penalty, simulation or neither

[pankaye]

what are your opinions on this. i saw this on a group on Facebook. an overwhelming majority see this as no penalty and no simulation. i must admit that i am one of those that do see the foul and agree with the penalty. i am prepared to change my mind. but need more experienced heads on here to show me their points of view. any view would bee much appreciated


https://scontent-yyz1-1.xx.fbcdn.ne...=14b8cb36a7c920dcc9ca8fe2eaa10498&oe=5C4E9B4B

 

[Big Cat]

A penalty for me
A hard one to give though as my radar might have detected cheating in real time. I'm not keen on elite football, because cheating is so rife, I would probably have got this one wrong

 

[JH]

If you look closely, Matuidi is the one that initiates contact, accidentally, by standing on Hummel's foot. Technically no pen and play on but in real time I'm giving it as would most I expect.

 

[RustyRef]

I'm not sure Matuidi has deliberately initiated the contact though, his foot has landed where Hummel's foot was following the unsuccessful challenge for the ball. There's clear contact that would definitely bring him down, and from those angles it is very difficult to categorically state it was simulation.

 

[AlexF]

There's clear contact that would definitely bring him down, and from those angles it is very difficult to categorically state it was simulation.

I wouldn't call it simulation... there's contact, but there's really nothing unfair about it, despite the attacking player falling.

Benefit of replay, this is an easy "play on"... without? It's much harder, and looks like a penalty kick in real time.

 

[RustyRef]

I think just playing on is the one thing you can't really do. The defender has gone to ground, got nowhere near the ball and there is clear contact on the forward that undoubtedly brings him down. So all you can really decide is was the defender's action careless, in which case penalty, or did the attacker intentionally initiate the contact in which case IDFK and caution.

 

[AlexF]

So all you can really decide is was the defender's action careless, in which case penalty, or did the attacker intentionally initiate the contact in which case IDFK and caution.

For me, this is just a freak accident, neither careless by the defender nor intentionally initiated by the attacker.

 

[santa sangria]

I think just playing on is the one thing you can't really do. The defender has gone to ground, got nowhere near the ball and there is clear contact on the forward that undoubtedly brings him down. So all you can really decide is was the defender's action careless, in which case penalty, or did the attacker intentionally initiate the contact in which case IDFK and caution.

I don’t think either or either.

Play on for me.

In real time very very hard

 

[Big Cat]

For me, this is just a freak accident, neither careless by the defender nor intentionally initiated by the attacker.

I betcha most VARs are giving this. Any excuse for a penalty these days

 

[AlexF]

I betcha most VARs are giving this. Any excuse for a penalty these days

That's just this thing. Whether you call penalty, no call, or simulation, this is such a weird happenstance that none of them are really an obvious error.

Having said that, I wouldn't be surprised for VAR to send this one down (regardless) and simply say "you need another look at this because I have no idea what I'm looking at!"

 

[Big Cat]

That's just this thing. Whether you call penalty, no call, or simulation, this is such a weird happenstance that none of them are really an obvious error.

Having said that, I wouldn't be surprised for VAR to send this one down (regardless) and simply say "you need another look at this because I have no idea what I'm looking at!"

As long as the outcome is 'penalty', VAR can add another .1% to their enviable stats
Based on witnessing so many pens in the WC, I'd expect this to be given. I'd also expect to be waving my hand whilst running towards half way at grass roots

 

[one]

If you look closely, Matuidi is the one that initiates contact, accidentally, by standing on Hummel's foot. Technically no pen and play on but in real time I'm giving it as would most I expect.

Let's use this logic for another common incident. A player is going for a shot, a defender puts his studs in front, the follow through to the shot connects with the defender's studs. Using the logic the kicker is the person who has initiated contact. Is it play on?

The OP is penalty for me. Its a tough one because Hummel has eyes for the ball and had a good chance of playing it but unfortunately for him none of those make it a 'no foul'. Matuidi controls the ball away from him and Hummel's (fruitless) tackle has the consequence of felling Matuidi. This to me very closely fits the definition of careless.

 

[RustyRef]

I think in not awarding anything you are taking intent into account, and the laws don't allow for this. There is no doubt whatsoever that Hummel's outstretched leg brings down Matuidi, yes he didn't mean to but he did all the same, forget about intent. If I was observing here (and had the benefit of replays) I would expect either penalty or simulation, not giving anything is just a cop out.

 

[QuaverRef]

Pen for me. Yes ok, the player stood on Hummels foot. But that’s off the back of Hummels making a challenge, not winning the ball and ending up with his foot in the players running path causing him to lose his footing and bring him down.

 

[santa sangria]

This is a fascinating incident. I think all the comments here are valid. And I’m presuming an assessor would buy any of the decisions/reasons here.

Would be very interesting to hear a WC/CL VAR on this...

 

[pankaye]

Pen for me. Yes ok, the player stood on Hummels foot. But that’s off the back of Hummels making a challenge, not winning the ball and ending up with his foot in the players running path causing him to lose his footing and bring him down.

For me that is the crux of it. That is what makes it a foul. One of my working definitions of a careless tackles was not getting the ball and accidentally negatively impacting your opponent. The attacker had no way of avoiding the defenders foot once the tackle had gone in. It was a fair attempt at the start. It became unfair when the defender failed to get the ball and then became a trip hazard for the attacker.That is why I think it's a penalty. Perhaps I need to recalibrate what I think a careless foul is in my head.