Was it a Penalty?

[Robbie]

Lots of chatter about the England Penalty that was given in the first half against the Netherlands, when the Netherlands player was adjudged to have fouled Harry Kane when Harry was shooting for goal.

The Ref initially didn't give it, but it went to VAR and VAR adjudged foul play.

If that incident had occurred outside the penalty area the Ref would have blown for a foul straight away.

For me, it should make no difference whether inside or outside the penalty area. A foul is a foul & should be given as such. 

A defender should not be given the benefit of the doubt just because it is inside the penalty area.

The Dutch player had his foot up and caught Kane, which could have resulted in a serious injury for Kane.

Thoughts?

[super_ram]

Absolutely agree @Robbie.It may appear a bit harsh but a foul outside the penalty area is still a foul inside the penalty area.

[Fan of Big Tone]

I’m not sure I agree that it should have been a penalty, the defender was trying to prevent Kane from scoring by going for the ball, the fact that he caught  Kane’s foot was an unintentional accident, there was no malice or deliberate intention to injure. Football is (or should be) a contact sport and players do come together while playing the ball, was the defender supposed to just stand aside and let Kane score?

For those reasons I would say no penalty but I’m glad it was. 

[Chris]

If it had happened outside the box, a free kick would have been given. This would have been a much easier decision, as it is incredibly harsh to give a penalty, but it's unlike England to get the benefit of decisions which helps. I believe that the referee's performance was acceptable overall, although there were instances where he failed to issue cards to several Netherlands players who had made reckless and dirty challenges.

At the time, I said it was a foul on Harry Kane even if he had got the shot away.

I don't know why the referee didn't give an indirect free kick; the rules and decisions these days seem to be stricter. An indirect free kick would have been fairer.

I do believe it was a foul, I don't believe the player deserved a yellow card. He was going for the ball, the timing was just late but again, if this happened outside the box I believe the officials would have flagged instantly. VAR made a decision which benefitted us, however, in the grand scheme of things I believe we would have been fine without it. England performed a lot better, chances were falling and those who think the Netherlands were unlucky. That might be the case, but really they didn't do enough. Their goal was an incredible strike which Pickford unfortunately couldn't get more of his hand onto - even if he did I doubt it would have made much difference.

It was a good game, but the Netherlands didn't really trouble us on goal. Yes, there were several exhilarating moments with shots on goal and near misses. England hit the post twice, had a goal disallowed and forced some good saves from the Netherlands keeper.

[Robbie]

@Fan of Big Tone

@Chris

If this incident had have happened outside the box or on the halfway line 99.9% of Refs would have given a free kick.

The problem we've had over the years, are that Referees give defenders too much leeway when it comes to pushing and shoving at corners and free kicks, or other instances of foul play in the penalty area by defenders. 

Foul play should be treated the same all over the pitch. If that means we get more penalties then so be it.

I don't think that "harshness" should come into it when a Ref has to make a decision on foul play in the penalty area.

[allardyces tash]

Yes, it was a penalty, but I can see why some might think it’s harsh. Most English fans wouldn’t be happy if the roles were reversed, but it’s one of those things. The Netherlands player didn’t touch the ball, and it happened just before Harry Kane managed to take the shot. Even though he seemed to get a clean strike, it was a penalty due to the lateness of the challenge.

[liampie]

either way, i feel for the referee because it was a difficult decision and both fans would call the deicison if he had or not given the penalty. i think england would have equalised sooner or later without the penalty, it just changed the outcome. i am not a referee, so my opinion is not valid.

i do see how people would think its harsh but i can also appreciate how it was given. fouls are not always text book incidents and do force a review to decide.

[menzinho]

I think sometimes refs give a lot of leeway because by awarding a penalty, they are almost giving the team a goal. There are lots of penalties that are awarded that I think are unfair and harsh and these would be in situations where the chance of scoring is very low – the crime doesn’t fit the punishment so to speak.

Harry Kane’s was similar in that he had ballooned his shot over the bar before Dumfries makes contact, the chance had already gone really. Then you add in the challenge from Dumfries wasn’t that forceful (no-where near as painful as Kane was making out by rolling around on the floor). So I absolutely see and agree why people say it was harsh, but I guess by the current laws it is a penalty.

[KB1862]

It's a difficult one to judge. Even with the replays I saw both sides of the argument. I do understand why the penalty was given after the referee saw the footage back, it could seem a harsh one to concede but I think the main judgement from the referee was how high Dumfries foot was and the fact his studs caught Kane's foot with the angle he raised himself at. I'm not 100% certain that's a stance a defender would make to block a shot like that. 

The thing about this type of situation is that had a striker done that to a defender anywhere on the pitch, it's given as a free kick. As is usually the case, they say "anywhere outside the box it's a free kick". So if it's a free kick anywhere else on the pitch surely it's a penalty when it's inside the box? So based on this I think the correct decision was made.

I do get the frustrations by the Dutch with this being given as we'd all be up in arms about it if it went against England. 

1 hour ago, menzinho said:

no-where near as painful as Kane was making out by rolling around on the floor

Had Kane not stayed down like he did, I don't think that's given as a penalty. But, football boots are super thin these days and when a stud collides with a players foot while they're connecting with the ball like Kane did, it probably was a painful one to take cause of the combination of the impact and thin boots catching on studs. 

[NiftyNick]

Be honest, penalty decisions have gone mad in recent years. That wasn't a penalty in my eyes. I don't think it would've been brought back for a free kick. He got the shot away, it didn't have any impact, and he finished it. We were very lucky to get the decision in our favour, but I won't complain.

[Robbie]

Lots of different views on here for and against a penalty.

I would just say this, if you agree or disagree with the decision, you just have to ask yourself this.

If the same incident was in the middle of the pitch and Kane had been attempting a pass, would the Ref have  given a foul and the answer would have been yes he would have?

Foul play has to be treated the same in every corner of the pitch, no matter where the players are.

[OoooooTommy]

It doesn't matter what I think; the referee awarded it, and only the Dutch will be complaining. If any English fans complain about it, they need their heads examined.

[NiftyNick]

Dutch supporters are grumbling, claiming that Saka allegedly used both hands to handle the ball. However, the video evidence doesn’t support their claim. It’s surprising to see them react so strongly, much like mixing milk with orange juice, but they’re expressing their disappointment nonetheless.

[liampie]

@DeadlyMacca and yet the hand ball technology did not detect anything.

they will use hard to determine angles, but the footage i have seen in articles was the angle we saw the game in. i dont think saka handled the ball at all.

[DangerousSausage]

Aren't most fouls unintentional accidents @Fan of Big Tone? They're still fouls. 

I didn't think it was a penalty at first but changed my mind after I saw the replay. Dumfries had his studs up, missed the ball and caught the man. Luckily he caught Kane's foot, if that had been his standing leg he could have caused a serious injury.

It does seem a bit harsh on the Netherlands that we were given a penalty after Kane had already got his shot away, but they're the rules. I've heard it suggested that an indirect free kick should be given if no goalscoring opportunity is denied, but that would add a whole new level of complexity and discussion and we're probably better off as we are. 

[Wheelbarrow repair man]

Personally I didn't think it was a Penalty, I thought the Defender was doing his job trying to stop Kane from scoring. At first the Referee said No and if  there had been No such thing as VAR then there would have been No Penalty..

Interestingly Enough a lot of English Fans have stated it was Karma for Dutch Manager Ronald Koeman, who should have been Red Carded in an England vs Holland match back in 1993, but got away with his foul and scored the Match Winner.

[Robbie]

But as I keep saying if the same incident had happened on the halfway line, the Ref would have given foul to England for foot up

You can't have different rules for inside and outside the penalty area regarding pushing, foot up, dangerous play and handballs.

[Wheelbarrow repair man]

The thing is @Robbie would the Referee given a Free Kick if the incident had  happened on the Halfway Line?  At first he didn't give the Penalty and only consulted VAR afterwards. So he may well have viewed the Foul (on the Halfway Line) as he had first viewed the Penalty and Not Given It.

The thing is with Incidents like this happening all the time in Football it's subjected to  a matter of different opinions to different people, many will see it as a Penalty while others won't. But when it comes down to it VAR  decided it was a Penalty and England scored from the Resulting Spot Kick, then went on to Grab a late Winner, which put them in Todays Final. And No amount of  Was it Wasn't It Talk Is going to Change That.

[Robbie]

@Wheelbarrow repair man

That's just the point, opposing fans will always disagree on the award of a penalty. England got the decision because the VAR officials thought it was a penalty.

I'm happy we got th decision, I'm just sceptical about how VAR has changed anything. Offsides are ok. We know what VAR judges as an offside, a toenail in front. We know what handball is too 

But with fouls it's still down to interpretation of the officials operating VAR.

They may as well leave it to the on field Ref to make the decision regarding foul play in the penalty area.

 

[NiftyNick]

On 14/07/2024 at 13:25, DangerousSausage said:

Aren't most fouls unintentional accidents @Fan of Big Tone? They're still fouls. 

I’m uncertain, but it appears that most fouls these days are cynical challenges. They seem to be committed with the intention of preventing teams from playing or disrupting their momentum.