Penalty appeal and VAR

[HodgysBrokenThumb]

That’s not what the laws of the game state

View attachment 106124

I no longer understand the rules. Is there no over-riding rule on violent conduct? It seems odd that you can touch the ball with one foot and recklessly assault your opponent with the other foot, and it’s not a red card.

 

[BanderSerge]

I don't think it was malicious and he didn't intend to take him out, but he did raise his leg as they came together.

Also I feel the challenge had a degree of recklessness in that it was obvious he was going to take out the attacking player by committing himself to that challenge. As I saw it the way he went out meant he couldn't avoid taking him out which I don't think excludes you from being penalised.

But I accept that is my opinion and others may differ in their views.

Neither did Pickford v Van Djik? Look at the outrage and apologies that followed that game.

 

[BanderSerge]

Areola on Bogle or Ramsdale on havertz , which was the most reckless and dangerous?

Apples and pears? I presume you mean Werner when he took the touch of a rhino, saw that Basham was favourite and ran into Ramsdale?

 

[WhiteHawk]

It was almost as bad as a decision as this one.

 

[spongebobblade]

That’s not what the laws of the game state

View attachment 106124

As I said, if it’s wreckless it’s a red. It’s far more than denying a goal scoring opportunity. Just like with Pickford and Van Dyk it’s dangerous and has the potential to cause an opponent serious injury. He’s off the ground and out of control. If that’s an outfield player in the middle of the pitch it wouldn’t even be up for discussion.

 

[Klaatu Barada Nikto]

As I said, if it’s wreckless it’s a red. It’s far more than denying a goal scoring opportunity. Just like with Pickford and Van Dyk it’s dangerous and has the potential to cause an opponent serious injury. He’s off the ground and out of control. If that’s an outfield player in the middle of the pitch it wouldn’t even be up for discussion.

I’m literally quoting from the rule book, but yep, you know different.

It’s reckless, not wreckless by the way.

 

[corner_flag]

And a few minutes prior to that, an absolutely stonewall yellow card for a high kick against Fleck, which would have been a 2nd yellow.

To be fair, was it a high kick or a low head?

 

[spongebobblade]

I’m literally quoting from the rule book, but yep, you know different.

It’s reckless, not wreckless by the way.

Yes but your quoting for denying a goal scoring opportunity, I’m saying it’s reckless so it is different. If an outfield player touches the ball but follows through and wipes out the opponent completely then it’s reckless (see Lundstram v Brighton) Do we have a different rule for keepers? Happy to be quoted from your rule book if so

 

[wizadry]

To be fair, was it a high kick or a low head?

Obviously an high kick, luckily Fleck saw it coming and backed out otherwise he’d be back in hospital again. Shocking decision yet again, Jackie Chan and Bruce Lee never got that high ffs.

 

[Klaatu Barada Nikto]

Yes but your quoting for denying a goal scoring opportunity, I’m saying it’s reckless so it is different. If an outfield player touches the ball but follows through and wipes out the opponent completely then it’s reckless (see Lundstram v Brighton) Do we have a different rule for keepers? Happy to be quoted from your rule book if so

It’s not a different rule for keepers, it’s a different rule because of where it occurred. I agree, that if it had occurred outside of the box, it would have been a sending off.

 

[metalblade]

My thoughts watching in real time were "that's Bogle with a broken leg". That was an absolute horror challenge the keeper was never getting to the ball first, there is a huge difference between a keeper spreading himself and rushing out knowing he is going to clean a player out. Bogle is the luckiest kid alive that one of his legs if not both were not snapped in half, yes it was that bad. The rule book is ridiculous when a keeper can make a challenge like that but because he went for the ball and a penalty could be awarded he gets away with a red card for a reckless and dangerous tackle. It is a rule that really does need changing that was a career threatening challenge yet the most that can be awarded is a yellow card because it is in the penalty box, outside the box it is a red all day long.

 

[blade too long]

Souness: Areola challenge an assault

Graeme Souness was scathing in his opinion of referees in the Premier League after seeing Alphonse Areola’s challenge on Jayden Bogle go unpunished, which the pundit called ‘an assault.’

www.skysports.com

 

[Harrisblade]

Keeper wouldn’t have been sent off though. It wasn’t a deliberate foul.

Apart from FA Law 12 - Serious Foul Play where it fits the definition of a 'reckless challenge'

 

[Klaatu Barada Nikto]

Apart from FA Law 12 - Serious Foul Play where it fits the definition of a 'reckless challenge'

Yes, but does the penalty area rule override that?

 

[Harrisblade]

Yes, but does the penalty area rule override that?

You mean the 'denying a goal-scoring opportunity rule'?
LAW 12 states that reckless challenge is punishable by a direct free kick, so if in penalty area a penalty.
If a reckless challenge happens to prevent a goal being scored, the reckless challenge isn't somehow down-graded to a denial of goal-scoring opportunity.

 

[Klaatu Barada Nikto]

You mean the 'denying a goal-scoring opportunity rule'?
LAW 12 states that reckless challenge is punishable by a direct free kick, so if in penalty area a penalty.
If a reckless challenge happens to prevent a goal being scored, the reckless challenge isn't somehow down-graded to a denial of goal-scoring opportunity.

Yet the prevailing commentary has been “any other area of the pitch and that’s a sending off.”

 

[Champagneblade]

I see Dermot Gallagher continues his ongoing crusade of trying to confirm the refs always get things right. Apparently it was a block and he gets a lot of the ball.

Respectfully, I'd argue that's bollocks.

If he gets a lot of the ball then he'd be in control of that. The ball brushing your standing leg is not 'getting' anything.

As for a block, how can it be? It's a full blooded whack across the knees with a kick that totally missed it's target.

He might know the rules more than all of us but the guy is a blind fool is that is his observation.

 

[Deadbat]

I see Dermot Gallagher continues his ongoing crusade of trying to confirm the refs always get things right. Apparently it was a block and he gets a lot of the ball.

Respectfully, I'd argue that's bollocks.

If he gets a lot of the ball then he'd be in control of that. The ball brushing your standing leg is not 'getting' anything.

As for a block, how can it be? It's a full blooded whack across the knees with a kick that totally missed it's target.

He might know the rules more than all of us but the guy is a blind fool is that is his observation.

Gallagher's takes on Sky and that chap Peter Walton on BT are a complete waste of time. They just protect their own.

13 more games of this nonsense at least and then we can at least forget VAR for a good period - granted loads will be saying 'if only we had VAR' come August when we get a bad decision!

 

[Champagneblade]

Gallagher's takes on Sky and that chap Peter Walton on BT are a complete waste of time. They just protect their own.

13 more games of this nonsense at least and then we can at least forget VAR for a good period - granted loads will be saying 'if only we had VAR' come August when we get a bad decision!

If his description of the incident doesn't involve a single reference to Daily Thompson's Decathlon, then he's quite frankly fallen below the bar of acceptability

 

[Deadbat]

If his description of the incident doesn't involve a single reference to Daily Thompson's Decathlon, then he's quite frankly fallen below the bar of acceptability

Maybe they get VAR (offside) decisions from graphics like above?

 

[Harrisblade]

Yet the prevailing commentary has been “any other area of the pitch and that’s a sending off.”

Surely that's just to emphasise the though that it should have been a penalty, not a reason that it wasn't

 

[Varkanoid]

It was almost as bad as a decision as this one.

the referee on 32 seconds always makes me laugh as he shakes his head after the throw as if it say sorry thats not good enough for WWE. I hope that video follows him everywhere.

 

[spongebobblade]

It’s not a different rule for keepers, it’s a different rule because of where it occurred. I agree, that if it had occurred outside of the box, it would have been a sending off.

I see Dermot Gallagher continues his ongoing crusade of trying to confirm the refs always get things right. Apparently it was a block and he gets a lot of the ball.

Respectfully, I'd argue that's bollocks.

If he gets a lot of the ball then he'd be in control of that. The ball brushing your standing leg is not 'getting' anything.

As for a block, how can it be? It's a full blooded whack across the knees with a kick that totally missed it's target.

He might know the rules more than all of us but the guy is a blind fool is that is his observation.

Mark Halsey agrees it SHOULD have been a penalty and that the Fulham keeper only makes contact with the ball a split second after clattering Bogle. He thought it was a clear and obvious error and the picture in the sun confirms it for me

 

[spongebobblade]

i will repent my sins in the confessional box for reading the Sun at some point in the week

 

[Klaatu Barada Nikto]

Mark Halsey agrees it SHOULD have been a penalty and that the Fulham keeper only makes contact with the ball a split second after clattering Bogle. He thought it was a clear and obvious error and the picture in the sun confirms it for me

I’ve never argued it shouldn’t have been a penalty.

 

[Sean Thornton]

Doesn’t matter about his height, it’s dangerous play when a foot is put in at head height and should have been a (second) yellow. Atkinson was looking straight at it and bottled the decision. Our biggest problem there was the fact we never seem to get involved with the ref like others teams do. Don’t get me wrong, I’m glad we don’t but we need to get much better at the dark arts side of the game at this level.

He wasn’t booked because there was no contact. Making it easy for Atkinson. Should have been a free kick though.

As for the pen, who was at Stockley Park and which deceitful twat came up with the 59/50 challenge nonsense. They clearly decided the word reckless didn’t exist in that time frame.

PGMOL isn’t fit for purpose and seemingly has no responsibility to see fair play, but is determined to protect its “brand” at all costs.

 

[Sean Thornton]

I may have got carried away in some of my comments on here with people throwing around words like corruption and assault tbh.

As I've said, I can see why some people would see it as a pen and why it might have been given. If that was a defender, it would have been a pen.

It's a keeper though. A keeper who blocked the shot with his left and followed through with his right. Could he have stopped his right foot, I don't know. I really don't think it was malicious. He was just making sure he saved the shot. Keepers routinely slide/run out, get the ball and then take the man following through. I really don't see any difference here. The ball had gone, it didn't stop a goal and thankfully Bogle seems ok.

It doesn’t have to be malicious though. That’s a bit of a red herring Robbie.

 

[norfolkblade]

He wasn’t booked because there was no contact. Making it easy for Atkinson. Should have been a free kick though.

As for the pen, who was at Stockley Park and which deceitful twat came up with the 59/50 challenge nonsense. They clearly decided the word reckless didn’t exist in that time frame.

PGMOL isn’t fit for purpose and seemingly has no responsibility to see fair play, but is determined to protect its “brand” at all costs.

Agree with all that other than the first bit, I thought endangering an opponents safety was a bookable offence regardless of contact (or not). I’d have thought a head high boot would fit the bill for that? I’ve given up trying to follow whatever it is they are trying to achieve!

 

[Sean Thornton]

Agree with all that other than the first bit, I thought endangering an opponents safety was a bookable offence regardless of contact (or not). I’d have thought a head high boot would fit the bill for that? I’ve given up trying to follow whatever it is they are trying to achieve!

Badly worded. Atkinson didn't book the player because there was no contact. How he didn't award a free kick though as Fleck had to back off?

 

[Harrisblade]

Agree with all that other than the first bit, I thought endangering an opponents safety was a bookable offence regardless of contact (or not). I’d have thought a head high boot would fit the bill for that? I’ve given up trying to follow whatever it is they are trying to achieve!

Anybody got a clip of Kilgallon s/o at Hillsborough?