The Ref Stop

Norway Vs England

The Ref Stop
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.
 
I like to compare this Spence incident to what most full backs do when running towards their own corner flag and an attacker chasing them down. They deliberately get in between ball and player and fall over at the slightest of touches to win a cheap free kick. In a lot of cases its just a case of getting something in front and falling down.
How is this different?
 
Looked to me like Spence dangled out his right leg and tripped the defender, rather than trying to shield the ball. Made himself big, in the hope of buying a penalty. Yet again, I think players would get many more of these decisions if they didn't keep playacting all the time
 
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...
But if someone in possession of the ball runs in front an opponent and is inadvertently tripped by them then it is a foul, regardless of whether the defender was trying to challenge for the ball or not at the moment that they tripped them.
 
RustyRef said:
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.
Click to expand...
He moved his leg the amount it needs to be moved so that he gets in front of his opponent. He is in possession and he effectively shields the ball by doing that. That is why the opponent goes into him—because Spence has put his leg between the ball and his opponent. Spence is allowed to first protect possession and then make his next action. That is not just legitimate, it's standard move, and normally results in a foul when contact is made from behind.
 
Lads and lasses - we won. Let's save the moaning for when it really matters - after we've lost.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: one
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top