Being ignored due to not being bothered to engage with ad hominems.
This has been helpful to see how some refs might assess tackles from behind differently from myself, but the arguments for it not having been awarded have been:
- Difficult to judge in real time (understandable, but doesn't make it not a foul)
- Ball reached first (objectively not true from the video)
- Ball reached at all (weak justification when considering a tackle from behind)
- Contact was slight (certainly enough to bring down the attacker, and also weak justification when considering a tackle from behind)
So we have an incorrect KMI decision, when the safer decision on tackles from behind that bring down the attacker would tend to be awarding a foul, which is why I called it a 'blunder'.
It's being ignored because it's fact.
It's a simple question.
Everyone in the thread has given their opinion on the matter but you are arguing against it all.
As we all know, foul challenges are very much open to opinions, where people share their views and can see it from other people's perspective.
You, on the other hand, are making it out that you personally are hard done by. You are not accepting that, actually, the on field referee has made a decision with just 1 single look and came to the same conclusion that several on this forum have come to with multiple looks and angles.
It's not to say he was right, but plenty have given arguments for and against a penalty which, if I'm not mistaken, would make it a subjective call and one you'd probably see given in another game and have the same response like you have got in here - can see arguments for both given and not given.
But you're not accepting that as a response.
I actually think he did get to the ball first before the player. It's not a case of factual here as the angles and the quality of video (when zoomed in) are not that great. It is, for everyone, an opinion. Just like the onfield referee had.
In my opinion, the Leeds player moves his right leg over beyond the playing of the ball to initiate contact too. If he didn't, the defender would have almost definitely have made contact with the player first before the ball and that may have swayed more for a penalty.
Remember any contact in the area, whether we like it or not, will have a higher threshold than outside the area. It's as simple as that. Yes you might see it given on the half way line, but the subjective opinion of giving it on the half way (meaning, you could potentially be right or wrong) doesn't "almost" guarantee a goal by giving a penalty. By getting it "wrong" on the half way you're not effectively giving a goal (most penalties are scored), but getting it wrong in the area (if given) is much more costly (hence a higher threshold).
Question (and be completely honest here), would you be so hyped up on this if the incident happened at the other end of the pitch or would you be saying "good tackle"?
