Attempt to trip

[CrossRef]

Please refer to the attached video. Ref's final decision was a penalty, despite there was a clear attempt from the striker to look for contact.

The problem is not with the diving of the striker which is quite clear. My question is are you going to give the penalty in this case? A valid reason could be that the goal keeper's leg were clearly in the way of the attacker and could be considered an 'attempt to trip', so despite the striker deliberately looked for contact and fell, the penalty still stood?

A further question is: suppose the striker didn't look for contact, being totally honest, he jumped and escaped the goal keeper's leg but lost control of the ball. Are you going to give the penaly?

 

[Russell Jones]

If the striker naturally runs into the keeper's outstretched arms then it's a clear penalty. For me, if he naturally attempts to hurdle the arms but ends up falling over / stumbling, then I'd also be giving a penalty.

In the OP, the unnatural actions of the striker give the referee a tricky decision to make and any of penalty / simulation / play on are possible outcomes

 

[Kes]

If the striker naturally runs into the keeper's outstretched legs then it's a clear penalty. For me, if he naturally attempts to hurdle the legs but ends up falling over / stumbling, then I'd also be giving a penalty.

In the OP, the unnatural actions of the striker give the referee a tricky decision to make and any of penalty / simulation / play on are possible outcomes

I'm not sure what the issue is here to be honest - looks like a clear penalty to me? The striker (although his fall is somewhat overly-dramatic) clearly manages to nudge the ball beyond the GKs challenge and it looks like there's (albeit minor) contact after the ball has "gone".

What I'm interested to hear is why you'd be giving a penalty for a striker "running into the GKs legs"??

 

[Russell Jones]

The issues are:

1) not all minor contact is automatically a foul
2) we are asked to consider the attacker’s motivations as well as the defender’s actions in order to reach a fair and balanced outcome

Legs, arms, limbs, whatever . You knew what I meant, even if I didn’t!

For clarity, I think the OP is best dealt with by giving a PK

 

[Kes]

The issues are:

1) not all minor contact is automatically a foul
2) we are asked to consider the attacker’s motivations as well as the defender’s actions in order to reach a fair and balanced outcome

Legs, arms, limbs, whatever . You knew what I meant, even if I didn’t!

For clarity, I think the OP is best dealt with by giving a PK

Nice regain Tottingham.

But just so's we're clear, an attacker running into a defender's legs is not a free kick or penalty ... down our way.