NED V ENG Euro SF

[bloovee]

The more I watch it the more I'm satisfied the VAR was right to intervene. Think this photo sums it up for me:

If you're going in studs first like that, get none of the ball and make contact with the opponent, it should absolutely be a foul every time.

Photo shows Kane kicking Dumfries's foot.
Dumfries got none of the ball because Kane shot over. If it had been on target, it would have been a great block. Especially if an England defender had done it.

 

[ARF]

Photo shows Kane kicking Dumfries's foot.
Dumfries got none of the ball because Kane shot over. If it had been on target, it would have been a great block. Especially if an England defender had done it.

And if my aunt had round objects...

Reckless challenge, pen + caution correct.

 

[Wolf_Ref]

Really not sure it needed a caution though.

I think if it’s given as a foul; it is reckless. But I’m very red and white bias. So tough to be impartial.

 

[one]

Photo shows Kane kicking Dumfries's foot.

When the judge charged me with assault I tried to explain that it was the other guy's fault. He 'faced' my fist. And had he not moved his face my fist would have missed his face.

 

[one]

Football doesn’t expect a shot away and attempted block with contact to be an offence.

This is more in England. And generally if contact is reckless or UEF, it becomes much less of an expectation.

 

[RefereeX]

A lot of people out there seem to accept that this is a foul if it happens to a defender clearing the ball in his own box but don’t accept that it should be a penalty.

 

[Kent Ref]

It was bizarre to hear the referee pundit on ITV says tht is not a penalty and it wont be reviewed.

Seconds later it was reviewed.

Why was it referred by VAR if people on here are saying it wasn't "clear and obvious"? What is this threshold for reviewing incidents?

 

[Gabriel]

It was bizarre to hear the referee pundit on ITV says tht is not a penalty and it wont be reviewed.

Seconds later it was reviewed.

Why was it referred by VAR if people on here are saying it wasn't "clear and obvious"? What is this threshold for reviewing incidents?

Agree, it was a very bizarre incident from start to finish. First time I recall during this tournament as well that Christina Unkel (if that is her name!) incorrectly predicted the outcome. Slightly off topic, but she has been amazing so far explaining the laws to the somewhat clueless commentators about

 

[JamesL]

Why was it referred by VAR if people on here are saying it wasn't "clear and obvious"?

Appreciate that you hold our opinions in such high regard but I am pretty sure checking what the good folks down at refchat think isn't a consideration when determining what is a clear and obvious error.

What is this threshold for reviewing incidents?

The threshold is subjective. I personally think this was right to be reviewed.

I think the severity plays some part in it, not that it necessarily should, but the fact it was also a reckless challenge as well probably increases the clear and obvious ometer.

I do also think Kane played it well making sure the VAR definitely suspected something to look at. I don't doubt his foot was sore, that would have been painful but he made sure the game couldn't restart and there was sufficient time for the check / review to not be rushed.

 

[BCMilan]

Wasn't a pen for me in real time. Purely, because Kane over exaggerates everything. It didn't impede his shot. The guy made a genuine effort to block the shot. If the law says i'm wrong, then so be it. But, you give those in grassroots and you'll get ripped apart

 

[DavidObs]

Wasn't a pen for me in real time. Purely, because Kane over exaggerates everything. It didn't impede his shot. The guy made a genuine effort to block the shot. If the law says i'm wrong, then so be it. But, you give those in grassroots and you'll get ripped apart

I agree with you about grassroots and in 95-99% of cases I don’t think a penalty would be awarded in the uk & probably not in higher levels of football up to & including the PL. However, in European football/Referees they sometimes see things in a different way & this was one such occasion.

 

[Quarryref]

My view on this is I am happy either way with decision on field, but I struggle to see how it reaches any definition of a clear and obvious error.

Two observations I would make

1. On definition of reckless., for me there is a clear difference between 'leaving a foot in' where there is no realistic attempt to block a shot (or more often a clearance from the full back area) and a genuine attempt to block a shot where everyone would expect the defender to try to do exactly that and he had a good chance of succeeding. In some of the pundit comments about 'anywhere else on the field' I think those two are being mixed up. Unfortunately as referees, I think we also have to hold our hands up and admit the 'safe defensive free kick' mantra has a part to play in that analysis
2. As referees, in the same way as we don't allow 'but he played the ball' to be a universal get out for a foul, I think we need to be very careful not to allow 'studs up' to be an automatic indicator of something sinister. Reasonable / expected foot shape, like body shape, has context.

 

[ARF]

The guy made a genuine effort to block the shot.

Not an attempt to block the ball in my book. It's a late, reckless tackle.

 

[DavidObs]

View attachment 7408

Not an attempt to block the ball in my book. It's a late, reckless tackle.

 

[DavidObs]

Very good clip & I can see why it was referred to VAR, but …!

 

[Tealeaf]

View attachment 7408

Not an attempt to block the ball in my book. It's a late, reckless tackle.

Now with that angle and speed I’m much more comfortable with a penalty than I was last night.

 

[one]

For me, after a foul, even a lamer excuse by a player than "I got the ball ref" is "I was going for the ball ref".

I am really surprised there are so many supporters of "no penalty at grassroots" here. Not sure if it is the higher level of acceptance of physicality in England. But where I referee in Sydney, everyone neutral would expects a penalty here.

 

[Gabriel]

For me, after a foul, even a lamer excuse by a player than "I got the ball ref" is "I was going for the ball ref".

I am really surprised there are so many supporters of "no penalty at grassroots" here. Not sure if it is the higher level of acceptance of physicality in England. But where I referee in Sydney, everyone neutral would expects a penalty here.

That angle has completely changed my opinion and made me think they were 100% correct to award the penalty (still not C&O though in my opinion), but I still don't think I'd give that on a Sunday morning at Hangover FC! I would, however, award that if it occurred in the Saturday league that I do (higher standard and therefore would be accepted). Very much depends on the circumstances. As you said though, we do seem to have a higher tolerance in England when it comes to physicality.

 

[Pembroke]

I'm in trouble if I get the players round before a game and tell them if you challenge for the ball and fail to get it and make contact I will blow for a foul every time. With having to remove arms to avoid handball and no contact football this is not the football that football wants at the levels I ref at.

 

[wazztie16]

I'm in trouble if I get the players round before a game and tell them if you challenge for the ball and fail to get it and make contact I will blow for a foul every time. With having to remove arms to avoid handball and no contact football this is not the football that football wants at the levels I ref at.

That's not how it works though. It's the way/manner that you make contact with a player. Not the fact that you just make contact. Plenty of contact is 'normal football contact'.

But last night's foul wasn't.