Commentators obsession with Players Diving

[StevieH]

there's nothing in the rules of the game about how much pressure/contact constitutes a foul. did the player clip benteke? yes he did. then it's a foul. and since it was in the area, it's a penalty. i don't know why i'm bothering to keep this argument up to be honest. it was a foul, it was a penalty, it was really stupid defending and it was a great spot by the linesman. you keep bringing your opinion to it BB and you sound like a flat-earther arguing with simple facts.

You clearly have not noticed, that there are OTHERS on here beside me that do not agree it was a penalty.

so? they're wrong too. it was a foul. don't know how many ways to say this differently until it goes into heads here. one player tripped another player in the area. palace defender clipped benteke's leg in the penalty box. palace defender did not get the ball. it was a foul. it was a penalty. context, time of the match and this bizarre bullshit about 'not enough contact' is all nonsense and simply wrong. it's like being pregnant, it's a dialectic state, you either are or you're not and it's either a foul or it isn't. you can't be slightly pregnant and that foul on benteke can't be 'not-quite-enough-contact'. it was a foul. get over it. or go and read the laws of the game again. and this time try to understand them.

[Bredbury Blue]

So they're wrong too eh. Repeatedly posting your interpretation as being the correct one (here and on the Liverpool forum) while disparaging those who disagree with you changes nothing, isn't reflecting well, doesn't make the decision awarded the correct one nor sway those who's opinion is no penalty.

In fairness to this topic, I saw two polls yesterday on uk newspaper websites, and both had around 75% saying penalty and 25% saying no penalty. On these pages it seems more like 50/50. It was hardly a stonewall penalty then, and I think most on here would agree that their opinion is based on their interpretation of what they believe happened.

[StevieH]

are you going to make me type in block capitals here lad? it isn't an "interpretation" when it's a fact. it's not an "opinion" either, it's a simple A or B, yes or no answer, it's a fact. you can offer your opinion that the earth is flat, it'll still be incorrect. some people's opinion about the sun rotating around the earth is based on their interpretation of what they believe happened, and that's total nonsense too. some things are just facts. and you keep arguing about opinions when this was a simple fact of one player absolutely definitely tripping another.

so balls to polls, balls to interpretations, balls to opinions, it's a simple fact that the palace player tripped benteke. you seem to have painted yourself into such a corner on this now, probably based on your initial real-time view of the incident, that you're not prepared to see the facts that are in front of your eyes. player A tripped player B making no contact at all with the ball = penalty. give it up lad.

[champers]

Not an entirely bad day for Delaney. His donkey won the half mile race. (for lovers of the late, great Val Doonican).

[Bredbury Blue]

are you going to make me type in block capitals here lad? it isn't an "interpretation" when it's a fact. it's not an "opinion" either, it's a simple A or B, yes or no answer, it's a fact. you can offer your opinion that the earth is flat, it'll still be incorrect. some people's opinion about the sun rotating around the earth is based on their interpretation of what they believe happened, and that's total nonsense too. some things are just facts. and you keep arguing about opinions when this was a simple fact of one player absolutely definitely tripping another.

so balls to polls, balls to interpretations, balls to opinions, it's a simple fact that the palace player tripped benteke. you seem to have painted yourself into such a corner on this now, probably based on your initial real-time view of the incident, that you're not prepared to see the facts that are in front of your eyes. player A tripped player B making no contact at all with the ball = penalty. give it up lad.

People keep saying they disagree that it's a penalty but you seem to be trying to force your opinion on everyone that yours is the correct one and now that it's a fact etc.. Accept that others don't agree with you. Others think it was NOT a penalty and Liverpool were fortunate. Why can't you accept that and leave it there?

[StevieH]

are you going to make me type in block capitals here lad? it isn't an "interpretation" when it's a fact. it's not an "opinion" either, it's a simple A or B, yes or no answer, it's a fact. you can offer your opinion that the earth is flat, it'll still be incorrect. some people's opinion about the sun rotating around the earth is based on their interpretation of what they believe happened, and that's total nonsense too. some things are just facts. and you keep arguing about opinions when this was a simple fact of one player absolutely definitely tripping another.

so balls to polls, balls to interpretations, balls to opinions, it's a simple fact that the palace player tripped benteke. you seem to have painted yourself into such a corner on this now, probably based on your initial real-time view of the incident, that you're not prepared to see the facts that are in front of your eyes. player A tripped player B making no contact at all with the ball = penalty. give it up lad.

People keep saying they disagree that it's a penalty but you seem to be trying to force your opinion on everyone that yours is the correct one and now that it's a fact etc.. Accept that others don't agree with you. Others think it was NOT a penalty and Liverpool were fortunate. Why can't you accept that and leave it there?

because, for the 10th time and try to read this slowly and digest it, IT ISN'T AN OPINION. the player was tripped. the defender made a mistake, the linesman spotted it and, correctly, gave a penalty. there is no opinion here. it's not about interpretation, it's about a simple fact which is that the attacking player was fouled by the defender. there's no context, no maybes, one player tripped another. that you can't see it is bizarre and either really stupid or jut plain pig-headed. do you go outside at night and when someone says "it's dark out" argue "well that's just your opinion, i actually think it's quite light"?

[MrRed]

You talk some bolox some times me laddo.

IT IS ALL ABOUT OPINIONS AND THE LINESMANS/REFS IS THE ONE THAT COUNTS.....he got it Wrong! you are just pushing your opinion on every one here as you are digging a hole.

Now go and calm down you got lucky and Benteke dived get over it!

[Bredbury Blue]

are you going to make me type in block capitals here lad? it isn't an "interpretation" when it's a fact. it's not an "opinion" either, it's a simple A or B, yes or no answer, it's a fact. you can offer your opinion that the earth is flat, it'll still be incorrect. some people's opinion about the sun rotating around the earth is based on their interpretation of what they believe happened, and that's total nonsense too. some things are just facts. and you keep arguing about opinions when this was a simple fact of one player absolutely definitely tripping another.

so balls to polls, balls to interpretations, balls to opinions, it's a simple fact that the palace player tripped benteke. you seem to have painted yourself into such a corner on this now, probably based on your initial real-time view of the incident, that you're not prepared to see the facts that are in front of your eyes. player A tripped player B making no contact at all with the ball = penalty. give it up lad.

People keep saying they disagree that it's a penalty but you seem to be trying to force your opinion on everyone that yours is the correct one and now that it's a fact etc.. Accept that others don't agree with you. Others think it was NOT a penalty and Liverpool were fortunate. Why can't you accept that and leave it there?

because, for the 10th time and try to read this slowly and digest it, IT ISN'T AN OPINION. the player was tripped. the defender made a mistake, the linesman spotted it and, correctly, gave a penalty. there is no opinion here. it's not about interpretation, it's about a simple fact which is that the attacking player was fouled by the defender. there's no context, no maybes, one player tripped another. that you can't see it is bizarre and either really stupid or jut plain pig-headed. do you go outside at night and when someone says "it's dark out" argue "well that's just your opinion, i actually think it's quite light"?

You can tell us for an 11th or 12th time if you...answer will be the same, wasn't a penalty, Benteke bought the penalty. If it's a fact why are so many people on here and in the media in disagreement with it being a penalty. You opinion, penalty. My opinion, not a penalty. Let it go at that lad.

[Bredbury Blue]

http://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2016/mar/08/controversy-video-cameras-football-christian-benteke-crystal-palace-penalty

"It does not matter how many times you watch Damien Delaneys tackle on Christian Benteke during Liverpools controversial win at Crystal Palace on Sunday, there is no definitive answer to whether it should have been awarded as a penalty".

From a new Guardian article posted in the last hour (the main point of the article Chicog will like).

[Bredbury Blue]

The mods should make this a regular feature - "Ref was right or wrong"

That's the best idea you've ever had BB

Think opening this topic was the best idea you've ever had Alfie ;-)

[mrbojangles]

From Ref Review,

Liverpool penalty v Crystal Palace: Christian Benteke went down under a ‘challenge’ from Damien Delaney in the fifth minute of injury time. A highly-debatable decision this one as replays showed Delaney’s knee did catch Benteke’s leg, though whether enough to bring him down in the manner it did is another matter. The referee (who had consulted with his linesman before awarding the spot-kick) even admitted himself that the decision was wrong, with our panel narrowly voting 3-2 in favour of Alan Pardew. Verdict: Incorrect decision

http://www.teamtalk.com/news/ref-review-the-incorrect-decisions-from-week-29

Ref Watch: No foul on Christian Benteke against Crystal Palace, says Dermot Gallagher

http://www.skysports.com/football/news/11095/10195829/ref-watch

[NiwPix]

I just returned from bangkok and had shitty internet connection, so couldn't watch the video...until now.

for me, it is a foul. Did he go down too easy? We will never know, but please do sprint as fast as you can and while running fast get "slightly knocked on your foot...would love to see how well you can keep balance.

One thing that I would like to discuss though...I heard a couple of times, but never seen it in action, that I foul inside the penalty box does not necessary mean a penalty kick. Especially when it is not a clear goal chance. The ref has the choice to award a free kick.

Can anybody clarify this?

That would've been something to consider in this foul perhaps. It was not a clear chance at goal, there was a foul but only minor...maybe award a free kick from there?

[mrbojangles]

One thing that I would like to discuss though...I heard a couple of times, but never seen it in action, that I foul inside the penalty box does not necessary mean a penalty kick. Especially when it is not a clear goal chance. The ref has the choice to award a free kick.

Can anybody clarify this?

That would've been something to consider in this foul perhaps. It was not a clear chance at goal, there was a foul but only minor...maybe award a free kick from there?

The only time a free kick will be given in the penalty area is if the goalkeeper handles the ball after a pass back, releases the ball and then picks it up again or picks it up from a throw-in. There was a rule about goalkeepers not holding the ball for more than 6 seconds but I'm not sure if that one is still enforced. A foul by anyone in their own penalty area is a penalty.

[Bredbury Blue]

^Thats rule 12...6 seconds rule, backpasses picked up by goalie, goalie playing the ball twice (didn't joe hart do that recently). Foot up high by a defender would be an indirect freekick. Defender in the penalty box abusing the ref could result in an indirect.

[SantiSuk]

One thing that I would like to discuss though...I heard a couple of times, but never seen it in action, that I foul inside the penalty box does not necessary mean a penalty kick. Especially when it is not a clear goal chance. The ref has the choice to award a free kick.

Can anybody clarify this?

That would've been something to consider in this foul perhaps. It was not a clear chance at goal, there was a foul but only minor...maybe award a free kick from there?

The only time a free kick will be given in the penalty area is if the goalkeeper handles the ball after a pass back, releases the ball and then picks it up again or picks it up from a throw-in. There was a rule about goalkeepers not holding the ball for more than 6 seconds but I'm not sure if that one is still enforced. A foul by anyone in their own penalty area is a penalty.

Not comprehensively true Mr Bo.

Any direct free kick in the box becomes a penalty kick

Every indirect free kick in the box is not a penalty kick

The Laws of the Game define indirect free kicks as:

" ....[The four points about goalies outlined by Mr Bo] ...

An indirect free kick is also awarded ... if a player:

• plays in a dangerous manner,
• impedes the progress of an opponent,
• prevents the goalkeeper from releasing the ball form his hands
• commits any other offence, not previously mentioned in Law 12, for which play is stopped to caution or send off a player

So yes, the six second rule is still around but rarely seems to be punished these days and of course impeding the progress of an opponent is almost never punished (think of all those defenders shepherding balls over the bye line using their butts and arms to keep the attacker away from the ball)

[MrRed]

I just returned from bangkok and had shitty internet connection, so couldn't watch the video...until now.

for me, it is a foul. Did he go down too easy? We will never know, but please do sprint as fast as you can and while running fast get "slightly knocked on your foot...would love to see how well you can keep balance.

One thing that I would like to discuss though...I heard a couple of times, but never seen it in action, that I foul inside the penalty box does not necessary mean a penalty kick. Especially when it is not a clear goal chance. The ref has the choice to award a free kick.

Can anybody clarify this?

That would've been something to consider in this foul perhaps. It was not a clear chance at goal, there was a foul but only minor...maybe award a free kick from there?

Sorry pal but your sentence... Did he go down too easy? We will never know,... is <deleted> he <deleted> did we all know that as for the rest a foul in the box is a penalty IF THE HUNTY BOLOX IS NOT DIVING.

Benteke chanced it and got a result end of story really

If you need any info on the offside rule just go on the spurs thread they are all veterans there.

[smokie36]

Was that a penalty for Liverpool yesterday in your opinion? I thought it harsh on Palace and wouldn't have give it - Benteke was looking for it.

Had a challenge similar to yesterday gone in favour of your team, you would gladly accept the penalty.

Over a season, decisions go for you and against you.

Like it or not, the officials make the final decision, and once that decision is made there ain't much you can do about it, except moan.

Where do I moan?

My Buddha I live to whinge so I do!

[MrRed]

I tell you what i really would like the same scenario in the game against the mickeys this week.....see how the fekkers cry then lol!!!

[alfieconn]

I just returned from bangkok and had shitty internet connection, so couldn't watch the video...until now.

for me, it is a foul. Did he go down too easy? We will never know, but please do sprint as fast as you can and while running fast get "slightly knocked on your foot...would love to see how well you can keep balance.

One thing that I would like to discuss though...I heard a couple of times, but never seen it in action, that I foul inside the penalty box does not necessary mean a penalty kick. Especially when it is not a clear goal chance. The ref has the choice to award a free kick.

Can anybody clarify this?

That would've been something to consider in this foul perhaps. It was not a clear chance at goal, there was a foul but only minor...maybe award a free kick from there?

Sorry pal but your sentence... Did he go down too easy? We will never know,... is <deleted> he <deleted> did we all know that as for the rest a foul in the box is a penalty IF THE HUNTY BOLOX IS NOT DIVING.

Benteke chanced it and got a result end of story really

If you need any info on the offside rule just go on the spurs thread they are all veterans there.

You don't need to be a veteran to know the offside rule Red,even my 6 year old nephew knows the rule unlike yourself

[alfieconn]

Have to laugh when people keep making comments such as " there was no contact" "minimal contact" "not enough contact to go down" etc etc when in fact there doesn't have to be any contact at all,

• kicks or attempts to kick an opponent
• trips or attempts to trip an opponent

To be fair the rule seems to be totally in the attacking players favour so some posters who don't fully understand the rules are saying " incorrect decision" when they should be saying that " the rule is incorrect"

[alfieconn]

I just returned from bangkok and had shitty internet connection, so couldn't watch the video...until now.

for me, it is a foul. Did he go down too easy? We will never know, but please do sprint as fast as you can and while running fast get "slightly knocked on your foot...would love to see how well you can keep balance.

One thing that I would like to discuss though...I heard a couple of times, but never seen it in action, that I foul inside the penalty box does not necessary mean a penalty kick. Especially when it is not a clear goal chance. The ref has the choice to award a free kick.

Can anybody clarify this?

That would've been something to consider in this foul perhaps. It was not a clear chance at goal, there was a foul but only minor...maybe award a free kick from there?

No good mentioning "sprinting" on here NP as a majority of them can't remember the last time they sprinted anywhere, although i have heard that smokes likes to sprint away from the bar when it's his round

[Bredbury Blue]

Have to laugh when people keep making comments such as " there was no contact" "minimal contact" "not enough contact to go down" etc etc when in fact there doesn't have to be any contact at all,

• kicks or attempts to kick an opponent
• trips or attempts to trip an opponent

To be fair the rule seems to be totally in the attacking players favour so some posters who don't fully understand the rules are saying " incorrect decision" when they should be saying that " the rule is incorrect"

^To be fair the rule seems to be totally in the attacking players favour so some posters who don't fully understand the rules are saying " incorrect decision" when they should be saying that " the rule is incorrect" - How can the law be unfair? It's the law, and you have to play within the laws laid down, therefore it isn't unfair.

Law 12 is:

A direct free kick is awarded when a player commits any of the following in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force:

• Kicks or attempts to kick an opponent

• Trips or attempts to trip an opponent

(8 others are listed)

If a player commits a direct free kick offence within his own penalty area, a penalty kick is awarded irrespective of the position of the ball, provided the ball is in play.

The Interpretation of Law 12 further states:

• “Careless” means that a player has shown a lack of attention or consideration when making a challenge or that he acted without precaution. (No further disciplinary sanction is needed if a foul is considered to be careless)
• “Reckless” means that the player has acted with complete disregard to the danger to, or consequences for, his opponent. (A player who plays in a reckless manner must be cautioned)
• “Using excessive force” means that the player has far exceeded the necessary use of force and is in danger of injuring his opponent. (A player who uses excessive force must be sent off)

Did Delaney kick or attempt to kick an opponent? I don’t think so.

Did Delaney trips or attempt to trip an opponent? I don’t think so.

Was Delaney careless? I don’t think so.

Was Delaney reckless? Definitely not.

Was Delaney Using excessive force? Definitely not.

Therefore was it a foul? I don’t think so.

Dermott Gallagher, who is far more knowledgeable than any of us on here on this, and he also didn’t think it a foul and said:

A decision that has polarised opinion. I think no, but there are many people that think yes. I have watched this all the time and I think no, but what this does highlight to me is that if we have a video referee and we go to the video referee, we are still not going to get a decision that everybody is going to agree on. The reason I say that is that the two guys sat here - Neil McCann and Ray Parlour - spoke to me earlier and they are poles apart. One says 'penalty' and one says 'no'.

[alfieconn]

Crystal Palace midfielder Joe Ledley has slammed the decision to award Liverpool a late penalty against the Eagles on Sunday, insisting that Christian Benteke dived to win the spot kick.

Replays showed clear contact between the knee of Palace defender Damien Delaney and the heel of Benteke, but Ledley stubbornly refused to accept the decision. He told the ​Croydon Advertiser: "I have had a look at it and I do not think it is a penalty at all. He did not touch him."

He continued, blaming Benteke for a 'dive' and the referee and his assistant for making the decision, saying: "If you go down like that, it is always in the referee's mind to give a penalty. It's definitely not a penalty. It is nothing. I thought it was a dive.

https://vine.co/v/Op909ZAM2m9/embed

Perhaps Ledley needs to have a look at himself before he accuses others

[NiwPix]

Have to laugh when people keep making comments such as " there was no contact" "minimal contact" "not enough contact to go down" etc etc when in fact there doesn't have to be any contact at all,

• kicks or attempts to kick an opponent
• trips or attempts to trip an opponent

To be fair the rule seems to be totally in the attacking players favour so some posters who don't fully understand the rules are saying " incorrect decision" when they should be saying that " the rule is incorrect"

^To be fair the rule seems to be totally in the attacking players favour so some posters who don't fully understand the rules are saying " incorrect decision" when they should be saying that " the rule is incorrect" - How can the law be unfair? It's the law, and you have to play within the laws laid down, therefore it isn't unfair.

Law 12 is:

A direct free kick is awarded when a player commits any of the following in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force:

• Kicks or attempts to kick an opponent

• Trips or attempts to trip an opponent

(8 others are listed)

If a player commits a direct free kick offence within his own penalty area, a penalty kick is awarded irrespective of the position of the ball, provided the ball is in play.

The Interpretation of Law 12 further states:

• “Careless” means that a player has shown a lack of attention or consideration when making a challenge or that he acted without precaution. (No further disciplinary sanction is needed if a foul is considered to be careless)
• “Reckless” means that the player has acted with complete disregard to the danger to, or consequences for, his opponent. (A player who plays in a reckless manner must be cautioned)
• “Using excessive force” means that the player has far exceeded the necessary use of force and is in danger of injuring his opponent. (A player who uses excessive force must be sent off)

Did Delaney kick or attempt to kick an opponent? I don’t think so.

Did Delaney trips or attempt to trip an opponent? I don’t think so.

Was Delaney careless? I don’t think so.

Was Delaney reckless? Definitely not.

Was Delaney Using excessive force? Definitely not.

Therefore was it a foul? I don’t think so.

Dermott Gallagher, who is far more knowledgeable than any of us on here on this, and he also didn’t think it a foul and said:

A decision that has polarised opinion. I think no, but there are many people that think yes. I have watched this all the time and I think no, but what this does highlight to me is that if we have a video referee and we go to the video referee, we are still not going to get a decision that everybody is going to agree on. The reason I say that is that the two guys sat here - Neil McCann and Ray Parlour - spoke to me earlier and they are poles apart. One says 'penalty' and one says 'no'.

Though he wasn't reckless or using excessive force, he sure was careless. Sprinting so fast "into" a player so you can't fully back out especially in the penalty area? That I consider careless.

Now, let's bring in another perspective...

You're at a red light, minding your own business, but notice a car a bit further behind you. The light turns green and you slowly proceed, but suddenly feel a bump. Sure enough, the car that was a bit further behind you wasn't able to slow down in time or just approached you too fast.

Now, you get out and notice a small bump and / or scratch. Nothing major, but also not "nothing". Who was at fault? Was it an accident or should both just drive on?

That's how I feel what happened in the scenario...Delaney was heading to the ball ( or perhaps player ) too fast and couldn't slow down / fully back out of the tackle in time.

= foul

[alfieconn]

Have to laugh when people keep making comments such as " there was no contact" "minimal contact" "not enough contact to go down" etc etc when in fact there doesn't have to be any contact at all,

• kicks or attempts to kick an opponent
• trips or attempts to trip an opponent

To be fair the rule seems to be totally in the attacking players favour so some posters who don't fully understand the rules are saying " incorrect decision" when they should be saying that " the rule is incorrect"

^To be fair the rule seems to be totally in the attacking players favour so some posters who don't fully understand the rules are saying " incorrect decision" when they should be saying that " the rule is incorrect" - How can the law be unfair? It's the law, and you have to play within the laws laid down, therefore it isn't unfair.

Law 12 is:

A direct free kick is awarded when a player commits any of the following in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force:

• Kicks or attempts to kick an opponent

• Trips or attempts to trip an opponent

(8 others are listed)

If a player commits a direct free kick offence within his own penalty area, a penalty kick is awarded irrespective of the position of the ball, provided the ball is in play.

The Interpretation of Law 12 further states:

• “Careless” means that a player has shown a lack of attention or consideration when making a challenge or that he acted without precaution. (No further disciplinary sanction is needed if a foul is considered to be careless)
• “Reckless” means that the player has acted with complete disregard to the danger to, or consequences for, his opponent. (A player who plays in a reckless manner must be cautioned)
• “Using excessive force” means that the player has far exceeded the necessary use of force and is in danger of injuring his opponent. (A player who uses excessive force must be sent off)

Did Delaney kick or attempt to kick an opponent? I don’t think so.

Did Delaney trips or attempt to trip an opponent? I don’t think so.

Was Delaney careless? I don’t think so.

Was Delaney reckless? Definitely not.

Was Delaney Using excessive force? Definitely not.

Therefore was it a foul? I don’t think so.

Dermott Gallagher, who is far more knowledgeable than any of us on here on this, and he also didn’t think it a foul and said:

A decision that has polarised opinion. I think no, but there are many people that think yes. I have watched this all the time and I think no, but what this does highlight to me is that if we have a video referee and we go to the video referee, we are still not going to get a decision that everybody is going to agree on. The reason I say that is that the two guys sat here - Neil McCann and Ray Parlour - spoke to me earlier and they are poles apart. One says 'penalty' and one says 'no'.

Though he wasn't reckless or using excessive force, he sure was careless. Sprinting so fast "into" a player so you can't fully back out especially in the penalty area? That I consider careless.

Now, let's bring in another perspective...

You're at a red light, minding your own business, but notice a car a bit further behind you. The light turns green and you slowly proceed, but suddenly feel a bump. Sure enough, the car that was a bit further behind you wasn't able to slow down in time or just approached you too fast.

Now, you get out and notice a small bump and / or scratch. Nothing major, but also not "nothing". Who was at fault? Was it an accident or should both just drive on?

That's how I feel what happened in the scenario...Delaney was heading to the ball ( or perhaps player ) too fast and couldn't slow down / fully back out of the tackle in time.

= foul

Perfect analogy NP, if he isn't careless then he doesn't touch Benteke, although there's still some who are saying that he didn't touch Benteke

[Bredbury Blue]

Have to laugh when people keep making comments such as " there was no contact" "minimal contact" "not enough contact to go down" etc etc when in fact there doesn't have to be any contact at all,

• kicks or attempts to kick an opponent
• trips or attempts to trip an opponent

To be fair the rule seems to be totally in the attacking players favour so some posters who don't fully understand the rules are saying " incorrect decision" when they should be saying that " the rule is incorrect"

^To be fair the rule seems to be totally in the attacking players favour so some posters who don't fully understand the rules are saying " incorrect decision" when they should be saying that " the rule is incorrect" - How can the law be unfair? It's the law, and you have to play within the laws laid down, therefore it isn't unfair.

Law 12 is:

A direct free kick is awarded when a player commits any of the following in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force:

• Kicks or attempts to kick an opponent

• Trips or attempts to trip an opponent

(8 others are listed)

If a player commits a direct free kick offence within his own penalty area, a penalty kick is awarded irrespective of the position of the ball, provided the ball is in play.

The Interpretation of Law 12 further states:

• “Careless” means that a player has shown a lack of attention or consideration when making a challenge or that he acted without precaution. (No further disciplinary sanction is needed if a foul is considered to be careless)
• “Reckless” means that the player has acted with complete disregard to the danger to, or consequences for, his opponent. (A player who plays in a reckless manner must be cautioned)
• “Using excessive force” means that the player has far exceeded the necessary use of force and is in danger of injuring his opponent. (A player who uses excessive force must be sent off)

Did Delaney kick or attempt to kick an opponent? I don’t think so.

Did Delaney trips or attempt to trip an opponent? I don’t think so.

Was Delaney careless? I don’t think so.

Was Delaney reckless? Definitely not.

Was Delaney Using excessive force? Definitely not.

Therefore was it a foul? I don’t think so.

Dermott Gallagher, who is far more knowledgeable than any of us on here on this, and he also didn’t think it a foul and said:

A decision that has polarised opinion. I think no, but there are many people that think yes. I have watched this all the time and I think no, but what this does highlight to me is that if we have a video referee and we go to the video referee, we are still not going to get a decision that everybody is going to agree on. The reason I say that is that the two guys sat here - Neil McCann and Ray Parlour - spoke to me earlier and they are poles apart. One says 'penalty' and one says 'no'.

Though he wasn't reckless or using excessive force, he sure was careless. Sprinting so fast "into" a player so you can't fully back out especially in the penalty area? That I consider careless.

Now, let's bring in another perspective...

You're at a red light, minding your own business, but notice a car a bit further behind you. The light turns green and you slowly proceed, but suddenly feel a bump. Sure enough, the car that was a bit further behind you wasn't able to slow down in time or just approached you too fast.

Now, you get out and notice a small bump and / or scratch. Nothing major, but also not "nothing". Who was at fault? Was it an accident or should both just drive on?

That's how I feel what happened in the scenario...Delaney was heading to the ball ( or perhaps player ) too fast and couldn't slow down / fully back out of the tackle in time.

= foul

Perfect analogy NP, if he isn't careless then he doesn't touch Benteke, although there's still some who are saying that he didn't touch Benteke

...and there was me thinking football was a contact sport

[wilai]

^ Of course it [snipped].... But diving into challenges from behind and tripping players without even getting close to the ball is careless.Therefore the penalty was correctly awarded as it meets both of the criteria you yourself have quoted. Try and stop digging before you reach Australia:D

Just to confirm....

"Trips or attempts to trip an opponent"..........Defender's knee connecting with ankle of attacking player's standing foot = trip

"Careless means that a player has shown a lack of attention or consideration when making a challenge": .......That bit must be obvious, even to you, as otherwise no challenge from behind would even have been made.

PS: Thanks for your assistance in clearing the matter up:thumbsup:

[mrbojangles]

Therefore the penalty was correctly awarded as it meets both of the criteria you yourself have quoted. Try and stop digging before you reach Australia:D

Not according to several ex-referees and pundits Wilai. See previous posts.

The thing is, some may say it was and some will say it wasn't and it could have gone either way. Personally I thought it was harsh but it certainly wasn't nailed on.

[Bredbury Blue]

^ Of course it [snipped].... But diving into challenges from behind and tripping players without even getting close to the ball is careless.Therefore the penalty was correctly awarded as it meets both of the criteria you yourself have quoted. Try and stop digging before you reach Australia:D

Just to confirm....

"Trips or attempts to trip an opponent"..........Defender's knee connecting with ankle of attacking player's standing foot = trip

"Careless means that a player has shown a lack of attention or consideration when making a challenge": .......That bit must be obvious, even to you, as otherwise no challenge from behind would even have been made.

PS: Thanks for your assistance in clearing the matter up:thumbsup:

Rubbish. If one player's body touches another player's body that doesn't necessarily equate to a foul, does it. Wasn't a penalty. See your posting was editted...being unpleasant?

[Bredbury Blue]

Therefore the penalty was correctly awarded as it meets both of the criteria you yourself have quoted. Try and stop digging before you reach Australia:D

Not according to several ex-referees and pundits Wilai. See previous posts.

The thing is, some may say it was and some will say it wasn't and it could have gone either way. Personally I thought it was harsh but it certainly wasn't nailed on.

I think it's this presumption that it was stone-walled nailed on penalty which keeps us not a penalty folk keep coming back. It was a difficult one to officiate upon in real time or slow mo.