LUT vs MID
- Thread starter Joshref
- Start date
A football expects thing unfortunately. If as a keeper you come flying out like that and don't get the ball the attacker will be going down, if you make any contact on the attacker it is getting given. And there is one camera angle that clear shows the keeper clipped the attacker's leg. Not necessarily saying it should be a penalty, rather I can see why it was given. One that really only referees are only complaining about, the "game" seem to accept it.
I follow a lot of the EFL pages on Twitter for Town news and they’re against it for the most part tbf. I don’t care really I’m a neutral for the game and the results of the game defo don’t affect Huddersfield miles below
But yeh Ive seen the angle where keeper clips him and for me he’s on his way down as soon as he loses the ball. Can see why Scott gave it but never a pen for me
Trying to be an impartial Boro fan, it’s one of those really. With the referees angle it’s always going to look like a penalty the majority of the time with the keeper throwing himself to ground at the feet of an off balance striker. It’s a mistake, but an understandable one
Ultimately I can be calm with it being a meaningless game for us though
Ultimately I can be calm with it being a meaningless game for us though
Cheating for me. It's endemic in our professional game and it wont change unless retrospective punishments are given.
I, after seeing 3 angles, cannot see ANY contact.
What the game expects is trotted out again. Really?
1:30
I, after seeing 3 angles, cannot see ANY contact.
What the game expects is trotted out again. Really?
1:30
Luton 2-1 Middlesbrough | Championship highlights
Highlights of the Sky Bet Championship match between Luton and Middlesbrough.
www.skysports.com
Cheating for me. It's endemic in our professional game and it wont change unless retrospective punishments are given.
I, after seeing 3 angles, cannot see ANY contact.
What the game expects is trotted out again. Really?
1:30
Luton 2-1 Middlesbrough | Championship highlights
Highlights of the Sky Bet Championship match between Luton and Middlesbrough.www.skysports.com
the game expects that cheaters prosper
ChasObserverRefDeveloper
Regular Contributor
Goalkeeper's knee caught attacker's foot . . .Cheating for me. It's endemic in our professional game and it wont change unless retrospective punishments are given.
I, after seeing 3 angles, cannot see ANY contact.
What the game expects is trotted out again. Really?
1:30
Luton 2-1 Middlesbrough | Championship highlights
Highlights of the Sky Bet Championship match between Luton and Middlesbrough.www.skysports.com
At the time the keeper clips his trailing leg he isn't even close to already going down. If you are running at speed and your trailing leg is clipped you will fall over. I actually think he makes a decent effort to stay up. The second angle is the one that clearly shows the clip.
Don't agree, there are loads of examples every week that are far, far worse than this. The keeper has got nowhere near the ball, if he makes that risky action and then makes any contact with the attacker why should he expect to escape punishment? If the attacker was already on his way down at the time of the contact then I would agree with you, but he very clearly wasn't and the contact has had a consequence.
Don't agree!
I don't blame Scott BTW... think he's a good Ref and we all get conned on occasion. My Luton Town mates were all c0ck-a-hoop (and didn't care either way). Three Counties Radio and TalkAdverts were banging on about 'this is why we need VAR' all the way to work this morning. Blah blah blah
Last edited:
What about when attackers feel "the slightest touch" and goes down. Is this fair or right? No.
Every contact between a keeper and an attacker is not a penalty.
This player MAY (but i'm still not convinced) have had some slight contact and made a meal of it.
I wonder how many professional refs would look at that and say penalty?
Do you think the keeper attempted to trip him then?Trips or attempts to trip etc. Is contact actually even required? (And yes, this is full on!)
I think you could make a case that the keeper failed to take care to avoid tripping him.
Or I could argue that it's possible to trip naturally as a result of trying to avoid making contact with someone. I specifically remember a toddler running across in front of me when I was carrying (fortunately empty) plates working in a bar - I didn't "make contact" with the toddler, but the crash of plates will confirm that I absolutely tripped over in the act of avoiding making contact!
You also have "challenges" in that section - again if I really wanted to, I think I could make a case that this keeper has challenged the attacker in a careless manner regardless of contact.
As I say, fully playing devils advocate here. But the overall point is that we're not really debating law as written, because the law on what constitutes careless is a) subjective and b) doesn't ever specifically require contact as the defining feature. What we're debating is what football has come to expect around penalty decisions - which is fine, but means we're unlikely to come to consensus as we'll all have different ideas of what we think football will expect.
Or I could argue that it's possible to trip naturally as a result of trying to avoid making contact with someone. I specifically remember a toddler running across in front of me when I was carrying (fortunately empty) plates working in a bar - I didn't "make contact" with the toddler, but the crash of plates will confirm that I absolutely tripped over in the act of avoiding making contact!
You also have "challenges" in that section - again if I really wanted to, I think I could make a case that this keeper has challenged the attacker in a careless manner regardless of contact.
As I say, fully playing devils advocate here. But the overall point is that we're not really debating law as written, because the law on what constitutes careless is a) subjective and b) doesn't ever specifically require contact as the defining feature. What we're debating is what football has come to expect around penalty decisions - which is fine, but means we're unlikely to come to consensus as we'll all have different ideas of what we think football will expect.
I don't see any contact, FWIW. Maybe very little but not enough for a penalty here since the attacker was already falling over when this alleged contact occurred!
Attacker just seemed off balance, IMO. He just came in hot and fell over because he didn't have his feet under him. Sure, he didn't get up and probably did try to sell the pen a bit but I don't think I categorize this as, "cheating."
Attacker just seemed off balance, IMO. He just came in hot and fell over because he didn't have his feet under him. Sure, he didn't get up and probably did try to sell the pen a bit but I don't think I categorize this as, "cheating."
Watch it again and look at the stills I posted, he most definitely wasn't already falling over at the point of the contact.