[Tylerdurdencfc]

clarevoyant., on 11 July 2024 - 09:53 AM, said:

He was late and as a result fouled Kane. Albeit only a split second late but when the ref was told to look at the screen he got a better view than his original sighting of the contact and correctly awarded a free kick in this case
a penalty.
One clown of a pundit (Neville maybe) implied because it was in the area different tolerance levels (my words) should be applied, t1t

That's the problem, they only showed him one view on the screen and that was from the side that looked like he had fouled him. The other view showed that Kane followed through and kicked the Dutch defender, however, the ref wasn't shown that angle on the screen at the side of the pitch. Watch it again. The VAR have shown the official what they wanted him to see.

[clarevoyant.]

dim view, on 11 July 2024 - 10:44 AM, said:

What was he late at?
He wasn't trying to be first to the ball and clear it. He was trying to block the shot.

Blocking the shot.
If that was his intent, which in some folks eyes wasn't the case, but still late.

[JonB]

The moment i saw the first replay i said to folk around me in the pub that it should be a foul....foot up like that is given all the time on the continent if not here. Folk are always whining about those sorts of decisions when they go against English teams in european cup games. Just because its in the box shouldnt mean its not a foul because it means a penalty is given.

The defender misses the ball and kicks Kane...its just a foul.

This post has been edited by JonB: 11 July 2024 - 10:52 AM

[metallilad]

Who gives a sh*t whether it was or wasn't a penalty. We're in the final, it's about bl**dy time these decisions went out way.

[JonB]

We were owed one after Koeman dragged Platt down and got off with a yellow and a free kick....long memories!!

[Tylerdurdencfc]

KevoBMMD, on 11 July 2024 - 08:13 AM, said:

Strangely enough, anywhere else on the pitch it is a clear 100% free kick so why not in the box

Well it wouldn't be, you are refering to to when a player has possession of the ball and a player comes in at speed with a foot raised, trying to block a clearance , but is late misses the ball and the player clearing the ball makes contact with the said player. This is reckless late and deemed a high foot.

In this instance, the defender was perfectly entitled to go for a 50-50 ball that had fallen to them. Watch the link below. The defender does not move his foot towards the ball and tries to block it with his foot. Kane's foot follows through and hits the defender. This is totally different to charging down a player in possession and trying to block the ball which is reckless. In this instance it isn't. Read the rules.



I will add the rules below:

A tackle that endangers the safety of an opponent must be sanctioned as serious foul play. Any player who lunges at an opponent in challenging for the ball from the front, from the side or from behind using one or both legs, with excessive force and endangering the safety of an opponent is guilty of serious foul play.

In this instance, it isn't a tackle as he hasn't moved his foot towards the opponent at all, he is nowhere near him, so therefore cannot be serious foul play or even a foul as he has tried to block the shot and not tackle the player.

Plus if he deems it is a foul then it should have been a red card - as would have been reckless and seriously endangering an opponent which is an automatic Red Card.

This post has been edited by Tylerdurdencfc: 11 July 2024 - 11:06 AM

[dim view]

JonB, on 11 July 2024 - 10:51 AM, said:

The defender misses the ball and kicks Kane...its just a foul.

Kane kicked him.

[Tylerdurdencfc]

dim view, on 11 July 2024 - 11:01 AM, said:

Kane kicked him.

I think Jon B needs his eyes testing. He needs to watch the link I posted above.

[JonB]

What has done for the defender is how he's gone for it as per the pic below taken from the youtube link. He has gone in with his foot high and studs first compared to Kane kicking the ball. You can also see how late he is with his foot there as the ball is about a foot away already when contact with Kanes foot happens. It is no different to fouls you see all the time where a defender clears the ball and kicks the foot of a striker trying to block the clearance...in fact they are often given as red cards for being late as well.

Tylerdurdencfc, on 11 July 2024 - 11:03 AM, said:

I think Jon B needs his eyes testing. He needs to watch the link I posted above.

Nope...watched the link which is just a bunch of still images really rather than a video but i still think its a foul because of what the dutch defender is doing with his foot...high and studs first then not helped by being slightly late getting there as well.

[JonB]

If you watch from about 45 seconds in on this link to the BBC highlights it shows it better from the side angle actually as a video. The defenders foot is high, studs first and he pushes it towards where Kanes foot is as well. Its not still and just a consequence of Kane kicking the ball but the defender is pushing his foot forward high with the studs first. It is a tackle as he is trying to win the ball but Kane gets it first so he's late and by virtue of where his foot is and how it is then it can be classed as endangering Kane.



Look we'll all see it differently, that was the case between a group of us in the pub last night but i will say its a foul all day long.

[clarevoyant.]

Tylerdurdencfc, on 11 July 2024 - 10:49 AM, said:

That's the problem, they only showed him one view on the screen and that was from the side that looked like he had fouled him. The other view showed that Kane followed through and kicked the Dutch defender, however, the ref wasn't shown that angle on the screen at the side of the pitch. Watch it again. The VAR have shown the official what they wanted him to see.

Did we see what the ref was shown when he went to the screen? I don't recall.

How do you conclude he was trying to block the shot and not clear the ball?

This post has been edited by clarevoyant.: 11 July 2024 - 11:16 AM

[Tylerdurdencfc]

JonB, on 11 July 2024 - 11:09 AM, said:

What has done for the defender is how he's gone for it as per the pic below taken from the youtube link. He has gone in with his foot high and studs first compared to Kane kicking the ball. You can also see how late he is with his foot there as the ball is about a foot away already when contact with Kanes foot happens. It is no different to fouls you see all the time where a defender clears the ball and kicks the foot of a striker trying to block the clearance...in fact they are often given as red cards for being late as well.




Nope...watched the link which is just a bunch of still images really rather than a video but i still think its a foul because of what the dutch defender is doing with his foot...high and studs first then not helped by being slightly late getting there as well.

The defender hasn't moved from that position, he has put his foot up and Kane's foot has moved over a foot to him and made contact with him.

VAR is at fault as it there to overturn clear and obvious errors. Which ultimately in this case isn't clear and obvious as everyone is disagreeing so therefore the on-field decision should have stood and they shouldn't have got involved.

[dim view]

JonB, on 11 July 2024 - 11:09 AM, said:

What has done for the defender is how he's gone for it as per the pic below taken from the youtube link. He has gone in with his foot high and studs first compared to Kane kicking the ball. You can also see how late he is with his foot there as the ball is about a foot away already when contact with Kanes foot happens. It is no different to fouls you see all the time where a defender clears the ball and kicks the foot of a striker trying to block the clearance...in fact they are often given as red cards for being late as well.


His foot wasn't a foot away when Kane kicked the ball, which would be the crucial frame. It was probably 3 feet away.

This post has been edited by dim view: 11 July 2024 - 11:16 AM

[JonB]

Here you go....images from the BBC highlights from the side on replay from the moment Kane kicked it and the moment the feet come into contact. Using the head of their number 6 you can see that the defenders foot isnt still but has gone forward as Kanes does so he caught him late, high and studs first. Yes Kanes foot is going forward as part of kicking the ball but the defender is pushing through his foot as well which is why they will have given it.

[Sammy Spireite]

There is also a suspicion of handball by Saka which diverted the ball slightly and in to Kanes path for the strike.

I've seen a couple of still from behind and it does appear to hit his hand, which is up level with his shoulder and his arm is almost fully outstretched. I think if VAR had picked up on that, we might well have not got the penalty.

Any way, we did, we scored from it and then won the game.

edit: just found this on the matter, it does appear the ball roll up his wrist:

https://www.reddit.c...andball_before/

This post has been edited by Sammy Spireite: 11 July 2024 - 11:46 AM

[JonB]

Yep there is the handball bit which wasnt looked at or at least didnt appear to be looked at....no one actually knows the handball rule these days anyway so its guesswork to try and figure out what decision they would have come to on that.

That video is also a good angle of the foul on Kane as it shows the defender catching him with some force of his foot going forward not just Kane kicking his stationary foot.

This post has been edited by JonB: 11 July 2024 - 11:53 AM

[Bald magician]

clarevoyant., on 11 July 2024 - 10:05 AM, said:

Fair enough, we've all seen it enough times to draw our own conclusions.

However been town fans is it possible we don't recognise what a penalty is anymore.

I'm overjoyed it Was a penalty fella! We'd have hated it the other way round ! Luck seems to be on our side

[dim view]

JonB, on 11 July 2024 - 11:26 AM, said:

Here you go....images from the BBC highlights from the side on replay from the moment Kane kicked it and the moment the feet come into contact. Using the head of their number 6 you can see that the defenders foot isnt still but has gone forward as Kanes does so he caught him late, high and studs first. Yes Kanes foot is going forward as part of kicking the ball but the defender is pushing through his foot as well which is why they will have given it.

So if the ball had got a thin edge off the defender's foot, would it have been a corner or a penalty?

[JonB]

dim view, on 11 July 2024 - 11:54 AM, said:

So if the ball had got a thin edge off the defender's foot, would it have been a corner or a penalty?

Potentially still a pen as i dont think the fact you get a touch on the ball is the be all and end all for things these days. If its a dangerous tackle then it can still be given as a foul.

[dim view]

JonB, on 11 July 2024 - 11:26 AM, said:

Here you go....images from the BBC highlights from the side on replay from the moment Kane kicked it and the moment the feet come into contact. Using the head of their number 6 you can see that the defenders foot isnt still but has gone forward as Kanes does so he caught him late, high and studs first. Yes Kanes foot is going forward as part of kicking the ball but the defender is pushing through his foot as well which is why they will have given it.

On the contrary, relative to the defender's standing foot, the number 6 has gone right. Also, we can't just brush off the handball. The whole point of VAR is to highlight what the officials don't see. This should be the subject of a huge protest from Holland.

This post has been edited by dim view: 11 July 2024 - 12:40 PM