Australian A-League - penalty incidents

[CapnBloodbeard]

Controversial week in the Australian Hyundai A-League (HAL):

2 games:

SFC (Sydney) in blue, CCM (Central Coast Mariners) in yellow
This game was a chuckle - instead of a coin toss they pulled a Christmas cracker/bon bon to see who won!

1:15 in. Penalty decision. SFC player is clearly starting to dive, but it looks like his other foot is clipped on the way down (can't clearly tell if there's contact or not, but the way the defender's foot moves suggests there was to me). Thoughts?

3:00min in. Looks like a penalty to me. Some people are calling foul, but the reaction of the keeper tells me he knew he got him. I think the yellow is justified here.

Here's another game:

Melbourne Victory in navy blue, Perth Glory in white.

First incident, 15 seconds in. What do you think of this penalty? Personally I don't think it's as clear as people are saying. I suspect there was contact, and he went down onto his left knee kind of low so that suggests he may have been off balance from the contact. when that happens it can take a step or two to fully go down - the fact that he took 2 steps doesn't necessarily mean it was a dive. But I think this is a tough one.

2nd one, 3min in. Penalty or not?

 

[Russell Jones]

All interesting stuff. For me all four are penalties. With the first, the attacker was certainly looking for it .. but unfortunately the defender gave it to him. The second, keeper made a legitimate attempt to get the ball but missed it and caught the attacker. However I don't see this as a yellow (especially a second yellow ). IMO, not reckless and not cynical. Third one, the keeper does catch him and can't believe the length of time the keeper continues complaining about it .. must have been close to picking up another yellow for ongoing dissent. Fourth one, soft but straightforward.

 

[ARF]

First one's never a penalty for me. Defender has planted his foot and the attacker kicks it while he's diving!

Second one, definite penalty, no YC necessary though IMO.

Third one, on first viewing I thought penalty. Watching the replays I don't think it is - does the GK's hand brush the attacker's shinpad? Yes. Does the contact cause the fall? No. Attacker was expecting harder contact and it didn't come, which it why he looks so sheepish afterwards!

Fourth and final one, penalty.

 

[CapnBloodbeard]

For the caution for the keeper - what about the breaking up an attack aspect? That he would have had a good( but not obvious) chance at goal?
@Russell Jones - for the first one, you don't think the attacker started to dive before contact was made (if there was)?

 

[Russell Jones]

On the caution question, I think the fact that it's a penalty means that sufficient punishment has already been meted out. In reality you're replacing one 'promising attack' with another! Very different to the deliberate trip or pull elsewhere on the field that replaces a clearcut breakaway with a simple free kick.

On reflection, I see what you guys mean about the first one. Very tough to spot on first viewing though and foolish of the defender to 'plant his foot' right where the attacker would obviously be running.

 

[Jacko]

@CapnBloodbeard Great video's thanks for sharing.

1st incident, for me at that level it should be being called as simulation. He's going down before the contact.

2nd incident, foul by the goalkeeper but it was only careless, just because its a penalty doesn't mean it has to be a caution, the ball it going out towards the touchline.

3rd Penalty - I looks like the keeper got a touch on the ball.

4th - definite penalty, barged him in his back.