|
|
Topic Originator: twin par
Date: Wed 19 Nov 01:43
How did the referee give that penalty.I am maybe wrong,but always thought an on the line foul ,was just a free kick.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: PARrot
Date: Wed 19 Nov 01:46
Quote:
twin par, Wed 19 Nov 01:43
How did the referee give that penalty.I am maybe wrong,but always thought an on the line foul ,was just a free kick.
He wasnt on the line. He was outside.
The defender had 1 foot on the line. The contact was outside
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: twin par
Date: Wed 19 Nov 01:59
So,not a penalty?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Playup_Pompey
Date: Wed 19 Nov 08:33
on the line is in the box
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Dave_1885
Date: Wed 19 Nov 08:44
On the line is in the box, and the attackers body was over the line when contact was made, so guessing thats why it was given.
Ref is classed as the best in the world these days, so not got many complaints.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: veteraneastender
Date: Wed 19 Nov 08:54
As above, the lines are part of the penalty area.
Always have been.
Penalty was correct decision IMO.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: DunfyDave
Date: Wed 19 Nov 09:00
Quote:
veteraneastender, Wed 19 Nov 08:54
As above, the lines are part of the penalty area.
Always have been.
Penalty was correct decision IMO.
^^^ Sorry VEE but it definitely looked like the defenders foot was firmly implanted outside the box line which means the contact and foul happened outside the box. Definitely a foul but no penalty.
But hey-ho we won in dramatical fashion and we are going to the finals ๐ฒ๐ฝ๐บ๐ธ๐จ๐ฆ
We were up for that match from the very start. It wS an awesome display from Scotland ๐ด๓ ง๓ ข๓ ณ๓ ฃ๓ ด๓ ฟ
DunfyDave
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Buspasspar
Date: Wed 19 Nov 09:12
Saw it live .. then the replays .. watched it again this morning on the highlights and I`m still not convinced it was a penalty
We are forever shaped by the Children we once were
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Bandy
Date: Wed 19 Nov 09:14
The location of the foul is often determined to be the point of contact. The point of contact looked on the line to me so a penalty was a fair enough call. One of those where the foul didn`t merit a penalty, but it was a penalty by the rules.
I thought the ref was excellent - decisive, no nonsense and consistent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Connor560
Date: Wed 19 Nov 09:47
Was a penalty for me.
I always think about it in a way of `is it a foul in the middle of the park?` If the answer is yes then it shouldn`t be viewed differently in the penalty box.
C'mon Ye Pars!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Wed 19 Nov 09:48
The moment I saw the replay, even before the VAR decision had been reached, I thought it was a penalty. I also thought the Danish yellow card was justified by current standards. He impeded McGinn with no intention of playing the ball.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: brian
Date: Wed 19 Nov 10:02
We will disagree about it ๐คทโโ๏ธ
Denmark player was outside the box no penalty,
Irrelevant now though ๐
____________________
contact: email me
File Share: https://share2.co.uk
ParsTV: https://ParsTV.co.uk
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: ipswichpar
Date: Wed 19 Nov 10:04
I thought there was maybe a foul on the Scottish player before the penalty was given away that wasn`t any worse (when Denmark won the ball back).
Still, all`s well that ends well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: SusieQ
Date: Wed 19 Nov 10:20
That`s what annoyed me about it - he gives the foul on McGinn, then there`s no penalty.
Didn`t think it was a penalty at the time, but as soon as VAR got involved we knew what was going to happen.
Thought at that point our luck from Saturday had run out.
Still can`t believe that ending lol!! Crazy bonkers bedlam ๐๐๐ผ๐ฅณ๐ด๓ ง๓ ข๓ ณ๓ ฃ๓ ด๓ ฟ
COME ON YE PARS!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: broontroot
Date: Wed 19 Nov 10:27
Wasnt a penalty for me ,but the ref made up for it with the red card for a perfectly good challenge
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Wed 19 Nov 10:43
He didn`t give a red card it was a yellow and how can you make `a perfectly good challenge` without winning the ball?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: d3monstrate
Date: Wed 19 Nov 10:45
Always look at decisions like that if it was the other way, would I be screaming for a penalty? Unfortunately, when waiting on VAR I was more hoping that it wouldn`t be given. There was a brief camera view that showed along the 18 yard line, and the contact looked on the line...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: onandupthepars
Date: Wed 19 Nov 11:15
Ref: d3monstrate Wed 19 Nov 10:45
" There was a brief camera view that showed along the 18 yard line, and the contact looked on the line..."
---------------------
Up to this point, I`ve been mystified as to how the ref gave a penalty. But what you say here suggests it`s not about where the Dane`s feet were - they were clearly outside the box - it`s where his body was. When contact was first made, his upper body was directly above the line? Is that it?
(Similar to your chest or arm making you offside even when your feet are not?)
Post Edited (Wed 19 Nov 11:18)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wetherby
Date: Wed 19 Nov 11:25
Agree that Robertson`s foot was on the line when contact was made but it looked like the point of contact was knee to knee ,knee to thigh and that point of contact was outside the box. If that were the case I assume no penalty?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: onandupthepars
Date: Wed 19 Nov 11:37
Two still images of Robbo`s tackle
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9YIktl4OXXw
These are the only images I can find so far. The first picture suggests Robbo`s left knee made contact first, but the second picture is earlier - and strongly suggests Robbo`s right knee was first, in which case the Dane`s knee must be just outside the box. The Dane is leaning into the box though, which means he`s in the box when contact was made?
Post Edited (Wed 19 Nov 12:18)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: onandupthepars
Date: Wed 19 Nov 11:47
I think this is the earliest photo of contact that I`ve found. And it appears to show that Robbo`s RIGHT knee made contact before his left? In any case Robbo is sort of rugby tackling the Dane, and that must have started a wee bit earlier.
Post Edited (Wed 19 Nov 12:18)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: broontroot
Date: Wed 19 Nov 12:49
Quote:
wee eck, Wed 19 Nov 10:43
He didn`t give a red card it was a yellow and how can you make `a perfectly good challenge` without winning the ball?
Sorry Eck , a 2nd yellow that equated to a red , but you knew what i meant , as for the challenge, ive just watched it another 4 times and still cant believe a yellow was given , absolutely nothing in it
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Wed 19 Nov 13:04
Yeah, I knew what you meant but I wanted to make clear the ref thought it was a yellow card offence rather than a red. Yellow cards are given for challenges like that every week under the current interpretation of the Laws. He made no contact with the ball and from the position he was in he had no prospect of getting the ball.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: MinnesotaAndy
Date: Wed 19 Nov 13:33
IMO I though the ref called it right on both incidents. Robertson`s foul seemed on the line. When you are moving at pace, even a slight contact is enough to throw you off balance, and the slight contact on McGinn was deliberate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Indiapar1
Date: Wed 19 Nov 13:52
I thought it was just outside the box albeitbthe player was inside the box. The Danish player and the player went down easily. The ref is going to give it under those circumstances. McGinn was impeded deliberately when he was able to create space and run in on goal. A yellow for sure and 2nd yellow hence the red.
G Wardrope
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: allanwilson10
Date: Wed 19 Nov 13:53
I think most of us agree that it was a foul. VAR confirmed it at the time, but what I don`t understand is why the ref had to go and look at the screen. Surely they could decide where the offence took place?
In our Scottidh Cup tie with Aberdeen, we were awarded a penalty by the ref which was deemed to be outside the box by VAR. I don`t recall the ref going over to check.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Bandy
Date: Wed 19 Nov 14:41
The ref originally gave nothing. No foul. So he had to go to the screen to confirm it was a foul. The factual bit about the foul being in the box would have been done by VAR...which is why the on field review was quick ..the on field ref just needed to confirm it was a foul, which it was.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: allanwilson10
Date: Wed 19 Nov 14:53
I`m sure the screens at Hampden confirmed early on that it was a foul - thd delay was determining if it wads inside or outside the box.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: thebear
Date: Wed 19 Nov 16:54
Scitish defender had foot on line, danish chap was outside, to me thats not a penalty
Re the red card, initially i thought it was dead certain, in slow mo not convinced
But right now i dont care
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: fcda
Date: Wed 19 Nov 17:05
VAR is supposed to be for clear and obvious errors. The part of it being a foul could be classed as such, but the fact it took so long to decide whether it was in the box, tells you that aspect wasn`t clear and obvious = free kick, but no penalty.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: onandupthepars
Date: Wed 19 Nov 21:07
Does anyone disagree that this picture shows Robbo fouling the Dane?
Does anyone disagree that the Dane`s feet are outside the box - i.e. his feet are not on the line?
Should a penalty be given when a player being fouled has both feet outside the box?
No-one has answered that yet, but after long consideration, I think it must be the case that, if the player who is being fouled has any part of his body inside the penalty area, a penalty is given. For example, you could imagine an attacker diving to head the ball with his feet outside the box, his head inside. While he`s in that position, a defender fouls him. Even if the defender was outside the box, the attacker was deemed to be inside, because of where his noodle was. Penalty is given.
Otherwise I can`t see why it was given. There must be a ref among us dotnetters who can confirm or refute that?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: onandupthepars
Date: Wed 19 Nov 21:25
To his great credit, Robbo, who I think was a bit dumfounded wi the ref before he went to the TV screen and awarded the pen, quickly regained his composure and was completely focused on the match thereafter.
Post Edited (Wed 19 Nov 21:27)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: twin par
Date: Wed 19 Nov 21:30
I am still baffled.After all,a goal is not given until the ball crosses the line.Thatโs why lines are there surely.No way is the foul,which it was,inside the box, as was the Danish player.
Post Edited (Wed 19 Nov 22:30)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: pars4life1
Date: Wed 19 Nov 21:40
The lines of the box are to show the box, I.e are part of it, just like the corner arc is part of the corner area and that the touch/side lines are part of the pitch.
Talk of first point of contact or where a players feet are seem quite weird questions to ask. The laws clearly state fouls are given where the last point of contact was when deciding penalty or free kick, and itโs the point of contact, not any other part of either player.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: veteraneastender
Date: Wed 19 Nov 22:22
"I am still baffled.After all,a goal is not given until the ball crosses the line.Thatโs why lines are there surely.No way is the foul,which it was,inside the box, as was the Dutch player."
The rules for the award of a goal are unconnected to those concerning foul play.
The lines demark all aspects of the field of play.
Incidentally, were we not playing Denmark last night ?
Post Edited (Wed 19 Nov 22:25)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: twin par
Date: Wed 19 Nov 22:32
Oops,my mistake! Corrected.
Post Edited (Wed 19 Nov 22:34)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Socks
Date: Thu 20 Nov 00:09
"Talk of first point of contact or where a players feet are seem quite weird questions to ask. The laws clearly state fouls are given where the last point of contact was when deciding penalty or free kick"
Where do the laws clearly say that? I was fairly sure that`s incorrect but had a look at Law 12 and Law 13 and still see no reference to that. Law 13 just says that a free kick is taken from the place where the offence occurred. So, it seems to come down to guidance, rather than what`s actually written in the laws of the game. Wullie Collum has explained a few of these recently, saying that holding is the only offence that can effectively be considered to continue into the box after initial contact, and all other fouls are judged to take place at the point of initial contact. Without wanting to sound arsey, I`d appreciate you saying where the laws say what you claim because I can`t see it and I don`t think your statement is correct.
From the angles shown, I thought it was impossible to say one way or the other on the initial point of contact, and it was harder because it was right on the corner and hard to say in both dimensions. Maybe the officials saw another angle. On the line is inside but it was still a very tight call.
I seem to be alone in this, but I thought the decision to give a foul was quite harsh as it looked like the player was already on the way down. In that case, who fouls who? Not a terrible decision but I don`t think it`s a clear foul.
The decision for the second yellow was an absolute shocker and he was very unlucky to go off for that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: onandupthepars
Date: Thu 20 Nov 00:47
(Technical hitch)
Post Edited (Thu 20 Nov 01:02)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: onandupthepars
Date: Thu 20 Nov 00:56
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73cVhK9qL1o
Here are the youtube highlights. The incident is shown repeatedly from about 1:16 to 1: 34. You can watch in slow motion at speed 0.25 if you click on the settings icon (the cog) bottom right of picture.
Seeing the action in motion rather than stills suggests to me that Robbo didn`t grab the Dane, but only had his arms on him lightly. Robbo reaches for the ball with his left leg, I think he misses and the Dane, possibly contacts Robbo`s right knee before doing what might be interpreted as a Neymar dive.
Now I don`t think the ref could justify it on the grounds of holding, so that`s me done.
Post Edited (Thu 20 Nov 01:01https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73cVhK9qL1o
Here are the youtube highlights. The incident is shown repeatedly from about 1:16 to 1: 34. You can watch in slow motion at speed 0.25 if you click on the settings icon (the cog) bottom right of picture.
Seeing the action in motion rather than stills suggests to me that Robbo didn`t grab the Dane, but only had his arms on him lightly. Robbo reaches for the ball with his left leg, I think he misses and the Dane, possibly contacts Robbo`s right knee before doing what might be interpreted as a Neymar dive.
Now I don`t think the ref could justify it on the grounds of holding, so that`s me done.
Post Edited (Thu 20 Nov 01:01)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: ubisanman
Date: Thu 20 Nov 09:49
As a nation we would have been haunted forever by that image if it had stayed at 1-1!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: dd23
Date: Thu 20 Nov 09:55
Could it be that the penalty was given because the contact was on his thigh, which was inside the box even though his feet were outside?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: brian
Date: Thu 20 Nov 10:04
IMO
no penalty. when he fell over the Dane`s hand (stretched out) did not even go inside the box.
justice was done on the day :o)
____________________
contact: email me
File Share: https://share2.co.uk
ParsTV: https://ParsTV.co.uk
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: DA-go Par Adonis
Date: Thu 20 Nov 10:11
Regardless of the exact position of the foul, it is a pretty ridiculous and disproportionate punishment, that a slightly mis-timed challenge on the corner of the 18-yard box is rewarded with a ยฃ70m striker getting a free shot at goal from 12 yards out.
I think if we were drawing up rules for football from scratch, the consequence for Robertson`s actions would be slightly less apocolyptic than a 77% chance of losing a goal.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Equal rights and justice in this time
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: neilholland999
Date: Thu 20 Nov 12:52
I`m not convinced it was a penalty, but had it been at the other end of the park we would all be screaming for a penalty!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Parsweep
Date: Thu 20 Nov 13:10
Quote:
neilholland999, Thu 20 Nov 12:52
I`m not convinced it was a penalty, but had it been at the other end of the park we would all be screaming for a penalty!
Exactly , but i think the same way about the Denmark red card , had that been the other way about , we`d be raging .
Bobvo
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: veteraneastender
Date: Thu 20 Nov 17:24
The Danish sending off was the result of a second yellow card, rightly so IMO.
|
|
|
|
|
|
