Shocker

[dangermows]

A knee in your calf does though

Again, its not the hand on the shoulder thats the problem its the knee into the calf....

Which then causes his foot to clip the back of his other leg too.

Logon or register to see this image

 

[DaveH]

The biggest misconception here about contact is judging contact on how heavy it is. A heavy barge or kick on the thigh is not likely to knock you off balance. Equally a very little ankle tap when full tilt can cause you to lose balance.

As for the 'coming together' incidental clip of the lower leg the responsibility is on the defender who is behind the attacker who is in possession to avoid that. Either way, you can replicate the scenario with Ballard and Choudhury and nobody in Ballard's situation will be able to keep their footing. Try running and have someone nudge your calf downwards while you're full stride. No way you can stay on your feet.

So?

What you have to ask is was Choudary doing anything that was careless, reckless or using excessive force? That is the exact wording in the FA rules. It was two players competing for the same ball.

Hard to tell if he could have stayed on his feet, but when you look at the replay it is Ballard's calf coming up into Choudary's knee more than the knee going into him. He didn't bring his knee down into Ballard's calf. Ballard's calf was coming up as a natural part of running and Choudary's legs were there as a natural part of of making a non-reckless attempt for the ball.

 

[Confucius]

For those still saying no despite seeing it numerous times, (something the ref didn’t have mind) I would just like to point out the actual law.
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:

• tackles or challenges
• trips or attempts to trip

If an offence involves contact it is penalised by a direct free kick or penalty kick.

• Careless is when a player shows a lack of attention or consideration when making a challenge or acts without precaution. No disciplinary sanction is needed

Now the ref didn’t have the luxury of the replays and I can understand why he never gave it. But those still saying it isn’t a penalty after viewing just don’t know the rules. I mean the rule actually states that if you try and tackle them carelessly it’s a penalty. That also doesn’t mean they are all given because the ref only has one perspective at that moment in time.

 

[Lonz]

Will we get an apology? That's the important thing.

 

[The Town Hall Clock]

Another question is....

Had it been given, which one of those useless chancers would you have trusted the penalty with?

 

[DaveH]

Now the ref didn’t have the luxury of the replays and I can understand why he never gave it. But those still saying it isn’t a penalty after viewing just don’t know the rules. I mean the rule actually states that if you try and tackle them carelessly it’s a penalty. That also doesn’t mean they are all given because the ref only has one perspective at that moment in time.

Was it careless? No!

It was two players jostling for position. He didn't go steaming in, he didn't take a swing at him, their legs knocked together slightly when competing for a ball at pace. It is a physical game and slight touches like that will happen. No intent and he was not out of control, just one of those things.

I'm not upset by this.

 

[Sporty]

So?

What you have to ask is was Choudary doing anything that was careless, reckless or using excessive force? That is the exact wording in the FA rules. It was two players competing for the same ball.

Hard to tell if he could have stayed on his feet, but when you look at the replay it is Ballard's calf coming up into Choudary's knee more than the knee going into him. He didn't bring his knee down into Ballard's calf. Ballard's calf was coming up as a natural part of running and Choudary's legs were there as a natural part of of making a non-reckless attempt for the ball.

How long have you watched or played football? A player coming from behind clipping the running legs of the player in front (even accidentally) and affecting his stride that he trips himself over is a free kick all day long (if the ref is certain he seen it). It's clear the ref didn't see it so it's understandable why the decision wasn't given so no issue with that at all.

For those still saying no despite seeing it numerous times, (something the ref didn’t have mind) I would just like to point out the actual law.
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:

• tackles or challenges
• trips or attempts to trip

If an offence involves contact it is penalised by a direct free kick or penalty kick.

• Careless is when a player shows a lack of attention or consideration when making a challenge or acts without precaution. No disciplinary sanction is needed

Now the ref didn’t have the luxury of the replays and I can understand why he never gave it. But those still saying it isn’t a penalty after viewing just don’t know the rules. I mean the rule actually states that if you try and tackle them carelessly it’s a penalty. That also doesn’t mean they are all given because the ref only has one perspective at that moment in time.

This! As you mentioned the ref had a restricted view and possibly didn't even see the hand. He also won't have seen much of the knee to calf or Ballard tripping himself given the real-time speed also. Choudhury is challenging for the ball and it was careless from Choudhury so a free kick and with it being in the box then a penna.

Another question is....

Had it been given, which one of those useless chancers would you have trusted the penalty with?

SEB, the answer was Vardy as he'd be more likely to score than one of our players

 

[DaveH]

How long have you watched or played football? A player coming from behind clipping the running legs of the player in front (even accidentally) and affecting his stride that he trips himself over is a free kick all day long (if the ref is certain he seen it). It's clear the ref didn't see it so it's understandable why the decision wasn't given so no issue with that at all.

I play 2-3 times a week. There are times people fall over when competing for a ball. Shit happens, the ref never gives it and the game goes on everyone is fine.

Occasionally we have a player who makes a meal of it and stay down. Both teams play on around them and one we subbed off every time he did theatrics.

 

[Confucius]

Was it careless? No!

It was two players jostling for position. He didn't go steaming in, he didn't take a swing at him, their legs knocked together slightly when competing for a ball at pace. It is a physical game and slight touches like that will happen. No intent and he was not out of control, just one of those things.

I'm not upset by this.

It was careless by the definition man, how can he be jostling for position when he's a yard behind him. Honestly there's no point in arguing with some people when the evidence is in front of them. No one mentioned swinging steaming in other than you. It doesn't matter until you read what the rules definition states. You can give a foul away by trying to foul someone and not succeed. People go way of the to prove they are far more impartial than anyone else

 

[Georgewhitt]

Thought it was a penalty live but having seen a replay, no it's not.

Thats why refs have such a tough job, cos I'm the opposite. I thought it wasn't, but now I've seen that clip, I think it was.

 

[Matnab]

I play 2-3 times a week. There are times people fall over when competing for a ball. Shit happens, the ref never gives it and the game goes on everyone is fine.

Occasionally we have a player who makes a meal of it and stay down. Both teams play on around them and one we subbed off every time he did theatrics.

They weren't 'competing for the ball' though. You seem to be preoccupied with the physicality aspect. It has nothing to do with that. I'm all for a full blooded 50/50 but I'm also inclined to appreciate that if a defender is chasing down an attacker who is through on goal it is his responsibility to avoid clipping his legs and bringing him down.

 

[Georgewhitt]

If that gets given against us we’re all absolutely foaming.

Disagree marra.
If O'Nien had done that whilst chasing back, and given a pen away, this place would be tearing him another arsehole.
I think its a soft penalty, but still a penalty.

 

[DaveH]

It was careless by the definition man, how can he be jostling for position when he's a yard behind him. Honestly there's no point in arguing with some people when the evidence is in front of them. No one mentioned swinging steaming in other than you. It doesn't matter until you read what the rules definition states. You can give a foul away by trying to foul someone and not succeed. People go way of the to prove they are far more impartial than anyone else

If he was a yard behind him, how did he make contact?

I have read and quoted the rules, it comes down to definition. Did the defender go flying in? No. Did the defender swing a leg in? No. Did the defender go in hard? No. Were they right next to each other when their legs clashed? Yes.

We are both seeing the evidence differently, which is only human. I think the fact that people on here even with our SAFC bias seem about 50/50 if it was a pen or not, shows it was not clear cut. I'm not sure if the linesman was on that side, but the ref certainly thought there was nowt much in it. And the ref doesn't have the benefit of all the replays.

There is enough in it for a decision to be made, otherwise we would not have had 17 pages of discussion, beyond what was in the match day thread, so it is fair to say it is borderline and on another day with another ref it might have been given. But I do think we would have been up in arms if it had been given against us.

When it is borderline or difficult to tell, the ref has to rule in favour of the defender here, otherwise it is pretty much awarding the attacking team a goal. We will look back on the season at some decisions which cost us points but I don't think this will be one of them. News outlets are not making much of a deal about it.

 

[Johnnyh]

Behave I'd be fuming if it was given against us

Totally agree Hank but they have been given against us.

 

[Matnab]

If he was a yard behind him, how did he make contact?

I have read and quoted the rules, it comes down to definition. Did the defender go flying in? No. Did the defender swing a leg in? No. Did the defender go in hard? No. Were they right next to each other when their legs clashed? Yes.

We are both seeing the evidence differently, which is only human. I think the fact that people on here even with our SAFC bias seem about 50/50 if it was a pen or not, shows it was not clear cut. I'm not sure if the linesman was on that side, but the ref certainly thought there was nowt much in it. And the ref doesn't have the benefit of all the replays.

There is enough in it for a decision to be made, otherwise we would not have had 17 pages of discussion, beyond what was in the match day thread, so it is fair to say it is borderline and on another day with another ref it might have been given. But I do think we would have been up in arms if it had been given against us.

When it is borderline or difficult to tell, the ref has to rule in favour of the defender here, otherwise it is pretty much awarding the attacking team a goal. We will look back on the season at some decisions which cost us points but I don't think this will be one of them. News outlets are not making much of a deal about it.

By your logic you can literally bring an attacker down with impunity. If someone is through on goal just make sure you run close enough behind them to unsettle their stride. When the legs tangle just throw your hands up and plead that it was an accident.

 

[woodlebert]

But I do think we would have been up in arms if it had been given against us.

Weirdly I think I’d be more sure it was penalty if was against us.

I’m checking my bias too much given it was for us and possibly overcorrecting

 

[DaveH]

By your logic you can literally bring an attacker down with impunity. If someone is through on goal just make sure you run close enough behind them to unsettle their stride. When the legs tangle just throw your hands up and plead that it was an accident.

That is very hard to do intentiaonally when running at speed without committing a foul. I think you are taking it to the absurd extreme there to make a point.

 

[woodlebert]

That is very hard to do intentiaonally when running at speed without committing a foul. I think you are taking it to the absurd extreme there to make a point.

Good rules and laws should factor in extreme cases tbf. It’s a good way to stress them.

 

[Confucius]

If he was a yard behind him, how did he make contact?

I have read and quoted the rules, it comes down to definition. Did the defender go flying in? No. Did the defender swing a leg in? No. Did the defender go in hard? No. Were they right next to each other when their legs clashed? Yes.

We are both seeing the evidence differently, which is only human. I think the fact that people on here even with our SAFC bias seem about 50/50 if it was a pen or not, shows it was not clear cut. I'm not sure if the linesman was on that side, but the ref certainly thought there was nowt much in it. And the ref doesn't have the benefit of all the replays.

There is enough in it for a decision to be made, otherwise we would not have had 17 pages of discussion, beyond what was in the match day thread, so it is fair to say it is borderline and on another day with another ref it might have been given. But I do think we would have been up in arms if it had been given against us.

When it is borderline or difficult to tell, the ref has to rule in favour of the defender here, otherwise it is pretty much awarding the attacking team a goal. We will look back on the season at some decisions which cost us points but I don't think this will be one of them. News outlets are not making much of a deal about it.

Maybe because he's quicker, dear me man the picture shows he was behind him. You don't have to swinging or even by definition make contact. If you can't see it's careless then I don't know what. I've already defended the ref so not sure why comment on it. It's borderline in real time but I'm questioning the competence on those who can view it in slow motion and claim to understand the rules when you don't even have to make contact for it to be a foul