A&H

Kane "cute". One word for it.

The Referee Store
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
 
alexv said:
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
Click to expand...
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.
 
As Referee, can't not give a PK. However, HK should have been cautioned for clear simulation (he's one of the prolific cheats IMO) in the first half. That may have affected what happened WRT the PK incident later in the game. 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!
 
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.
 
I personally can't see how this is a penalty. For me Kane overruns the ball and then throws himself into Cash to initiate the contact - clear simulation.
 
GraemeS said:
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.
Click to expand...
Out of interest, which part of Law 12 would you be applying if you penalised Kane?
 
I don't think Kane has deliberately done this. Rather he has tried to cut the ball back inside but has completely missed it. He is perfectly entitled to change direction, the defender needs to take more care, and if you go to ground like that and don't get the ball you are always likely to give a penalty away.
 
At the point of contact the defender was a good 3/4 yard away from the ball and where any reasonable defender would have expected Kane to be. This was not a tackle, it was a block.

While I don't think the defender was careless, accepting for argument he was, then the ball was so close to being out of play, and the carelessness so minimal, this is trivial.

Of course, this is after seeing the replay from the reverse angle. If I was in the middle I'd have given it, too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: one
Let's assume for a moment that Kane had made the cross before the exact same contact. The ball would have either gone for the proper cross or blocked by the defender. Very unlikely for former and no chance for the latter a PL referee would give a foul. Kane knows how to manipulate (con is possibly too harsh to use here) the situation or the referees to turn this to a penalty.

Big Cat said:
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!
Click to expand...
You can only be an adept cheat if those in charge fall for it. Which do you blame?
 
Jtpetherick1 said:
I was wondering how long it would take for ‘players cheat because the referees make them’ to come up 💤😴
Click to expand...
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 complicit
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top