That would been an easy penalty if he actually stopped the ball from going out, or had played the ball at all for that matter. The problem here is that he quite likely deliberately played (or should I say ran) over the ball making sure the defender doesn't get touch on the ball but would make contact with him. You can sell this either way. Live I would have given this. On replay I wouldn't give it but I won't argue with those who would give it. Something doesn't sit right with me here. Kane is the one who initiates contact.You might think I’n wrong, but I think this is a stone wall penalty. In my opinion, I don’t think he’s ran into the challenge - I think when he’s stopped the ball from going out, him breaking his momentum has unintentionally carried him into the challenge. I think it’s a foul and defenders always run the risk of sliding in like that in those situations, where the striker is fighting to keep the ball in play
Out of interest, which part of Law 12 would you be applying if you penalised Kane?Surprised to see so much consensus on a penalty here. Kane has faked to cross, defender has slid to block the cross. Having completed his fake, Kane has left the ball well behind and jumped into the prone defender. When contact is made, the ball is a good meter away from the point of contact!
This is Kane causing the contact - and while him rolling around on the floor as if he'd been kicked in the upper shin certainly helps sell it and makes it a difficult decision live, I'm not convinced. I've seen similar ones where the turn has actually been completed and I can accept those - but the fact that he just gives up on the ball in favour of making sure he contacts the opponent means I see this as his offence, not the defenders.
"Jumps at" seems like the obvious one, although in reality a GK would be just as good for the defending team and less controversial.Out of interest, which part of Law 12 would you be applying if you penalised Kane?
"Jumps at" is difficult to sell as he had one foot on the ground throughout and the defender was behind Kane(?)"Jumps at" seems like the obvious one, although in reality a GK would be just as good for the defending team and less controversial.
You can only be an adept cheat if those in charge fall for it. Which do you blame?HK is a class act... being an adept cheat is usually a pre-requisite for that. And he gets heaps of praise for being good at it!
I was wondering how long it would take for ‘players cheat because the referees make them’ to come upYou can only be an adept cheat if those in charge fall for it. Which do you blame?
Chicken & Egg.... It's not that simple to blame one or the other. It's the overall culture of football which is the problem. It may be a subject that bores you, but I don't understand that because it's a blight on the game, yet wouldn't be that difficult to mitigate. Aside from Wrestling, football is the only sport I can think of in which cheating is encouraged and lauded. In any other sport, a referee's number one priority would be to identify and discourage and/or disqualify cheats. I wouldn't want football to change completely because it would otherwise be a different game, but my concern is that it perpetually keeps getting worse and we as Referees are complicitI was wondering how long it would take for ‘players cheat because the referees make them’ to come up