| One for the referees/rule-knowers 18:09 - Jul 1 with 738 views | Zx1988 |
The Kane penalty incident - to me it looks as if he'd already committed to falling before the contact, and would have ended up on the ground regardless.
If that was the case, how would that impact the decision to award (or not) a foul? Would the fact that the player would have ended up on the floor even without the contact influence the decision? Or is illegal contact deemed to be illegal contact, regardless of the context? [Post edited 1 Jul 18:11]
|  |
| |  |
| One for the referees/rule-knowers on 18:13 - Jul 1 with 688 views | Wacko |
Like I said below, Tuanzebe slightly knocks Kane's leg which causes him to trip over his other leg which was why his was on his way down. Very minimal contact but clearly a trip imo | |
| |
| One for the referees/rule-knowers on 18:15 - Jul 1 with 674 views | Zx1988 |
| One for the referees/rule-knowers on 18:13 - Jul 1 by Wacko |
Like I said below, Tuanzebe slightly knocks Kane's leg which causes him to trip over his other leg which was why his was on his way down. Very minimal contact but clearly a trip imo |
That's really not what I've asked.
It's the scenario as it initially appeared/a hypothetical scenario, when a striker decides to fling himself to the ground, regardless of whether contact actually happens or not. | |
| |
| One for the referees/rule-knowers on 18:36 - Jul 1 with 570 views | bsw72 |
| One for the referees/rule-knowers on 18:15 - Jul 1 by Zx1988 |
That's really not what I've asked.
It's the scenario as it initially appeared/a hypothetical scenario, when a striker decides to fling himself to the ground, regardless of whether contact actually happens or not. |
It’s purely down to interpretation as to whether the referee deems it a foul or not, factoring in things like you have mentioned. |  | | |
| One for the referees/rule-knowers on 19:25 - Jul 1 with 502 views | ArnoldMoorhen |
FIFA have given a clear directive that diving into a foul, or going down under "insufficient" contact is to be deemed simulation. The referee clearly signalled that he believed Kane had dived.
The weird thing was that he then didn't book Kane, which would have been the correct course of action as the referee had signed that Kane had dived, in his opinion. | | | |
| One for the referees/rule-knowers on 19:39 - Jul 1 with 444 views | have_a_word_with_him |
| One for the referees/rule-knowers on 19:25 - Jul 1 by ArnoldMoorhen |
FIFA have given a clear directive that diving into a foul, or going down under "insufficient" contact is to be deemed simulation. The referee clearly signalled that he believed Kane had dived.
The weird thing was that he then didn't book Kane, which would have been the correct course of action as the referee had signed that Kane had dived, in his opinion. |
We see these given as penalties every weekend in the Premier League. And it was a penalty. The referee was awful, the number of times DRC players flung themselves to the ground and immediately got free kicks was poor. |  | | |
| One for the referees/rule-knowers on 19:40 - Jul 1 with 438 views | NthQldITFC |
I agree. He was leaning into the contact and positioning his legs to both hit the keeper at the same time. Dive. |  |
| |
| One for the referees/rule-knowers on 19:40 - Jul 1 with 431 views | Trequartista |
Did the keeper impede him or did he initiate contact with the keeper - I think it was the latter. Having said that, they are usually given. |  |
| |
| One for the referees/rule-knowers on 19:42 - Jul 1 with 405 views | LeoMuff |
| One for the referees/rule-knowers on 19:40 - Jul 1 by NthQldITFC |
I agree. He was leaning into the contact and positioning his legs to both hit the keeper at the same time. Dive. |
He had knocked past the keeper and looked like he would have got to the ball, penalty all day long |  |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
