainly wasn't attempting to play the ball.

And it's Ramsey!

[Hipper]

If there was a goalscoring opportunity why wasn't Tarkowski sent off?

Good question.

[Caernarfon_Claret]

With a push you only get a red card for using excessive force.

[UpTheBeehole]

It's quite simple. It has to be one of three things.

Careless
Reckless (yellow card)
With Excessive Force (red card)

Apart from number three it's not about force it's about whether a player has taken precautions to make sure the player he's pushing isn't going to be injured. It might be argued that pushing a player (whilst you're both running) in the back isn't being careful enough.
Whereas if you are both stationery facing each other and jostling for position then you are being careful enough.

This would also apply to a trip, tackle...

Pushing a player in the back in the last minute of a football match, in the 6 yard box, is the very definition of careless

[Tall Paul]

With a push you only get a red card for using excessive force.

Preventing a goalscoring opportunity with a foul, while making no attempt to play the ball, is a mandatory red card, irrespective of the type of foul it is.

[Caernarfon_Claret]

Pushing a player in the back in the last minute of a football match, in the 6 yard box, is the very definition of careless

Absolutely - which is why Lee Mason gave a penalty but didn't give a yellow card, because he was applying the laws of the game.

The only reason it might not have been a penalty is if as some suggest Tarks feet clipped Ramsey's and they both fell over. - But even then it would still be careless even though it was accidental.

[Caernarfon_Claret]

Preventing a goalscoring opportunity with a foul, while making no attempt to play the ball, is a mandatory red card, irrespective of the type of foul it is.

A clear goalscoring opportunity doesn't exist in a crowded penalty area when the player being pushed would have to be seven foot tall to head the ball.

[Rick_Muller]

Are you all being overly obtuse about this, watch it again - Tarks does not push Ramsey, he places his hand on his back, yes, but he did not push him. You have all been fooled by the cheat's dive haven't you, just like Mason on the day.

[Caernarfon_Claret]

A push that prevents a clear goalscoring opportunity would by it's very nature have to be with excessive force and so yes it would be a red card.

[Tall Paul]

A clear goalscoring opportunity doesn't exist in a crowded penalty area when the player being pushed would have to be seven foot tall to head the ball.

I agree. Hipper suggested that it was given because the ref saw a goalscoring opportunity.

A push that prevents a clear goalscoring opportunity would by it's very nature have to be with excessive force and so yes it would be a red card.

Rubbish.

[Caernarfon_Claret]

I agree. Hipper suggested that it was given because the ref saw a goalscoring opportunity.



Rubbish.

Not completely (my point being rubbish). I'll grant you a reckless push would probably be enough for a red in such circumstances but a careless push would be classed as accidental so wouldn't be red because of recent law change.

I still think a player deliberately stopping a goalscoring chance with a push is using excessive force as they know the laws so should know any force is too much.

The laws often overlap each other anyway and they probably word things so that there is no mistaking the fact that if it's deliberately stopping a clear goalscoring chance then it's red.

[Tall Paul]

Not completely (my point being rubbish). I'll grant you a reckless push would probably be enough for a red in such circumstances but a careless push would be classed as accidental so wouldn't be red because of recent law change.

I still think a player deliberately stopping a goalscoring chance with a push is using excessive force as they know the laws so should know any force is too much.

The laws often overlap each other anyway and they probably word things so that there is no mistaking the fact that if it's deliberately stopping a clear goalscoring chance then it's red.

Excessive force means that the player is endangering the safety of their opponent.

If a player is through on goal and a defender pushes him off the ball from behind, making no attempt to play the ball, he's not endangering the attacker's safety, but he should definitely receive a red card.

[Caernarfon_Claret]

Excessive force means that the player is endangering the safety of their opponent.

If a player is through on goal and a defender pushes him off the ball from behind, making no attempt to play the ball, he's not endangering the attacker's safety, but he should definitely receive a red card.

Fair enough.

So essentially a reckless push/challenge is upgraded from yellow to red when preventing a clear goal scoring opportunity.

[Caernarfon_Claret]

Using excessive force is when a player exceeds the necessary use of force and endangers the safety of an opponent and must be sent off

Yes I ignored the second half of the explaination of what excessive force is in the law.

I was only applying the first sentence, despite the fact I read the whole thing yesterday.

[Tall Paul]

Fair enough.

So essentially a reckless push/challenge is upgraded from yellow to red when preventing a clear goal scoring opportunity.

Preventing a goalscoring opportunity is effectively a separate offence.

[Caernarfon_Claret]

Preventing a goalscoring opportunity is effectively a separate offence.

There seems to be all sorts of overlapping - they probably use venn diagrams to explain it.

[Steve1956]

When I saw it in real time from behind the goal in the CFS I thought it was a stonewall penalty,having seen it from every angle possible to man,it's laughable that Mason gave a penalty,just shows how difficult a referee's job is,Mason is still a Twaaattt though.

[Caernarfon_Claret]

Law 5 of the game.

The decisions of the referee regarding facts connected with play, including whether or not a goal is scored and the result of the match, are final.

It was a penalty - by the laws of the game it is a fact not an opinion.

If you want the laws changed then lobby The FA, or FIFA

If the ref had not given a penalty it wouldn't have been a penalty.

[dsr]

Law 5 of the game.

The decisions of the referee regarding facts connected with play, including whether or not a goal is scored and the result of the match, are final.

It was a penalty - by the laws of the game it is a fact not an opinion.

If you want the laws changed then lobby The FA, or FIFA

If the ref had not given a penalty it wouldn't have been a penalty.

I think by normal conventions of conversation, this whole thread was about whether the ref should have given a penalty - not about whether he did.

[Caernarfon_Claret]

I think by normal conventions of conversation, this whole thread was about whether the ref should have given a penalty - not about whether he did.

Well then there is no answer as the question is completely subjective, some will see a push making it a penalty, some will see it as an accidental clipping of feet, some will see it as Tarks putting two hands out and lightly groping Ramsey - all depending on position in stands and/or camera angle viewed and extent of knowledge of FA laws plus knowing where the ref was positioned.

There's no point using a camera angle that has no relation to the ref's positioning as the ref wasn't able to use that in his decision making.

As most of these decisions are subjective it's the ref's view that matters.

There is the odd howler where it is very clear when the ref is wrong but mostly it's subjective.

[TVC15]

There's every point in using a camera angle that has no relation to the referees position - in fact that's the whole f'in point.

You seem to be saying that you would prefer it if the referee's view is blocked by 3 or 4 players and he ends up giving a decision based on a dodgy impaired angle and gut feel !

[dsr]

Well then there is no answer as the question is completely subjective

On the contrary - there are lots of answers. That's why we had the discussion.

[Caernarfon_Claret]

On the contrary - there are lots of answers. That's why we had the discussion.

OK there is no definitive answer.