Incident at 1:48. Seems like quite a blunder.
LEE v BUR penalty not given
- Thread starter CaptainsPlease
- Start date
Peter Grove
RefChat Addict
Sure as heck looked like a penalty to me. He may have got a touch on the ball (though it's not even clear to me that he did) but even if he did, he's taken the man as well.
Well having watched a number of games on TV this weekend it’s clear that the threshold for what constitutes a careless challenge has been raised this season. This challenge was the same as a multitude of others that went unpunished across any number of matches. So although my personal first impression was that’s a nailed on penalty, perhaps I’m a bit old fashioned
and need to change my thinking.
and need to change my thinking.I'm quite glad someone else said this. I watched it Saturday evening and thought it's definitely not as clear an error as the OP suggested. Hard to see from the angles provided but every chance that this is a fantastic call from the referee. Hard to be certain if he plays the ball cleanly through the legs or if he takes the leg first.
Tackling from behind is usually at least careless because the opponent can't anticipate/avoid contact which increases risk. It needs to be a clearly clean tackle to avoid being careless.
If there was any contact with the ball it was minimal at most, and the defender certainly does take the attacker's leg slightly before or at the same time, certainly not after.
Frame below is first contact between legs, no ball contact can be seen before this frame and not clear whether on this frame either.
So there is really not much mitigation here and I stick with my original assessment.
If there was any contact with the ball it was minimal at most, and the defender certainly does take the attacker's leg slightly before or at the same time, certainly not after.
Frame below is first contact between legs, no ball contact can be seen before this frame and not clear whether on this frame either.
So there is really not much mitigation here and I stick with my original assessment.
But look how wide the attacker has his legs spread in that photograph. He does so to prevent the defender from being able to play the ball around the side and thus opening himself up to be challenged through the legs. I'm not sure that if this was a Premier League match with VAR in operation we would be seeing a review.
That’s exactly right and although there is previous comment about contact of the ball being minimal it was sufficient to take away possession from the attacker.
Think you've read that completely wrong, there is another defender approaching from the front and the attacker's leg movement is more plausibly part of trying to beat that opponent.
I not sure 'quite a blunder' is appropriate, ref has one look, at speed, it is not a C&O error & he may actually be correct to turn the penalty appeal down.
It is a C&O error. It is a careless tackle from behind that does not take ball before player.
Think we'll have to agree to disagree. For me, clear and obvious means a room of people would be unanimously aligned (or at least a large majority) - don't think that's the case here, and the fact the commentators on the video don't seem to be screaming that it's a horrendous call suggests they're not certain either.
Peter Grove
RefChat Addict
I don't see that it's clear that the defender has played the ball at all. Maybe a slight touch but even that's not obvious to me.
And the attacker hasn't fallen over the defender's legs, based on anything I can see - he's been taken out at the ankle, from behind, by a reckless challenge.
Not 100% clear I agree, but not 100% clear that he didn’t, so I don’t think it would be reasonable to award a penalty where need to be as certain as possible.
On reflection I can see why a penalty was not given in the moment..having a chance to watch it multiple times from different angles I lean towards a penalty.
Ultimately winning the ball does not make it a fair challenge. I actually think there contact on foot first. But that aside I think its a careless trip.
Ultimately winning the ball does not make it a fair challenge. I actually think there contact on foot first. But that aside I think its a careless trip.
It is clear from the footage that even if the defender did touch the ball it was very slight compared with the contact on the attacker and also clear that the ball was not touched before the attacker, so it is expected to award the penalty.
I think that’s a fair view to have James, though for me, without VAR, this was an ‘in the moment’ decision and I can see exactly why from his very credible position the Referee didn't award a penalty. If this had been a VAR review and then to an MCS panel, I wouldn’t like to hazard a guess where the decision would fall, but I don’t believe it’s a clear & obvious error & there will be subjective views from both sides of the table for what is a very subjective decision.
It might be a penalty, but it certainly wasn't a "blunder". The referee gets one look at it, he presumably sees contact on the ball so says no foul. With multiple replays there's an argument to say there's a slight touch on the attacker before the ball, but that doesn't make it a blunder.
The acid test is would VAR have got involved, and I don't think they would have, certainly not this season with the higher bar.
The acid test is would VAR have got involved, and I don't think they would have, certainly not this season with the higher bar.
Yes it would be interesting to see how VAR handles a similar incident. I'd hope that they wouldn't overcomplicate it - a tackle from behind that brings down the attacker without getting to the ball first should be considered a C&O foul for any ref.
I can always understand a ref making a mistake in the moment as we are all capable of i.e. thinking ball might have been reached first, though for me I'd want to be sure about that when dealing with a tackle from behind that brings down the opponent.
I can always understand a ref making a mistake in the moment as we are all capable of i.e. thinking ball might have been reached first, though for me I'd want to be sure about that when dealing with a tackle from behind that brings down the opponent.
As I said, the current VAR set up in England would be going nowhere near this.
Can I take it you are a Leeds fan, given that no one else is taking anywhere near as much umbrage about this decision? It is certainly a debatable decision, I'd support both penalty and no penalty, yet you are 100% and even referred to it as a blunder.