Norway Vs England

[one]

I really can't think of many example of this a) being said by the majority on here and b) penalties being awarded in these scenarios.

Look at all the penalties 'earned' by Kane (or some he tried to earn) and you will find plenty of examples. I think I know what he is referring to.

 

[JamesL]

Look at all the penalties 'earned' by Kane (or some he tried to earn) and you will find plenty of examples. I think I know what he is referring to.

I can't think of any penalties that have been given where the attacker has bumped into the GK. If anything that usually goes the other way.

And certainly no one on here is supporting that either.

If you are referencing Kane's tendency to bump into players who are in the air they have rarely if ever resulted in a penalty being awarded!

 

[one]

I can't think of any penalties that have been given where the attacker has bumped into the GK. If anything that usually goes the other way.

And certainly no one on here is supporting that either.

If you are referencing Kane's tendency to bump into players who are in the air they have rarely if ever resulted in a penalty being awarded!

I think it comes down to what we take 'bumping' as. What I took it as is when the keeper runs for the ball and dive with hands outstretched (often in a one on one). The striker kicks the ball away/past the keeper and deliberately either runs directly into the keeper's body/arms or moves their foot into a different path than normal to make contact with the keeper. It is given as a penalty more often than not. The latter is cheating and the former is at least questionale. The striker is playing for a penalty rather then scoring a goal from open play.

 

[bester]

Fine line between drawing contact, taking contact and initiating contact.

@one you know if the player avoids contact he's not getting a penalty despite being disadvantaged by avoiding the goalkeeper's arm.

 

[one]

Fine line between drawing contact, taking contact and initiating contact.

@one you know if the player avoids contact he's not getting a penalty despite being disadvantaged by avoiding the goalkeeper's arm.

Hence the use of the word 'questionable'. It's withing the laws of the game but not the spirit of it the way I understand it.

It is not so much about avoiding contact. Mor about making the most out of it to buy a foul which otherwise would not have been. And I am not blaming players.

You say fine line, I say grey area.

 

[Pembroke]

He couldn't though, and that is my problem. He had moved his right foot so far unnaturally right he really couldn't do anything with the ball, from the body shape he was left in he just couldn't open himself up to pass the ball or make a shot. Had it just been a subtle move of his right leg to the right I would agree with you, but it was so exaggerated it has all kinds of alarm bells ringing.

I'm with others on this though, if we can't agree as referees whether it was a penalty or not VAR should have been leaving well alone. Perhaps my background as a defender is why I don't think it was a foul is influencing me, perhaps others who do think it was a foul were attackers, as would appear to be the case with Richards and Shearer.

Spence didn't move his right foot unnaturally, he moved to protect the ball, shielding of the ball is exaggerated, the body is used to create further separation between the ball and opponent by making the body larger.

As a former player (defender) ... Well the Norwegian player was only going to foul his opponent once he was wrong side if he made a challenge, and he carelessly challenged an opponent in possession of the football from a extremely poor defending position , knocking his opponent over and never making any contact with the football.

I will agree with VAR shouldn't be getting involved in that one.