The Ref Stop

Norway Vs England

Big Cat said:
I think whats completely ludicrous is that despite us both being experienced and informed tefetees, you think thos is clearlu a pen and i think the opposite. That must be down to very different expectations depending on who coaches us etc... Which is mad.
Not that i abide by all cpaching, but i find it easier to be consistent when i omvaroably tirm doen claoms for fouls involving any degrer of upper nody contacy
Click to expand...
I think we’ll agree more after a few more jars!
 
The Ref Stop
My thoughts on the Spence penalty. I'd like to think I'm impartial on this. Protecting/Shielding the ball is one way of looking at it, the other way is tripping an opponent. Most descriptions given here can also be used for id Spence attempted to trip the Norway player. I really can't give a good description of how I would differentiate between the two but in this cas had the Norway player had fallen over instead of Spence, it would have been a clear trip.

one of the bigger considerations is the position of the two players in relation to each other and the ball. In this case they are more or less side by side and equal distance to the ball.
1000044557.jpg


1000044554.jpg

Another point I would make is that had the Norway player brought his leg across the same way as Spence did, most on this forum would have still wanted a penalty.

Obviously the other consideration is who had posession of the ball immeduately prior and I guess that is why the ref gave a penalty.
 
Big Cat said:
I think whats completely ludicrous is that despite us both being experienced and informed tefetees, you think thos is clearlu a pen and i think the opposite. That must be down to very different expectations depending on who coaches us etc... Which is mad.
Not that i abide by all cpaching, but i find it easier to be consistent when i omvaroably tirm doen claoms for fouls involving any degrer of upper nody contacy
Click to expand...
This is fantastic.
 
one said:
My thoughts on the Spence penalty. I'd like to think I'm impartial on this. Protecting/Shielding the ball is one way of looking at it, the other way is tripping an opponent. Most descriptions given here can also be used for id Spence attempted to trip the Norway player. I really can't give a good description of how I would differentiate between the two but in this cas had the Norway player had fallen over instead of Spence, it would have been a clear trip.

one of the bigger considerations is the position of the two players in relation to each other and the ball. In this case they are more or less side by side and equal distance to the ball.
View attachment 8783


View attachment 8784

Another point I would make is that had the Norway player brought his leg across the same way as Spence did, most on this forum would have still wanted a penalty.

Obviously the other consideration is who had posession of the ball immeduately prior and I guess that is why the ref gave a penalty.
Click to expand...
Spence was in possession of the ball and goal side. He places his body in a position to shield the ball, secure possession and in a position where he cannot be challenged. Spences next touch would have been to pass, or shoot.

1783873515879.png
 
Last edited:
Pembroke said:
Spence was in possession of the ball and goal side. He places his body in a position to shield the ball, secure possession and in a position where he cannot be challenged. Spences next touch would have been to pass, or shoot.

View attachment 8789
Click to expand...
That still (and I must admit mine too) are not accurate. The telling still is immediately prior to when spence put his leg across. IMO the Norway player had as much chance (if not better) as getting the next touch as spence did.
 
I think it is simple. Spence has the ball. Defender gets too close and clatters him. Yes, Spence moves his body and legs. If this isn’t a foul I certainly need new training and new references.
 
one said:
That still (and I must admit mine too) are not accurate. The telling still is immediately prior to when spence put his leg across. IMO the Norway player had as much chance (if not better) as getting the next touch as spence did.
Click to expand...
Spence was in possession. Spence was goal side. And then Spence put his body in a position where he could not be challenged. Next the Norwegian player carelessly took his opponent out..
 
Pembroke said:
Spence was in possession. Spence was goal side. And then Spence put his body in a position where he could not be challenged. Next the Norwegian player carelessly took his opponent out..
Click to expand...

Of course he took his opponent out because Spence chucked his leg in the defenders path to instigate contact, the defender made no attempt to challenge Spence with his legs.

Of course an attacker can put there leg across the defender but they shouldn't be getting a penalty for it, it's just not a foul and should be encouraged to be a foul.
 
Paul_10 said:
Of course he took his opponent out because Spence chucked his leg in the defenders path to instigate contact, the defender made no attempt to challenge Spence with his legs.

Of course an attacker can put there leg across the defender but they shouldn't be getting a penalty for it, it's just not a foul and should be encouraged to be a foul.
Click to expand...

I would now agree with you if Spence could remove his legs and chuck them in the path of an opponent that this would be unnatural.

What Spence did was natural. He protected a football that was in his possession, and an opponent knocks him over challenging for the ball, a ball the player does not make contact with, or get close to. Its a foul.
 
Pembroke said:
I would now agree with you if Spence could remove his legs and chuck them in the path of an opponent that this would be unnatural.

What Spence did was natural. He protected a football that was in his possession, and an opponent knocks him over challenging for the ball, a ball the player does not make contact with, or get close to. Its a foul.
Click to expand...

We just have to agree to disagree. I can't see this anything other than the attacker deliberately making an movement to create contact, the defender doesn't cause the contact by attempting to challenge for the ball.

In a strange sort of way, I hope Messi does this against England in the semis and get a penalty which does not get overturned and how many people say it's an injustice...
 
Whilst I agree that defenders have a responsibility to avoid tripping attackers, I don’t think the Norwegian defender had a chance here as Spence deliberately and unnaturally stepped straight into his path.

That said I don’t think it was anywhere near enough of an error for VAR involvement, but I don’t think it was a foul either.
 
Paul_10 said:
We just have to agree to disagree. I can't see this anything other than the attacker deliberately making an movement to create contact, the defender doesn't cause the contact by attempting to challenge for the ball.

In a strange sort of way, I hope Messi does this against England in the semis and get a penalty which does not get overturned and how many people say it's an injustice...
Click to expand...

Spence deliberately protected the ball, as would be natural. The contact occurred because Spences opponent was competing and contesting for a ball that Spence was protecting, and that challenge was careless resulting in Spence being fouled.

Players in possession frequently cut across opponents with the ball. Are you stating this cannot occur if it results in a opponent carelessly colliding with the player in possession?
 
Pembroke said:
Spence deliberately protected the ball, as would be natural. The contact occurred because Spences opponent was competing and contesting for a ball that Spence was protecting, and that challenge was careless resulting in Spence being fouled.

Players in possession frequently cut across opponents with the ball. Are you stating this cannot occur if it results in an opponent carelessly colliding with the player in possession?
Click to expand...
I don’t think he did that, rather the only thing he deliberately did was draw contact. In moving his foot so far away from the ball he made it impossible to get a shot away, his only intention was to try to buy a penalty.
 
RustyRef said:
I don’t think he did that, rather the only thing he deliberately did was draw contact. In moving his foot so far away from the ball he made it impossible to get a shot away, his only intention was to try to buy a penalty.
Click to expand...

Would have? Passed or had a shot. Spence could do neither because his opponent who had got wrongside clattered into him, a foul, and a consequence of careless defending where the player challenged for a ball he could never win, and he did not.
 
Pembroke said:
Would have? Passed or had a shot. Spence could do neither because his opponent who had got wrongside clattered into him, a foul, and a consequence of careless defending where the player challenged for a ball he could never win, and he did not.
Click to expand...
The problem is that final movement of his right leg, it meant he couldn't do anything with the ball. He couldn't pass, he couldn't shoot, he made such an exaggerated movement to the right that he had effectively given up on being able to play the ball. It was 100% an attempt to draw a foul.

Had that movement of the right leg been a couple of centimetres I would say penalty, but it was so exaggerated he can only have done it for one reason.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top