Penalty Shout

[dvalley69]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HslrzzQ4i_8 - the incident in question.

Our disallowed goal is also very interesting. Keeper touches the ball so no pen then, even if he completely takes Mee out!!

[RVclaret]

It’s just unlucky that a miss timed tackle actually results in him winning the ball

He doesn’t ‘win the ball’. In fact he has zero clue where the ball is. SurreyClarets post above actually has the laws of the game and why it’s a penalty.

[StuWestMidsClaret]

Soooo many fans have no idea about football and the laws/rules.

[chekhov]

if that was given against us I'd be furious.

Exactly this.

[FCBurnley]

At the end of the day the officials seen the touch by the defender and had one chance to look at it with it being late in the game has to be a factor as well even subconsciously the decision has to be right. I don’t think VAR would turn that decision round neither so I think on balance the ref made the right decision at that moment and overall I think he had a decent game.

So you think that it being late in the game makes it no pen. Wow that defies belief

[SurreyClaret]

I probably wrote too much in my post, so people skip it

[dvalley69]

Exactly this.

Doesn't make one blind bit of difference. It's the rules!

[123EasyasBFC]

He doesn’t ‘win the ball’. In fact he has zero clue where the ball is. SurreyClarets post above actually has the laws of the game and why it’s a penalty.

Edwards is already on his way done and whether it’s a timed tackle or not he plays the ball, if that gets given against esteve we are absolutely fuming. The decision shouldn’t of mattered because we should of been 3-0 up

[StuWestMidsClaret]

I probably wrote too much in my post, so people skip it

Well people shouldn't it's bang on the money. Unfortunately fans just stick to their belief despite what's in the rules. Great summary btw.

[RVclaret]

Edwards is already on his way done and whether it’s a timed tackle or not he plays the ball, if that gets given against esteve we are absolutely fuming. The decision shouldn’t of mattered because we should of been 3-0 up

He doesn’t ‘play the ball’!

And don’t speak for everyone (Esteve wouldn’t make such a stupid challenge anyway).

[Bosscat]

It's a clear penalty, due to the challenge being careless, the attacker was clearly taken out by the sliding defender. The fact that the ball was touched first is completely irrelevant and not stated anywhere in the laws of the game - every pundit should be sent on a course to educate them what is and isn't a foul - they have peddled this ball first nonsense that every fan/player/manager quotes.

The ball being touched first is not in the laws of football and completely irrelevant if the defender is careless (foul), reckless (foul and yellow), or uses excessive force (foul and red card). In this case, he clearly went to ground taking out the player, which in my opinion is careless, a penalty and no card. There is always a level of subjectivity but I think if you take the ball touch out of the equation, it's hard to argue the challenge wasn't careless.

There is a 2nd reason the penalty should have been given and that's because the defender wasn't in control of the ball in the process of the tackle - as Scott said, the attacker played the ball onto him, so the touch wasn't intentional and wasn't a tackle. The attacker clearly is taken out and their progress can't continue onwards - like someone else said, it's a foul everywhere else on the pitch, so should have been given as a penalty.

I'm a Youth Coach and I was educated on this by a referee, and I had for most of my life thought that touching the ball first was the key factor, but it isn't. If you look at the laws and go through the decision making process that the Refs should go through, he's made a mistake, maybe two here, or he's bottled the decision.

Exactly this ....

[chekhov]

It’s interesting that folk think the referee should be assessing the defender’s spatial awareness or his exact intention at any specific moment, as well as whether he might or might not have slipped an instant before he touched the ball. The ref saw him play the ball before the man. Correct decision.

[Petersa]

Extenuating circumstances......the referee was Robert Jones.....he hasn't got a decision correct yet that matters

Just seen the halftime highlights Ipswich / Villa ,......QED? He should have been sacked years ago.....does he ever get any thing right?

[CrosspoolClarets]

Probably isn’t a penalty due to the way the law is interpreted at the high levels of the game, where a touch on the ball (even accidental) is paramount. It’s daft but the “rules” aren’t as relevant as a consistent interpretation of them.

Edwards is unlucky. Had he trapped or flicked up the ball it was a clear penalty. But he didn’t.

The main thing is that when he came on (too late) they panicked every time he got the ball, so for me he needs to play now as often as possible.

[MrTopTier]

Penalty all day long.

[123EasyasBFC]

He doesn’t ‘play the ball’!

And don’t speak for everyone (Esteve wouldn’t make such a stupid challenge anyway).

That’s like saying if the ball deflects of someone for a corner then it should be a goal kick because they didn’t play the ball properly. It’s rotten luck but it’s the correct decision

[dvalley69]

That’s like saying if the ball deflects of someone for a corner then it should be a goal kick because they didn’t play the ball properly. It’s rotten luck but it’s the correct decision

No it's not! We're talking about fouls, not set-pieces. They are 2 completely seperate things.

[Enola Gay]

Only seen the incident once from the stand but while I could see why people were screaming for it, I just wondered at the time whether Edwards had played for it a bit too much. As someone else has hinted above he seemed to fall onto the defender as much as he was brought down by him.

[claretspice]

Think the question is whether had he not been taken out by a defender who mistimed his tackle and got a scratch on the ball, Edwards would have got to the ball before it went out of play. I suspect he would, which is why I think on balance it's a foul. Can't blame the ref for not giving it though.

[RVclaret]

That’s like saying if the ball deflects of someone for a corner then it should be a goal kick because they didn’t play the ball properly. It’s rotten luck but it’s the correct decision

Seriously I worry sometimes about how people who have such strong opinions on football know so little about it (or at least that’s what a comment like this would suggest).

[SurreyClaret]

One of the reasons I want the VAR commentary to be heard when decisions are being made, is so that it will hopefully educate everyone about why decisions are made and the process referees are trained to follow. If a referee/VAR referee said out loud it's not a foul as the ball was touched first, they would and should get in trouble, as that is clearly not in the laws of the game.

Shockingly bad punditry has mislead people, and if that has then filtered down to Referees and influences their decisions (i.e. did he touch the ball first), we have a big problem. You will never remove subjectivity from decisions fully, but I think the reason the ball touch is not in the laws of the game is to help make the referee decision easier - it's a foul if it is careless, reckless or uses excessive force, regardless if the ball is slightly touched or put into row Z.

[SurreyClaret]

Just to add, if the Ref thought that Edwards went down looking for the penalty, then he should have been booked for diving. Didn't look that way to me though tbh honest.

[equinox]

What more is an attacking player supposed to do?

He's done the defender all ways up, to the point where the opposing player doesn't even know where the ball is, drawn the foul with a clever drop of the shoulder, been totally taken out with an out of control lunge and doesn't get the foul.

An awful, awful decision.

[123EasyasBFC]

If that’s a penalty for us then Preston should of had a penalty in first half, when foster closed the shot down he got no part of the ball and all of the Preston players foot

[Blue Skies]

I watched it on a Nobbers stream, two commentators, one an ex player were certain it was a pen even though he touched the ball. I think it was Surry Claret as he virtual made all the same salient points. Reckless, not in control and that's why it should have been given. Anywhere else on the pitch it is a foul and possible yellow card.

[equinox]

When a defender gets up wagging his finger, you know, he knows he fncked up.

[Goody1975]

But he got the ball, whether it was kicked into him or not. Admittedly, that was more by luck than judgement.

As I said, I think that in real time, it would usually be given. With the benefit of a replay, I dont think it should be.

I'm still in Preston so haven't seen the replay, but if what you're saying is correct then Nick Pope shouldn't have been penalised at Leeds?

[Robbie_painter]

I'm still in Preston so haven't seen the replay, but if what you're saying is correct then Nick Pope shouldn't have been penalised at Leeds?

Are you with Mover? If so tell him he’s a shithouse.

[DCWat]

I'm still in Preston so haven't seen the replay, but if what you're saying is correct then Nick Pope shouldn't have been penalised at Leeds?

You’re asking for consistency as well!!?

[Luppy]

Parker’s comments are spot on

The lad didn’t play the ball at all - Edwards played the ball, it happened to hit him. His challenge took the player out - it’s a penalty. City, Liverpool, Arsenal get them given on field week in week out and VAR won’t intervene. It’s a penalty.

[quoonbeatz]

Awful referee but he’s got this one right, obviously guessed it from where he is but it’s not a foul.

[Spindles]

Player doesnt take the ball, it bounces up a tiny bit off his ankle, edwards just has to keep going and he has a glorious opportunity to score/cross the ball.
The only reason the player "put the ball out for the corner" is that he'd cleaned edwards out in the process so he couldnt carry on with his move.

[Robbie_painter]

Anywhere else on the pitch it’s a foul therefore it’s a pen.

[bumba]

Anybody got a link to the incident? No highlights showing it and cannot find it anywhere after the match

[agreenwood]

Thought it was a penalty at the time, but now I’ve seen the replay, the ref got that one right.

It was a fortunate touch, but a touch nonetheless.

[StuWestMidsClaret]

It doesn't matter if there's a touch. Not sure why people aren't getting it. Look at SurreyClaret's post.

[Stacks]

It's a clear penalty, due to the challenge being careless, the attacker was clearly taken out by the sliding defender. The fact that the ball was touched first is completely irrelevant and not stated anywhere in the laws of the game - every pundit should be sent on a course to educate them what is and isn't a foul - they have peddled this ball first nonsense that every fan/player/manager quotes.

The ball being touched first is not in the laws of football and completely irrelevant if the defender is careless (foul), reckless (foul and yellow), or uses excessive force (foul and red card). In this case, he clearly went to ground taking out the player, which in my opinion is careless, a penalty and no card. There is always a level of subjectivity but I think if you take the ball touch out of the equation, it's hard to argue the challenge wasn't careless.

There is a 2nd reason the penalty should have been given and that's because the defender wasn't in control of the ball in the process of the tackle - as Scott said, the attacker played the ball onto him, so the touch wasn't intentional and wasn't a tackle. The attacker clearly is taken out and their progress can't continue onwards - like someone else said, it's a foul everywhere else on the pitch, so should have been given as a penalty.

I'm a Youth Coach and I was educated on this by a referee, and I had for most of my life thought that touching the ball first was the key factor, but it isn't. If you look at the laws and go through the decision making process that the Refs should go through, he's made a mistake, maybe two here, or he's bottled the decision.

I am the head ref for three adult leagues and currently ref at some strong levels in Canada.

You are correct…the ref got it wrong based on the laws of the game and our angle/views (replays)

However, the match official gets one glance at it and his angle may have appeared like the defender got the ball

15000 people screamed and cried for a Flemming handball in the Burnley 18 area but it hit Zians chest and it was nowhere near his hands. It’s all about angles/view.

However…there would be nothing wrong with walking over to his AR and having a brief consult over the decision

[Roosterbooster]

One of the reasons I want the VAR commentary to be heard when decisions are being made, is so that it will hopefully educate everyone about why decisions are made and the process referees are trained to follow. If a referee/VAR referee said out loud it's not a foul as the ball was touched first, they would and should get in trouble, as that is clearly not in the laws of the game.

Shockingly bad punditry has mislead people, and if that has then filtered down to Referees and influences their decisions (i.e. did he touch the ball first), we have a big problem. You will never remove subjectivity from decisions fully, but I think the reason the ball touch is not in the laws of the game is to help make the referee decision easier - it's a foul if it is careless, reckless or uses excessive force, regardless if the ball is slightly touched or put into row Z.

The referees don't always follow the rules on the VAR decisions. And we know that from the footage that has been released. More than once the discussion has been irrelevant, and no laws of the game have been followed to reach the final decision. And we see that with on field refereeing decisions week in week out too

They clearly don't get in trouble because Howard Webb etc just agree with them 99% of the time

[Silkyskills1]

However…there would be nothing wrong with walking over to his AR and having a brief consult over the decision

And which AR do you know who disagrees with a referee?

[wilks_bfc]

However…there would be nothing wrong with walking over to his AR and having a brief consult over the decision

Considering the AR on that side couldn’t get throw-in decisions correct or “correct” the ref when he blew for a perceived foul by Laurent at the end, I don’t think it would have made any difference

[Goody1975]

Are you with Mover? If so tell him he’s a shithouse.

No, he was working today.

Plan to meet him for the cup game.

[Goody1975]

You’re asking for consistency as well!!?

My point was that I felt Pope did his job, but was informed I was wrong. If a player plays the man but touches the ball by accident then it's a foul.

Again, I still haven't seen the incident back as of yet.

[RVclaret]

My point was that I felt Pope did his job, but was informed I was wrong. If a player plays the man but touches the ball by accident then it's a foul.

Again, I still haven't seen the incident back as of yet.

It’s exactly this:

https://x.com/theburnleyway/status/1890 ... 18218?s=46

[bumba]

It’s exactly this:

https://x.com/theburnleyway/status/1890 ... 18218?s=46

he doesn't win the ball the ball clips his foot but he then impedes Edwards from moving forward and also does the scissor motion with both legs.
Stonewall penalty.

[dvalley69]

It's a pen. If that is in the centre circle, with a player sliding in and the player goes down it's a free-kick! We saw several free-kicks all game like that. It's the type of free-kick Roberts wins; looking for it but it's given because there's contact on the player. Like it or not, it's a pen in today's game!

[equinox]

15000 people screamed and cried for a Flemming handball in the Burnley 18 area but it hit Zians chest and it was nowhere near his hands.

It hit his back.

[quoonbeatz]

It's a clear penalty, due to the challenge being careless, the attacker was clearly taken out by the sliding defender. The fact that the ball was touched first is completely irrelevant and not stated anywhere in the laws of the game - every pundit should be sent on a course to educate them what is and isn't a foul - they have peddled this ball first nonsense that every fan/player/manager quotes.

The ball being touched first is not in the laws of football and completely irrelevant if the defender is careless (foul), reckless (foul and yellow), or uses excessive force (foul and red card). In this case, he clearly went to ground taking out the player, which in my opinion is careless, a penalty and no card. There is always a level of subjectivity but I think if you take the ball touch out of the equation, it's hard to argue the challenge wasn't careless.

There is a 2nd reason the penalty should have been given and that's because the defender wasn't in control of the ball in the process of the tackle - as Scott said, the attacker played the ball onto him, so the touch wasn't intentional and wasn't a tackle. The attacker clearly is taken out and their progress can't continue onwards - like someone else said, it's a foul everywhere else on the pitch, so should have been given as a penalty.

I'm a Youth Coach and I was educated on this by a referee, and I had for most of my life thought that touching the ball first was the key factor, but it isn't. If you look at the laws and go through the decision making process that the Refs should go through, he's made a mistake, maybe two here, or he's bottled the decision.

It isn’t careless, reckless or using excessive force. He goes to make the challenge, plants his foot and the ball hits it then Edwards goes over it. It’s very fortunate that it hits his foot but there’s no way you can claim it’s meets any of those criteria because he’s gone to block the ball and, fortuitously, succeeded. Your ref pal may well have read the laws but it’s understanding the game that matters.

[forzagranata]

It is really not as simple as this:

It's a clear penalty, due to the challenge being careless, the attacker was clearly taken out by the sliding defender. The fact that the ball was touched first is completely irrelevant and not stated anywhere in the laws of the game - every pundit should be sent on a course to educate them what is and isn't a foul - they have peddled this ball first nonsense that every fan/player/manager quotes.

The ball being touched first is not in the laws of football and completely irrelevant if the defender is careless (foul), reckless (foul and yellow), or uses excessive force (foul and red card). In this case, he clearly went to ground taking out the player, which in my opinion is careless, a penalty and no card. There is always a level of subjectivity but I think if you take the ball touch out of the equation, it's hard to argue the challenge wasn't careless.

So, Surrey is right that there is nothing in the rules that says that touching the ball means a careless or reckless challenge is annulled by contact with the ball.

However - anyone who has listened to VAR officials talking over incidents will have heard them discussing on many occassions whether there was contact with the ball.

Why do they do that if playing the ball is not a factor?

Because, in reality, it actually IS a factor. The aim of a tackle is to make contact with the ball and take it away from the attacker. That's the whole point of a tackle. It is hard to rule a tackle 'careless' if the actual aim of the tackle has actually been achieved!

Where Surrey Claret is certainly correct is in the ruling on a reckless tackle. If a player plays the ball but that violently crashes into the attacker, risking injury etc, then it can still be reckless despite the contact with the ball.

[dvalley69]

It is really not as simple as this:



So, Surrey is right that there is nothing in the rules that says that touching the ball means a careless or reckless challenge is annulled by contact with the ball.

However - anyone who has listened to VAR officials talking over incidents will have heard them discussing on many occassions whether there was contact with the ball.

Why do they do that if playing the ball is not a factor?

Because, in reality, it actually IS a factor. The aim of a tackle is to make contact with the ball and take it away from the attacker. That's the whole point of a tackle. It is hard to rule a tackle 'careless' if the actual aim of the tackle has actually been achieved!

Where Surrey Claret is certainly correct is in the ruling on a reckless tackle. If a player plays the ball but that violently crashes into the attacker, risking injury etc, then it can still be reckless despite the contact with the ball.

So, you'e saying it's the degree of the force in the tackle that makes the difference, i.e. the risk of a potential injury?

[forzagranata]

So, you'e saying it's the degree of the force in the tackle that makes the difference, i.e. the risk of a potential injury?

That can be part of the evaluation, yes.