a m ole Posted November 21, 2020 Share Posted November 21, 2020 1 minute ago, blandy said: No, absolutely not. Reckless tackles are not the same as slight contact with the man. Serious foul play and endangering an opponent = red card + pen if in the box. the touch of the ball is irrelevant as Trez can still play it. If what occurs after is a foul, it’s a foul. He’s impeded Trez no matter how much of a meal he made of it. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AV82 Posted November 21, 2020 Share Posted November 21, 2020 (edited) 8 minutes ago, blandy said: No, absolutely not. Reckless tackles are not the same as slight contact with the man. Serious foul play and endangering an opponent = red card + pen if in the box. The defenders contact on the ball has to be substantial otherwise he's simply impeding the attacking player which was the case today. The real question is to what extent did he impede the player? I think it would be a harsh penalty as the contact with the player seemed quite minimal but that's beside the point. The contact by the defender on the ball was not enough to overturn the penalty and that's the issue. Edited November 21, 2020 by AV82 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keyblade Posted November 21, 2020 Share Posted November 21, 2020 2 hours ago, woody153 said: Brighton player doesn't even make contact with him. Clearly no penalty as he touched he ball first. Also a booking for simulation, cheating. You can literally see the impact on his shin pads. Both of their pads actually 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brumstopdogs Posted November 21, 2020 Share Posted November 21, 2020 (edited) 2 hours ago, woody153 said: Also a booking for simulation, cheating. Someone from Leeds commenting on cheating and simulation.. Thought Trez played really well today and love the effort he puts in. Shame he didn't get rewarded with a goal today. Edited November 21, 2020 by Brumstopdogs 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCJonah Posted November 21, 2020 Share Posted November 21, 2020 A Leeds fan against diving. Surprised given the antics of his team in recent years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted November 21, 2020 Moderator Share Posted November 21, 2020 19 minutes ago, a m ole said: the touch of the ball is irrelevant as Trez can still play it. If what occurs after is a foul, it’s a foul. He’s impeded Trez no matter how much of a meal he made of it. It isn’t. Law 12 says that for a direct free kick to be awarded ( pen in the box ) the Brighton player has to have been careless, reckless or using excessive force. The ref, after seeing the replay changed his mind from careless (lack of attention, consideration or making a challenge without precaution) to not careless, because his attention was on the ball, he got the ball and then there was some mild contact between the two players in his gentle follow through. That the two players both then threw themselves to the ground is neither here nor there. that’s my reading of it. And the ref’s. impeding after no contact is an indirect free kick, after contact, it’s no free kick at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keyblade Posted November 21, 2020 Share Posted November 21, 2020 1 minute ago, blandy said: It isn’t. Law 12 says that for a direct free kick to be awarded ( pen in the box ) the Brighton player has to have been careless, reckless or using excessive force. The ref, after seeing the replay changed his mind from careless (lack of attention, consideration or making a challenge without precaution) to not careless, because his attention was on the ball, he got the ball and then there was some mild contact between the two players in his gentle follow through. That the two players both then threw themselves to the ground is neither here nor there. that’s my reading of it. And the ref’s. It was careless. He stuck a leg out. He only touched the ball by chance. It wasn't a tackle. If he didn't catch Trez, he'd still be in control of the ball. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rodders0223 Posted November 21, 2020 Share Posted November 21, 2020 5 minutes ago, Keyblade said: It was careless. He stuck a leg out. He only touched the ball by chance. It wasn't a tackle. If he didn't catch Trez, he'd still be in control of the ball. Lol what? El Ghazi's play off final goal off his shoulder was chance. Chalk it off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
a m ole Posted November 21, 2020 Share Posted November 21, 2020 5 minutes ago, blandy said: It isn’t. Law 12 says that for a direct free kick to be awarded ( pen in the box ) the Brighton player has to have been careless, reckless or using excessive force. The ref, after seeing the replay changed his mind from careless (lack of attention, consideration or making a challenge without precaution) to not careless, because his attention was on the ball, he got the ball and then there was some mild contact between the two players in his gentle follow through. That the two players both then threw themselves to the ground is neither here nor there. that’s my reading of it. And the ref’s. impeding after no contact is an indirect free kick, after contact, it’s no free kick at all. grazing the ball doesn’t make it not careless, as the ball stayed directly in-front of Trez and then he made significant (not gentle, lol) contact shin to shin. It’s carless because the ball doesn’t go anywhere and he fouls the player. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keyblade Posted November 21, 2020 Share Posted November 21, 2020 2 minutes ago, rodders0223 said: Lol what? El Ghazi's play off final goal off his shoulder was chance. Chalk it off. He didn't follow it up with an infringement. So no. He swung aimlessly and missed. Barely grazed the ball but caught the man and impeded him. Somehow because he touched the ball it's not a foul. Reminds me of awful red card challenges being waved away because they "got the ball". Biggest red herring in English football. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MotoMkali Posted November 21, 2020 Share Posted November 21, 2020 39 minutes ago, blandy said: That’s exactly how it works, (unless there’s recklessness in endangering an opponent). Trez would have still had the ball inside the box if he wasn't fouled. The ball wasn't carried away. March made a bad challenge and he knew it was a pen from his reaction. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MotoMkali Posted November 21, 2020 Share Posted November 21, 2020 18 minutes ago, blandy said: It isn’t. Law 12 says that for a direct free kick to be awarded ( pen in the box ) the Brighton player has to have been careless, reckless or using excessive force. The ref, after seeing the replay changed his mind from careless (lack of attention, consideration or making a challenge without precaution) to not careless, because his attention was on the ball, he got the ball and then there was some mild contact between the two players in his gentle follow through. That the two players both then threw themselves to the ground is neither here nor there. that’s my reading of it. And the ref’s. impeding after no contact is an indirect free kick, after contact, it’s no free kick at all. Careless means he follows through without making significant constant on the ball. He grazed the ball and kicked trez bellow the shin pad. That is careless. It wasn't dangerous or reckless but careless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davkaus Posted November 21, 2020 Share Posted November 21, 2020 I'd chip in a tenner to crowdfund a forum for Leeds fans to **** off to. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vive_La_Villa Posted November 21, 2020 Share Posted November 21, 2020 I’m undecided by the penalty. But the fact is the ref gave it and it wasn’t a clear and obvious enough of an error to overturn it. That’s what is really annoying. Var is there to assist referees if there is a clear and obvious error. That wasn’t one so he should not have been asked to look at it again! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roonst83 Posted November 21, 2020 Share Posted November 21, 2020 Can’t ever fault Trezzy for his effort, work rate and endeavour. But he is completely limited by his abilities. Yea, he pops up at the back post, but this is down to his endeavour and desire to score. Not his ability to. He has improved this season though but he can’t take players on and I never expect him to score when he lines up a shot. Frustrating but until he has someone better than him taking his place (Traore isn’t showing anywhere near enough effort to challenge Trezzy for a starting spot) then we won’t be a threat on the right. Don’t get me wrong I really like Trezzy but he doesn’t have enough ability. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alreadyexists Posted November 21, 2020 VT Supporter Share Posted November 21, 2020 3 hours ago, woody153 said: Brighton player doesn't even make contact with him. Clearly no penalty as he touched he ball first. Also a booking for simulation, cheating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom13 Posted November 22, 2020 Share Posted November 22, 2020 ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tomaszk Posted November 22, 2020 Share Posted November 22, 2020 Why do we have so many fans of others teams on this forum?! Why would you bother? Probably the best game Trez has ever played for us. His technique and thinking when shooting though, goodness me. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Follyfoot Posted November 22, 2020 VT Supporter Share Posted November 22, 2020 (edited) 5 minutes ago, Tomaszk said: Why do we have so many fans of others teams on this forum?! Why would you bother? Probably the best game Trez has ever played for us. His technique and thinking when shooting though, goodness me. They are starting to take notice that he Lion is arising from its slumber Edited November 22, 2020 by Follyfoot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ozvillafan Posted November 22, 2020 VT Supporter Share Posted November 22, 2020 I'm a little surprised that people think this is NOT a penalty. The idea that a player got a nick on a ball means nothing when it comes to foul play. Look at the trajectory of the defender. He is running straight at Trez. Trez sees this and plays around. The defender lunges, barely touches the ball - not enough to take it out of Trez's path and deny the scoring opportunity - and his trajectory takes him straight into Trez' shin. That's the epitome of piss-poor defending. You do NOT commit like that in the box because forwards know how to draw the foul - which is exactly what Trez did. Being denied the chance to shoot by the contact on the shin - NOT the contact on the ball - means it's a penalty all day long. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts