I'm a bit baffled by this, is there leg-to-leg contact because his foot doesn't make contact with the player? No doubt Kashi should not have stuck his foot in but that doesn't make it a penalty. The player stutter steps to fall down. I think he did that to try to make sure his leg hit Kashi's. Telling that the ref who had the far superior angle didn't give it.
The way Neilson was hounding the linesman for 90 mins it’s no surprise the link flagged it! Neilson was a disgrace, 2 dons fans who were there with us but in the Jimmy Seed said it was never a penalty but I thought it was!
But football is a contact sport? Contact doesn’t equal an automatic penalty
It does in the right context. Go for a tackle in the box and miss the ball (so clearly), any contact is going to be a penalty if the referee see's it as clear contact. This is a penalty for me. Made a meal of it but needless tackle, pressure him but don't stick in the lazy leg.
But the referee who had a good view didn’t see it as clear contact. The linesman gave it on the basis that their player was rolling around like he had been shot
But football is a contact sport? Contact doesn’t equal an automatic penalty
It does in the right context. Go for a tackle in the box and miss the ball (so clearly), any contact is going to be a penalty if the referee see's it as clear contact. This is a penalty for me. Made a meal of it but needless tackle, pressure him but don't stick in the lazy leg.
But the referee who had a good view didn’t see it as clear contact. The linesman gave it on the basis that their player was rolling around like he had been shot
This is what frustrates me the most... As I said on the Post-Match
The ball can clearly go out for a throw in and make clear contact with a player yet before the Lino raises his flag he'll look to the Referee for direction even if its under their nose
Yet they're able to make a decision on a penalty when they dont have the clearest of views?
For me it looked like contact was made but the player made a meal of it. No penalty for me.
Makes me wonder what we've got to do to earn a penalty though, we've not had any at all while most teams have had a few, certainly the stripey nigels get more than there Zaha dived fair share. We play the right kind of football to earn penalties too which makes it all the more baffling.
Robinson: "The second one, not only has Kashi not touched him, Kashi has touched the ball. The referee is 10 yards away and the assistant referee is 30 yards away."
Not sure about the pen, was a close call; but the referee originally said no so amazed had his mind changed by linesman. Summed up his weak performance, letting Franchise get away with murder for most of the game. What about the tackle on Reeves before the first goal? The incident pinning Holmes down just before HT and not being a red?
Not sure about the pen, was a close call; but the referee originally said no so amazed had his mind changed by linesman. Summed up his weak performance, letting Franchise get away with murder for most of the game. What about the tackle on Reeves before the first goal? The incident pinning Holmes down just before HT and not being a red?
Whats more irritating is the player did it five mins before on Dasilva... the Lino in front of the East Stand noticed too and simply told him to calm down!!
Their player could have stayed on his feet.....but he made the most of it and dived. Had he not dived I very much doubt a penalty would have been awarded. Is that cheating or clever gamesmanship, it’s a hard one to call? I’m not sure myself but I suppose you have to say it was a penalty if contact was made, that in itself is a foul, whether he dives or not.
Robinson: "The second one, not only has Kashi not touched him, Kashi has touched the ball. The referee is 10 yards away and the assistant referee is 30 yards away."
Watched it several times on the feed. He dived. The contact made did not cause him to fall.What caused him to fall was the fact he leapt to the floor. Ref knew it but decided the linesmen gave him an easy decision to make. If the lino hadn't given that I think he would have been booked.
I've just seen the highlights on the Sky Sports website and I've really mixed now.
Definitely goes down in stages which raises questions for me. What are the rules for the decision to be reviewed by the diving panel? - Of course we cant get the goal chalked off but would be interested to see if retrospective action can be taken if they believe he's dived rather than being touched?
Watched it several times on the feed. He dived. The contact made did not cause him to fall.What caused him to fall was the fact he leapt to the floor. Ref knew it but decided the linesmen gave him an easy decision to make. If the lino hadn't given that I think he would have been booked.
For a foul to be awarded the player when kicked does not have to hit the floor. If contact was made and it was, Kashi connects with the players foot, look at the video clip above again and pause it when he misses the ball, it's a foul and in this case a penalty. The guy goes down dramatically and this can influence officials the other way ie a cheating dive, unfortunately in this case it didn't.
Watched it several times on the feed. He dived. The contact made did not cause him to fall.What caused him to fall was the fact he leapt to the floor. Ref knew it but decided the linesmen gave him an easy decision to make. If the lino hadn't given that I think he would have been booked.
For a foul to be awarded the player when kicked does not have to hit the floor. If contact was made and it was, Kashi connects with the players foot, look at the video clip above again and pause it when he misses the ball, it's a foul and in this case a penalty. The guy goes down dramatically and this can influence officials the other way ie a cheating dive, unfortunately in this case it didn't.
The fact you are quoting me suggests you're replying directly to me. I didn't say at any point it wasn't a foul. I just said how I saw it. I mean the question is "Was it a penalty" which of course is yes because they scored it. But in my opinion and this is probably more a reflection on your response. The rulebook says it's a foul (if indeed there was contact) but the sooner players are punished for diving (which he definitely did) the sooner they eradicate this cheating from the game.
Watched it several times on the feed. He dived. The contact made did not cause him to fall.What caused him to fall was the fact he leapt to the floor. Ref knew it but decided the linesmen gave him an easy decision to make. If the lino hadn't given that I think he would have been booked.
For a foul to be awarded the player when kicked does not have to hit the floor. If contact was made and it was, Kashi connects with the players foot, look at the video clip above again and pause it when he misses the ball, it's a foul and in this case a penalty. The guy goes down dramatically and this can influence officials the other way ie a cheating dive, unfortunately in this case it didn't.
The fact you are quoting me suggests you're replying directly to me. I didn't say at any point it wasn't a foul. I just said how I saw it. I mean the question is "Was it a penalty" which of course is yes because they scored it. But in my opinion and this is probably more a reflection on your response. The rulebook says it's a foul (if indeed there was contact) but the sooner players are punished for diving (which he definitely did) the sooner they eradicate this cheating from the game.
If you accept it was a foul then we both agree it was a penalty. The diving aspect which I detest as much as you is irrelevant in this situation although it would have been fairly unique if after the penalty had been awarded their player was booked for exaggerating his fall. As I intimated it could have led the referee to think he was being conned. Luckily for MK the lino flagged for an infringement and made up the ref's mind for him.
Don’t think it was a penalty. The MK Dons took pains to fall over Kashi’s leg. Admittedly, Kashi did not need to make the challenge but that doesn’t make it a penalty. Referree was terrible & MK Dons a dirty team.
Soft penalty, but if it had been in the other box I would have been screaming for it...
Like the clear handball the ref didn't give earlier on. I'm afraid MK FC (I refuse to add the stolen Dons bit) was founded on cheating and bending the rules so we shouldn't be too surprised or upset if they get a point by cheating and bending the rules. Yet again we ended up being bullied by a weaker side.
As for the guttersnipe who punched Ricky Holmes I would have expected such behaviour to have resulted in a sending off in a schoolboy game never mind League 1.
Much like it is not necessarily hand ball if the ball hits the arm/hand, it is not necessarily a foul just because another player touches you.
Leaving the cheating of the dive to one side, would the touch be given as a foul elsewhere on the pitch?
Looking back on what this ref set as the standard today, there was no way he would have given this, so by the standard he set today it was not a foul and therefore not a penalty.
Football pundits etc have got to stop trying to justify cheating as they are spreading the view that if you are touched in anyway it is acceptable to leap into the air and collapse in a heap to cheat your side a goal.
A swan dive should be a reason not to give a penalty so we stamp this practice out and replace it with penalties awarded to players who are fouled but try to stay on their feet.
The referees need help to enforce this: TV reviews are the way forward IMO.
No pen in imo! He ever touched him, Kashi puts his foot between the players legs from the back and MK player cons the assistant ref by throwing himself forward .
Tough call. Looks like he just caught the players boot to me, in which case it's a pen. But why was Kashi attempting the tackle at all when Konsa (I think) seemed to have the situation under control?
Comments
The ball can clearly go out for a throw in and make clear contact with a player yet before the Lino raises his flag he'll look to the Referee for direction even if its under their nose
Yet they're able to make a decision on a penalty when they dont have the clearest of views?
Makes me wonder what we've got to do to earn a penalty though, we've not had any at all while most teams have had a few, certainly the stripey nigels get more than there Zaha dived fair share. We play the right kind of football to earn penalties too which makes it all the more baffling.
Is that cheating or clever gamesmanship, it’s a hard one to call?
I’m not sure myself but I suppose you have to say it was a penalty if contact was made, that in itself is a foul, whether he dives or not.
Definitely goes down in stages which raises questions for me. What are the rules for the decision to be reviewed by the diving panel? - Of course we cant get the goal chalked off but would be interested to see if retrospective action can be taken if they believe he's dived rather than being touched?
http://www.skysports.com/football/charlton-vs-mk-dons/report/375377
Leaving the cheating of the dive to one side, would the touch be given as a foul elsewhere on the pitch?
Looking back on what this ref set as the standard today, there was no way he would have given this, so by the standard he set today it was not a foul and therefore not a penalty.
Football pundits etc have got to stop trying to justify cheating as they are spreading the view that if you are touched in anyway it is acceptable to leap into the air and collapse in a heap to cheat your side a goal.
A swan dive should be a reason not to give a penalty so we stamp this practice out and replace it with penalties awarded to players who are fouled but try to stay on their feet.
The referees need help to enforce this: TV reviews are the way forward IMO.