Ian Wright

[SouthLondonexile]

Totally correct decision . The defender came at Kane with a high challenge. I thought it was a penalty there and then.
Here’s the point that Wrighty made the defender was reckless in showing his studs and catching our captain.

[Carport]

For those saying Kane kicked Dumfries’ foot rather than the other way round, I don’t think it matters when determining whether this is a foul. Did Dumfries fairly prevent Kane from getting his shot on target by ensuring that his own foot was placed in a position to make contact with the ball? Answer is ‘no’. Of course, he is trying his best to contact the ball with his foot but the fact is he failed and that impeded Kane striking the ball on target as he would have wished. It’s a pen for me.

[wilks_bfc]

For those saying Kane kicked Dumfries’ foot rather than the other way round, I don’t think it matters when determining whether this is a foul. Did Dumfries fairly prevent Kane from getting his shot on target by ensuring that his own foot was placed in a position to make contact with the ball? Answer is ‘no’. Of course, he is trying his best to contact the ball with his foot but the fact is he failed and that impeded Kane striking the ball on target as he would have wished. It’s a pen for me.

How does he impede Kanes shot?

Kane got the shot away and the contact was after that

If that’s going to be the benchmark then all a striker needs to do now is ensure they make contact after the get a shot away in the hope that they may get awarded a penalty for it

[Dyched]

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.

[bart_claret]

Went off him when he said he was too good a player to be playing for teams like Burnley. The guy is a buffoon. Oh and it was never a penalty.

[Dark Cloud]

It's one of those weird ones where I agree that "anywhere else on the pitch it's a foul" and so that should make it an open and shut case, but in terms of giving a penalty which is basically tantamount to giving a goal, I kind of feel I want more. Strange I know.

[willsclarets]

I love how a poster isn't keen on an opinion a pundit gave, and immediately demands his retirement

[Jakubclaret]

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.

That's pretty much how I saw it it was something of nothing 6 of 1 half a dozen of the other certainly not enough of a meal resulting in a spotkick. If anything it's more of a foul on the Dutch player.

[quoonbeatz]

How does he impede Kanes shot?

Kane got the shot away and the contact was after that

If that’s going to be the benchmark then all a striker needs to do now is ensure they make contact after the get a shot away in the hope that they may get awarded a penalty for it

Exactly.. It's not a foul in any way. Neville had it spot on.

[Roosterbooster]

Kane got his shot away. It’s never a pen.

Why is that relevant?

[bobinho]

I believe it’s relevant because the contact after the shot was away was because of Kanes follow through, not because of anything Dumfries did. Kane didn’t miss because of Dumfries….

[dandeclaret]

Surely we see fouls like this all the time around the pitch? Full back clears down the line, and in following through, connects with a strikers foot that was there trying to block the ball? Those are fouls all the time.... the penalty area should be no different. I think the defender has to get front on and use his body, not turn sideways and leave a straight leg out stretched for the striker to connect with. Penalty for me (and I've very very little interest in England international football)

[claretskeith]

I believe it’s relevant because the contact after the shot was away was because of Kanes follow through, not because of anything Dumfries did. Kane didn’t miss because of Dumfries….

That's not how the rules work though.

If someone is running down the wing and their first touch takes the ball out for a goal kick, but a defender comes flying in moments after and fouls the winger, it's still a free-kick. Even though the winger had already had his chance and messed it up.

[PremierLeagueClass]

Exactly.. It's not a foul in any way. Neville had it spot on.

Simple question. Is it a foul if it happens outside the box?

[quoonbeatz]

That's not how the rules work though.

If someone is running down the wing and their first touch takes the ball out for a goal kick, but a defender comes flying in moments after and fouls the winger, it's still a free-kick. Even though the winger had already had his chance and messed it up.

That's totally different though because the defender makes a late challenge. In this case, the defender just went to block the shot, which he's fully entitled to do. Kane got the shot away and wasn't impeded in the slightest, then kicked the defender on his follow through. That's not a foul, it's just something that happened s in football all the time, it being a contact sport.

If you want the obvious comparison, look at the Barnes/Matic incident where the latter got himself sent off. Barnes passed the ball then caught Matic on the follow through. Absolutely nobody would say that was a foul. And it rightly wasn't given as one.

[quoonbeatz]

Simple question. Is it a foul if it happens outside the box?

No. The striker kicked the defender's foot, which had every right to be where it was. Not a foul.

See the post above.

[CoolClaret]

Not a foul for me and I have always thought Kane was a cheat. Dives and screams all the time, done it enough times against Burnley whilst playing for Spurs.

[claretskeith]

Simple question. Is it a foul if it happens outside the box?

Of course. It'll be classed as a late challenge as he made contact with Kane after the ball had gone.

[PremierLeagueClass]

No. The striker kicked the defender's foot, which had every right to be where it was. Not a foul.

See the post above.

Well you’re the first person I’ve seen claiming it wouldn’t be a foul outside the box, well done sir

[martin_p]

No. The striker kicked the defender's foot, which had every right to be where it was. Not a foul.

See the post above.

But you’ll see at least one of these given outside the box almost every game. I agree that they shouldn’t be given as fouls, but in the modern game it has been determined that they are. In that context it was 100% a penalty.

[quoonbeatz]

Well you’re the first person I’ve seen claiming it wouldn’t be a foul outside the box, well done sir

You can't have looked very far, there's people on this very thread saying it's not a foul.

[martin_p]

Not a foul for me and I have always thought Kane was a cheat. Dives and screams all the time, done it enough times against Burnley whilst playing for Spurs.

Whether it’s a foul or not I don’t think you can doubt that the challenge would have really hurt!

[quoonbeatz]

Of course. It'll be classed as a late challenge as he made contact with Kane after the ball had gone.

That's a total misreading of the situation though because it's Kane who makes contact with him, not the other way round.

[daveisaclaret]

There's (rightly) no distinction in the rules between tackling and blocking. If you make a play for the ball, miss it, and then hit the opposition player that's a foul.

[DingleDangle]

It's a clear foul. People can argue whether it's too soft to be a penalty. But he completely misses the ball and plays the man. If I was trying to block a shot I sure as hell wouldn't do it as stupidly as that.

Interesting......I would hazard a guess, that maybe 7+ times out of 10, you would have tried to block Kane's shot exactly like that. How else would you have attempted the block?

Deffo not a foul for me and that was my initial reaction. In the replay you could see that Dumfries put his foot out to block the shot. All the movement came from Kane's striking of the shot. There was no attempt or intent to tackle, injure or cause harm to Kane.

The problem lies with the laws of the game which are very confusing at best and they are left open to how the officials interpret them. However, none of the referee or linesman saw anything wrong, until the clusterfuck of VAR intervened. Would be interesting to hear how those clowns interpreted what happened.

Even more incredulous was the booking of Dumfries for nothing.

[CoolClaret]

Whether it’s a foul or not I don’t think you can doubt that the challenge would have really hurt!

Yeah I didn't particularly mean for that said challenge, more meant in general, pretty much anytime he gets contact he goes down in a similar fashion and is always in the refs face asking for a free kick or a card for the opposition player.

[quoonbeatz]

Whether it’s a foul or not I don’t think you can doubt that the challenge would have really hurt!

Certainly would. Makes you wonder why John Duran collapsed in agony when Ramsey tapped the underneat of his boot, rather than the other way round doesn't it.

[bobinho]

That's not how the rules work though.

If someone is running down the wing and their first touch takes the ball out for a goal kick, but a defender comes flying in moments after and fouls the winger, it's still a free-kick. Even though the winger had already had his chance and messed it up.

I get that, but the contact was Kane on Dumfries not the other way round. Kane kicking Dumfries does not become a penalty for Kane.

[wilks_bfc]

For me, it’s the same as a defending player being penalised for obstruction when a player runs into them, when they haven’t made any deviations in movement

If a player knocks the ball on then runs into a player that hasn’t moved position, that’s not a foul imo

[bfcmik]

Yeah I didn't particularly mean for that said challenge, more meant in general, pretty much anytime he gets contact he goes down in a similar fashion and is always in the refs face asking for a free kick or a card for the opposition player.

Pundit 1: "Definitely felt the contact, every right to go down."
Pundit 2: "Not enough there for the free-kick."
Pundit 3: " Why didn't he go down? Would have got the free-kick if he had."

All watching the same incident!

[bobinho]

There's (rightly) no distinction in the rules between tackling and blocking. If you make a play for the ball, miss it, and then hit the opposition player that's a foul.

I agree. But Dumfries didn’t hit Kane, Kane hit Dumfries. Dumfries doesn’t need to get out of the way, he’s every right to throw a leg up to block the shot. Kane strikes Dumfries AFTER the ball is gone. If it’s Dumfries strikes Kane after the ball has gone, then yeah it’s a foul.

[DingleDangle]

Of course. It'll be classed as a late challenge as he made contact with Kane after the ball had gone.

How, in your eyes, was/would, it be classed as a 'late challenge' when Dumfries only went to block the shot at the time Kane was swinging his foot towards the ball (so, not 'late') and ALL the contact was made by the movement from Kane striking the ball and then striking Dumfries' boot?

[martin_p]

I agree. But Dumfries didn’t hit Kane, Kane hit Dumfries. Dumfries doesn’t need to get out of the way, he’s every right to throw a leg up to block the shot. Kane strikes Dumfries AFTER the ball is gone. If it’s Dumfries strikes Kane after the ball has gone, then yeah it’s a foul.

You’re right, but everywhere else on the pitch it’s deemed a foul, you see it time and time again when a striker tries to block a defensive clearance the the defender effectively kicks the striker’s outstretched leg. There’s got to be consistency in the game, you can’t have it that a challenge is a foul outside of the box but not in it.

[claretskeith]

I get that, but the contact was Kane on Dumfries not the other way round. Kane kicking Dumfries does not become a penalty for Kane. But we won't all agree, so there you go.

Kane had taken the shot so his foot was going in that direction. Dumfries was trying to block the shot / go for the ball and missed the ball, going into Kane's leg instead. You can see Dumfries is very late. We won't all agree so there you go. One of those.

shot.jpeg (230.82 KiB) Viewed 1531 times

[Roosterbooster]

I believe it’s relevant because the contact after the shot was away was because of Kanes follow through, not because of anything Dumfries did. Kane didn’t miss because of Dumfries….

Dumfries' foot is still moving forwards after the ball has gone
His foot being there is exactly why there is contact
So it's entirely to do with what Dumfries did
He is entitled to go for the ball, or block it
But he isn't entitled to impede the opposition
That's exactly what he does
He doesn't make contact with the ball, but Kane does

The idea that a defender's foot being so close to you when you're shooting doesn't affect your shot is ludicrous

If Dumfries wasn't there, Kane could have taken a touch, or let it drop another foot, all of which would have made the chance easier
Dumfries goes for the ball, Kane gets there first, and contact is made

If Dumfries had put his foot up, and then Kane had taken the shot, and kicked into a stationary Dumfries foot, that's a different story. But that isn't what happened

[Ilkley claret]

He was spot on, it’s a foul if you try and block with a high boot and make contact with the opposition player.

Neville talking nonsense

[Winstonswhite]

Defenders can try and block the shot but they have to do it with their hands behind their backs and not within a legs length of the shooter, because if the ball hits their arm beneath the short sleeve symbol or the attackers foot hits them with the follow through then it’s a penalty!

[NottsClaret]

I don't agree with penalties for that, but yeah, if a full back was clearing a ball down the line and someone tried to block and the full back kicks their hanging foot.. it's a foul every single time and often a yellow card.

In summary, I don't care, have that Koeman for cheating in '93.

[Im_not_Robbie_Blake]

If that's a penalty, I'm a woodlouse

[boyyanno]

It's a foul anywhere else on the pitch.

For those saying that Kane "kicked" the defenders foot- Kanes shot and subsequent follow through are one action, its not a shot and subsequent "kick".

You also need to look at the Dutch player that committed the foul, he hasn't just stood still and made a block as some are trying to make out- he is actively moving towards Kane with his foot in the air- he makes no contact with the ball. After the ball has gone his foot is still moving towards Kane's- its just that Kane's is travelling faster as he beat him to the ball and got a subsequent shot away.

I admit the defender is in a bit of a no win situation but he shouldn't have gone "in" for the ball as he was never going to win it first. Should have held his ground and tried to make the block.

[Roosterbooster]

If that's a penalty, I'm a woodlouse

You ARE a woodlouse
You are NOT Robbie Blake

[Goliath]

Interesting......I would hazard a guess, that maybe 7+ times out of 10, you would have tried to block Kane's shot exactly like that. How else would you have attempted the block?

Deffo not a foul for me and that was my initial reaction. In the replay you could see that Dumfries put his foot out to block the shot. All the movement came from Kane's striking of the shot. There was no attempt or intent to tackle, injure or cause harm to Kane.

The problem lies with the laws of the game which are very confusing at best and they are left open to how the officials interpret them. However, none of the referee or linesman saw anything wrong, until the clusterfuck of VAR intervened. Would be interesting to hear how those clowns interpreted what happened.

Even more incredulous was the booking of Dumfries for nothing.

I think he went in too aggressively with his stoods rather than reading the game and trying to block the line of where the ball was going.
He doesn't need to be flying in with his studs, how often did Tarkowski and Mee give penalties like that away for us? Basically never because it's not the right way to block the ball.
Just as an example, say Kane had dummied the shot and just tried to control it then be cleaned out, people would say it's a penalty without hesitation. It's really clumsy defending.

[quoonbeatz]

So we're all agreed Barnes on Matic was foul then. Good stuff.

[boyyanno]

I think he went in too aggressively with his stoods rather than reading the game and trying to block the line of where the ball was going.
He doesn't need to be flying in with his studs, how often did Tarkowski and Mee give penalties like that away for us? Basically never because it's not the right way to block the ball.
Just as an example, say Kane had dummied the shot and just tried to control it then be cleaned out, people would say it's a penalty without hesitation. It's really clumsy defending.

Correct. He's not just "blocking" the ball. He's challenging for it, that's why it's a pen for me. You can see quite clearly on the replays that he is moving his foot towards it. Kane just beats him to the ball.

[Croydon Claret]

If that's a penalty, I'm a woodlouse

Get back under your rock

[ClaretPete001]

The only issue I have is whether he actually got the shot away. Clearly, Kane's first impact is before Dumfries touches him but it's not clear at what point the ball left his foot because he doesn't get through the ball properly.

At first I thought it wasn't a penalty but the more I look at it Dumfries catches him before he gets through the shot.

I'm not sure the technology exists to give a proper decision.

Ian Wright is more of an entertainer than a pundit.

[Stproc]

It was a standard Premier League VAR decision, when they’re giving penalties and bookings out for that the game is gone

[Oldparkwood]

A quick look on X will show the general feeling, not one person agreeing with him. However, it's an opinion based forum on here.My opinion is he's wrong.

I called it a penalty straight away in real time
Maybe soft but that's the letter of the law.
So in my eyes it's a nailed on penalty

[Sproggy]

I thought it as a pen. He’s not trying to block the ball, he’s going for the ball. He’s seen what’s about to happen and lunged in, arms up, studs up, panic. And he got there late.

[CnBtruntru]

That's totally different though because the defender makes a late challenge. In this case, the defender just went to block the shot, which he's fully entitled to do. Kane got the shot away and wasn't impeded in the slightest, then kicked the defender on his follow through. That's not a foul, it's just something that happened s in football all the time, it being a contact sport.

If you want the obvious comparison, look at the Barnes/Matic incident where the latter got himself sent off. Barnes passed the ball then caught Matic on the follow through. Absolutely nobody would say that was a foul. And it rightly wasn't given as one.

But by going studs up is that not dangerous play!