ALM Round 17 v the Drive Bys, sans Rudan

[Hello Sailor]

Show the frame where he kicks out Ronnie's leg.

I've seen refs regularly call this a foul tackle even if the tackler got a touch on the ball. It should make no difference if it is in the box or elsewhere on the pitch. I dont think he kicked Barcellos at all, I think Barcellos's leg tripped Cleur.
In any case the ref had a good view, the defenders didn't seem to protest much and VAR wasnt considered necessary. I'll take the points but I would have preferred to beat them without needing a milked pen.

 

[Stuartmcateer]

You mean the next frame where he trips the defender.View attachment 3113

The 2 pics in the original post show 2 different stories.

The first one looks like Ronald is barging into the defender whereas the second one looks like the defender has come through the back of Ronald.

That's why I dislike using still frame.

 

[dlanod]

VAR wasnt considered necessary.

VAR would've reviewed it, they review every penalty. They saw nothing to bring to anyone's attention.

 

[pjennings]

The 2 pics in the original post show 2 different stories.

The first one looks like Ronald is barging into the defender whereas the second one looks like the defender has come through the back of Ronald.

That's why I dislike using still frame.

Especially for VAR. For that there should be viewing from all angles in normal times - but only one viewing. No slow motions and no still frames. If you can't tell from that it is not a clear and obvious penalty.

 

[Stuartmcateer]

Especially for VAR. For that there should be viewing from all angles in normal times - but only one viewing. No slow motions and no still frames. If you can't tell from that it is not a clear and obvious penalty.

I'd be a bit more generous. Three views and 1/2 speed. But not super slow or still.

 

[Wombat]

He's in the running for the Oscars but based on the rules it's a clear Pen.

I'm giving you a thumbs up for the Oscars comment. The fact is he stepped across him and dived in one motion. Absolutely not a foul (so therefore not a penalty) but well milked. He 100% played for the penalty with no intention of getting the ball. Street cunning.

 

[Ironbark]

He did but there was also contact making it legal

 

[sydmariner]

 

[Ozhammer]

- 100% red for Faz - needs to stop that

And I'm nearly always right.

Not saying you’re wrong Quirky but if Faz’s challenge was a red, then so was Clisby’s on Brandtman if we’re being consistent.

I still can’t believe that Wankerers didn’t get a single card awarded, as Clisby and Priestman both deserved them imo.

 

[pjennings]

Not saying you’re wrong Quirky but if Faz’s challenge was a red, then so was Clisby’s on Brandtman if we’re being consistent.

I still can’t believe that Wankerers didn’t get a single card awarded, as Clisby and Priestman both deserved them imo.

I don't think Faz's was a red. But he did another challenge that should have got him a second yellow. That said Clisby did two on Brandtman that both should have been yellow.

 

[shipwreck]

I've watched the pen about 10 times now and I'm sorry but I have to disagree with anyone saying it's not a pen, despite all the efforts put in to screenshot certain frames.

If a player gets in front of you in the box you can't play at the ball, because if you make any contact, it's a pen...

 

[Tevor]

drive bys

I've watched the pen about 10 times now and I'm sorry but I have to disagree with anyone saying it's not a pen, despite all the efforts put in to screenshot certain frames.

If a player gets in front of you in the box you can't play at the ball, because if you make any contact, it's a pen...

100%, I’m a little miffed that so many are adamant it’s not a Pen. If it wasn’t the Drive Byes would be carrying on like never before. All they whinge about is Faz not getting a red.

 

[Hello Sailor]

The 2 pics in the original post show 2 different stories.

The first one looks like Ronald is barging into the defender whereas the second one looks like the defender has come through the back of Ronald.

That's why I dislike using still frame.

yeah i get that but single frames were the only way to illustrate my point. Even then I had to play around with the format to enable posting due to their size. A clip would have been preferable but just not possible.

 

[Ads]

He did but there was also contact making it legal

I’m going to half agree with Wombat here.

His dive started before the contact, bent his body and back leg falling before the contact but did it in perfect timing that not obvious enough to get overturned.

Literally milliseconds more and the dive would have stood out more.

 

[FFC Mariner]

It was a pen - try to accept it. You all know we won right? Right?

 

[Corsair]

I'm giving you a thumbs up for the Oscars comment. The fact is he stepped across him and dived in one motion. Absolutely not a foul (so therefore not a penalty) but well milked. He 100% played for the penalty with no intention of getting the ball. Street cunning.

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct

IFAB Laws of the Game

www.thefa.com

A direct free kick is awarded if a player commits any of the following offences against an opponent in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force:
- impedes an opponent with contact
- pushes

On this occasion careless would be the judgement, hence no card (if i remember correctly).

He milked it but there was contact so the pen was awarded within the rules.

 

[Ancient Mariner]

It definitely was a penalty, I was there, I saw it taken and it went on the scoreboard.
Saying anything else is just fake news.

 

[style_cafe]

Brasillian, in the box, milks a penalty when touched seriously what else would you expect?…

 

[pjennings]

Brasillian, in the box, milks a penalty when touched seriously what else would you expect?…

Why are we talking about Shaun again?

 

[bikinigirl]

Why are we talking about Shaun again?

. bad touching