Review: Should've been PK

Can't really tell from that angle, but it did look like it was from behind with the defenders hip blocking the player's trailing leg from going forward. While it doesn't look like a traditional slide tackle along the ground, the defender left his feet to leap at the other player. I would consider this challenge at least careless. The other consideration is whether the ball was playable by the attacker if he had not been fouled, and it appeared to be. (Although I would have hoped to be in a better position than the camera, I would have called a penalty even in a rec game.) The real question was should it have been a red card for the apparent last defender denying by foul a goal scoring opportunity.

 

To me this looks like a pk, though the camera angle makes it hard to tell. From the angle, the play seemed very reckless to me. What age and skill level were the players?

Either way, if I were ref I'd have called a PK for sure.

 

it's a pretty close call, but i think it was clean. he definitely got the ball.

 

Interesting question. It did look like it was from behind, but not necessarily reckless. Post this to the referee forum. I'd love to see what they think about it.

 

Very hard to tell from that angle, also an angle that no ref would have had.

Couple things:

"from behind": really doesn't matter, a tackle can be made safely from behind, although when they are not legaly made they tend to be pretty bad.

"got the ball": He did get it, you can clearly tell from the change in direction of the ball, so yes, he got the ball, but did he get the ball first and the tackle motion took out the attacker, or did he go through the attacker to get to the ball? Can't really tell from that video.

Red card for DGF? Nope, first off there has to be a fould and the ref said there wasn't, but if there had been, probalby still not, but possibly yellow for UB/tactical foul.

 

i replayed the clip a few times, and it looks like he got his outside foot around you to make contact with the ball, but clipped you with his inside leg/body at about the same time that he made contact with the ball.

exactly.

and i agree. post to the ref's forum. i'd love to hear what they think.

 

To me its not a deciding factor whether he touched the ball or not, but when I ran the video slowly it appeared that the defenders left hip and leg made contact first blocking the attackers left leg as it was trying to move forward taking out the attacker from the attackers blindside. What was deciding to me was the angle of approach (going through the attacker to get the screened ball) and that the defender left his feet. It appeared to me that he deliberately blindsided the attacker.

 

if you stop it at the right moment it looksas though the defender getting the ball, fair enough the follow through could be a pen but the ball was won. Camera angle isn't the greatest though so I'm not saying definate or not.

 

Definite penalty for me. He got the ball, yes, but went through the attacker to get it.

 

here is something i noticed both when I'm playing or on TV,

whenever there is a foul around the penalty box on the right side of field (for the attacker), referee's and linesmen rarely give out penalties or call a foul. It is just that the position of the foul is too far from the referee and at an akward angle for the linesmen.

However when it is on the left side and a foul occurs, always (even when it isn't a foul) referees will call it. Most of the penalties that are called are always from that area.

I think the reason for this phenomena is that the referee are taught to run at a diagonal from the bottom right corner to the upper left corner (for the attacking team). So it make sense why fouls on the right hand side on the upper third are rarely called.

Next time you watch a professional game, take a note where the fouls occur.