Jamie Vardy

[The ghost of Michael Theoklitos 0]

We''ve seen Wessi do similar things to get pens. We probably will again. I''ll bump this thread the next time to see how up in arms many people are then with our number 14. It was a 50-50 call we didn''t get. It happens.The long and short of it - you can complain about the decision, but I don''t think anyone can deny that at that point int he game they were the better side and probably deserved a lead.However the one good thing was that we showed good spirit and responded. I think we did enough to deserve a point on our second half performance. Let''s hope for a response in 2 weeks time at St James Park.

[Highland Canary 76]

^

This. Vardy did what was necessary to win football matches as our players have done before.

[norfolkbroadslim 223]

It''s irrelevant whether Leicester were the better side up to that point.

[The ghost of Michael Theoklitos 0]

[quote user="norfolkbroadslim"]It''s irrelevant whether Leicester were the better side up to that point.[/quote]I agree. It is irrelevant for the penalty decision, yes. But it''s not irrelevant for my acceptance of the end result of the game.

[GPs Beard 0]

"playing for a penalty" is, I''m afraid, a complete re write of the Laws of Football. It isn''t possible for an opposing player to "win" a penalty . What happens is the player contrives a position (stops running) and the referee interprets what he sees. The interpretation is often pre ordained, or as the Premier League referees will privately admit to , based on risk avoidance. As many referees wouldn''t have given that decision as would. In Clattenburg of course you have a ref - in some cases a maverick- who''s personal need for attention (see the hair piece?) which clouds the issue.

Contrast that to the ball rolling out for a goal kick , the defender stops , obstructing the attacking player and in many cases holding said player. The referee awards a goal kick when clearly a foul has occurred. but the referees have decided before the game not to award a free kick in those circumstances.

Consider also Huth and the pull on Jerome. It''s a decision that most refs don''t give. Nether do they give infringements from corners that anywhere else on the field of play is a foul . Clattenburg decides to award a foul for a push and disallows the goal which had been replicated throught the match. I doubt Huth ever defends a corner without "fouling" the opposing player.

So, the real question is, why do refs give some decisions in areas of the pitch that they don''t usually, and why did Clattenburg interpret three major decisions in the way that he did?

The game is beyond one man referring the match . Until referees admit it we wont make progress.

[Andy G 10]

I have to hand it to Leicester they looked good for their win today.

The Penalty... very soft but then i think if it was us, we''d have been screaming for it. From the angle of the Ref I can understand why he gave up, was a difficult call, it was a shame but we will get our breaks this season too!

What most concerned me was the way we kept making forced mistakes, every time we had the ball they pressed and we needlessly rushed a pass with little accuracy. I think one of the ones which stuck out most was when CJ had the ball and within seconds he had 3 people around him!

I think the way they played stopped us in our tracks and fair play to them.

Time Wasting for injury sorry i can''t call this ether, it wasn''t like Middlesborough last year where they spent most the game rolling on the floor.

I think Vardy may have been hurt but eager to play on.... just like Hoolahan in the first half who take a while to get back up and play on!

Alex Neil noticed the issues we were being forced to play and put on Redmond and Mbokani which was a great choice. I''m going to say Mbokani hadn''t filled me with much confidence in the past few weeks as he seemed to fear venturing into the box, but this game he changed my opinion!

I think we have to give credit to Leicester for their tactics this weekend and take it on the chin.

So lets now look forward to Newcastle, i think this is going to be a fantastic game, I have us winning 2-0 with Mbokani to Start upfront!

OTBC

[Crabbycanary3 994]

quote user="Parma Ham''s gone mouldy"]"Watching it in real time I thought the player played for it. It is a hard one to call. He has stopped his body and gone down, which you could argue is good striking for their point of view, but for us it is about losing a slack ball in the middle of the park. That was unnecessary and that is what cost us."

What Alex Neil is saying is: "lads, forget about refereeing, forget about whether it was soft [I wouldn''t have stepped in and corrected the red and refused the penalty if one of you was that clever].

Let''s look at what we did wrong, where we can improve, what we can control ourselves."

This is good management.

In terms of the penalty "playing for it" or "soft" or "stopping his body" (my phrase was ''brake testing'') is as Alex Neil says "good striking play".

It is not the same as diving, which is cheating. Norwich made a mistake, Bassong is the wrong side which allows Vardy to be professional. Welcome to the big leagues boys, fine margins.

Parma[/quote

Parma I get all the pre incident stuff about not giving the ball away. and I also get the fact that AN knows it can''t be changed, so will not look like a whinger.

AN doesn''t actually say it is good striking play though, does he? He says you could argue that it was from Leicester''s point of view, which is different to actually praising it.

My whole point is that even when Wes, et al, have gone down in a Norwich shirt, my overriding emotion is that it is still wrong.

To call it ''professional'' is just laughable. The definition of professional, doesn''t have any reference to do anything to con the officials. It''s used as a cop out to try and cover up the total inadequacies in the current Laws of the game.

Welcome to the Big Leagues? What on earth are you talking about, like that is meant as some sort of acceptance of the act, or that Premier League football is exempt from some of the rules. It can happen in Sunday League footy, as well as Italian football etc , but it doesn''t mean it''s right

[Jacko 0]

We never got to grips with Vardy all day. He utilised the space vacated by Whittaker and Brady when they pushed up to brilliant effect and he scared us in wide areas all day. The penalty was soft, but it was clumsy and came about as a result of Bassong having to confront him in a wide area where he didn''t want to be.

Whether it''s right or wrong playing for penalties in now part and parcel of professional football. Vardy has felt the contact (which was minimal) and gone down giving the referee a decision to make. Defenders have to be aware of that and be streetwise. Otherwise, you''ll have your pocket picked like we did on Saturday.

It''s also worth remembering that we were the beneficiaries of a shocking decision last year at Watford where Wes did actually dive. I was dead level with the incident in the Graham Taylor Stand and he collapsed his leg long before any challenge arrived. It''s something most professional footballers do (whether you like it or not) to some extent these days.

Leicester were the better side on Saturday and deserved their victory. It''s an important wake up call for us that we haven''t arrived in this league. Whilst no game is ''must win'' at this stage, Newcastle does look like an important match for confidence and will define whether we''ve had a good start or an indifferent one.

[NCFCgardener 0]

AN was quite diplomatic by saying Vardy was "clever". One of the softest penalties that you are likely to see, Bassong couldn''t really have done anything to avoid that, he was certainly looking for it. 4 Penalties for Leicester this season, 2 won by Vardy, the other being against Bournemouth, he was accused of diving for that one too.

The lads going to get himself a reputation of being a diver.

[lake district canary 4,531]

[quote user="NCFCgardener"]

The lads going to get himself a reputation of being a diver.[/quote]

Looks like a young Andy Johnson to me.   He was the worst I can remember - one particular penalty he got was against us and a bemused Malky who was just standing in his way as Johnson ran up to him, upended himself in the most spectacular fashion actually ending up on his head with feet in the air.  It was a desparate attempt to get a penalty - and of course he got it.   These things happen in pro football and you just have to hope officials won''t be fooled by them.  Vardy knew he was on the blind side of the ref and fooled him.  My question is always - what were the linesman or the laughingly called "referee''s assistants" doing?   One of them should be up with play and advising refs of what''s really happening.  

They call them assistant referees, but maybe they should be upgraded to full referees so there are three of them who carry the same responsibility for making decisions.  Some of them do - as the one did who advised the ref to disallow Jerome''s overhead - but most often they shirk any responsibility. 

[Lessingham Canary 99]

The lads going to get himself a reputation of being a diver.

That''s why he got called up for England, there isn''t a manager out there that would not want him to do what he did on Saturday, I thought at the time he went over very easy, and still do, but as long as there is contact its a penalty. Consistency of ref''s is a bigger issue IMO, look at Southampton v Chelsea Van Dijk almost lost his shirt !

[lake district canary 4,531]

[quote user="Lessingham Canary"]I thought at the time he went over very easy, and still do, but as long as there is contact its a penalty. [/quote]

Not so. It is a misnoma that has been propogated by countless pundits - but just because they say it,  it doesn''t make it right.  Contact is only a foul if it impedes the player in some way. Players contact each other all over the pitch and it''s no foul.  It has just become fashionable to say the player is entitled to go down if there is contact.  It is a sadness of football that players need to feel they have to be dishonest.   It may be rife in modern football - but that never, never makes it right.

[STAN 29]

Personally I feel rules like the "advantage" rule have only worsened the situation. The only way you can be "fouled" in football these days is to hit the deck.

It''s created a dilemma for players. You''re going through 1 on 1 with the keeper, the opposing defender tugs your shirt knocking you off your stride, do you hit the deck thus meaning it''s a foul? Or do you try to stay on your feet and get your shot off?

That in itself has created a dilemma for refs. Rather than judging if a challenge was foul play ie. shirt pulling. They''re now having to decide whether a foul was bad/hard enough to warrant "going down".

This in itself has made diving more popular than ever.

[Mr Angry 1,544]

[quote user="NCFCgardener"]Bassong couldn''t really have done anything to avoid that.[/quote]

He certainly could, he was closer to the ball than Vardy but he was too slow-either mentally or physically, or both.

[King Klose 0]

Never a penalty, an comical and farcical decision. At the other end, there is no way we would have been given it. But it''s Clattenburg, so what do we expect?

Re Vardy, an utter disgrace. A cheat and no other words for it. He deserves what''s coming to him and I wouldn''t be sorry if someone ended his season or even worse career with actions like that.

[King Klose 0]

Never a penalty, a comical and farcical decision. At the other end, there is no way we would have been given it. But it''s Clattenburg, so what do we expect?

Re Vardy, an utter disgrace. A cheat and no other words for it. He deserves what''s coming to him and I wouldn''t be sorry if someone ended his season or even worse career with actions like that.

[paul moy 235]

If a player stops running and the player chasing runs into him it''s a foul. Vardy has every right to stop running and all good nippy strikers employ changes of pace and quick turns to catch out slow-thinking defenders such as Bassong.

[lake district canary 4,531]

[quote user="paul moy"]If a player stops running and the player chasing runs into him it''s a foul. Vardy has every right to stop running and all good nippy strikers employ changes of pace and quick turns to catch out slow-thinking defenders such as Bassong.[/quote]

Not stricty true. If you drive your car and stop for a legitimate reason, then yes, if the car behind hits you it''s their fault. However, if you purposely jam on the brakes to make the car behind go into you  - that is a crime.

[morty 0]

Oh, were the players driving cars then? Were the police called?I haven''t seen the MOTD highlights to confirm this.

[paul moy 235]

In all walks of life the person behind should be vigilant as the person in front may do something unpredictable and the person in front more often than not cannot see the person behind.

Bassong was careless, just as a driver would be careless in not allowing sufficient braking distance from a car in front and just as a skier behind another on the piste has a duty of care to a person skiing ahead of him in order to avoid collision and potential serious injury to both parties.

[TCCANARY 263]

[quote user="paul moy"]If a player stops running and the player chasing runs into him it''s a foul. Vardy has every right to stop running and all good nippy strikers employ changes of pace and quick turns to catch out slow-thinking defenders such as Bassong.[/quote]

 

That''s true if he was in possession (the rules call it ''within playing distance'') of he ball, can''t remember if he was in this instance, if he wasn''t in possession of the ball it would be what us old timers used to call obstruction, the new way of describing it is ''impeding the opponent''.

 

I think Clattenberg gave the penalty for what he saw as a push by Bassong.

 

 

[lake district canary 4,531]

[quote user="paul moy"]In all walks of life the person behind should be vigilant as the person in front may do something unpredictable and the person in front more often than not cannot see the person behind.

Bassong was careless, just as a driver would be careless in not allowing sufficient braking distance from a car in front and just as a skier behind another on the piste has a duty of care to a person skiing ahead of him in order to avoid collision and potential serious injury to both parties.[/quote]

Crime and wrong doing is about intent.   Even if the car behind is too close, if the driver in the car in front braked with the intenention of causing the accident - he is in the wrong. Likewise, even if Bassong was too close, if Vardy stopped with the intention of getting the penalty - he is in the wrong.

[paul moy 235]

LDC, I don''t agree at all and neither will the law. If a car runs into the back of another he is either driving too closely (ie insufficient braking distance) or without due care and attention. The only way the driver ahead would be deemed responsible is if his brake warning lights were not working properly or if he had reversed.

[lake district canary 4,531]

[quote user="paul moy"]LDC, I don''t agree at all and neither will the law. If a car runs into the back of another he is either driving too closely (ie insufficient braking distance) or without due care and attention. The only way the driver ahead would be deemed responsible is if his brake warning lights were not working properly or if he had reversed.[/quote]

There is a well known scam by drivers wishing to illegally get money out of insurance companies by pulling in front of another car and jaming on the brakes to cause an accident and get insurance money/damages.    That is intentional - and it is a crime.   Vardy did basically the same thing - jammed on the brakes, hooked his leg back to cause collision and intentionally caused a coming together.  Should have been booked. 

[paul moy 235]

Indeed LDC, but those folks disable their brake lights to catch the driver behind unawares. Agreed, that is a crime that I too am well aware of.

[kick it off 1,948]

[quote user="paul moy"]If a player stops running and the player chasing runs into him it''s a foul. Vardy has every right to stop running and all good nippy strikers employ changes of pace and quick turns to catch out slow-thinking defenders such as Bassong.[/quote]

Have you actually watched the replay? That isn''t what happens. There is NO contact. Vardy drags his foot across the floor and throws himself down. Bassong doesn''t touch him.

[Crabbycanary3 994]

Vardy came in from Bassong''s left hand side, and in THIS country, you should give way to those on the right

[Highland Canary 76]

Holty was a master at drawing the foul for a penalty. Wes has arguably gone down somewhat easily in the past too. Good luck to Vardy. It''s the nature of professional football today, rightly or wrongly. We''re only three points behind the curve at the moment. Wins at Newcastle and against West Brom will put us back on course for 39 points.

[morty 0]

So, what we''re saying is that referees should be consulting the highway code?

[wcorkcanary 4,329]

How about traffic lights or a roundabout on the edge of the 18 yard box?....or a traffic cop, wearing white gloves, doin the moonwalk?