Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Graham Paddons Beard

Sterling’s penalty

Recommended Posts

49 minutes ago, Graham Paddons Beard said:

I didn’t hear that - if the ref said he was tripped in possession then it’s a pen. But he wasn’t tripped . 

We was tripped. It’s clear as day if you watch the replays. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Jim Smith said:

That’s a clear penalty in my view, certainly in the age of VAR. that it possibly wasn’t even checked is very strange. it would have been undeserved but we’ve been hard done by there. 
 

The trouble is, although there was contact, it looked on first glance as if Sterling stood on his own foot, which he did, but that made it look as if he was diving, which he was. He was going nowhere, he didn't really have anywhere to go, so as usual at the slightest touch, the player goes down. No penalty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Graham Paddons Beard said:

I didn’t hear that - if the ref said he was tripped in possession then it’s a pen. But he wasn’t tripped . 

Sterling quite obviously actually kicked the defenders foot and then went down. If that game had been decided by that,it would have been a travesty.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, lake district canary said:

The trouble is, although there was contact, it looked on first glance as if Sterling stood on his own foot, which he did, but that made it look as if he was diving, which he was. He was going nowhere, he didn't really have anywhere to go, so as usual at the slightest touch, the player goes down. No penalty.

Have you actually watched the replay? It’s a clear trip. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, WD40 said:

That Peter Walton they have on there is the biggest stooge I’ve ever seen. Without fail always agrees with the refs opinion. Had that been a premier league game he would have said “clear contact on sterling’s foot there, VAR got it right”.

Walton can not be trusted.

I thought it was an odd comment. If only because he said there had been a trip (and therefore it WAS a foul and it was in the penalty area). That he then said Sterling "went down too easily" becomes a little irrelevant. I mean, was it a foul or not? If it was, then it was a penalty. You cannot referee surely by judging the behaviour of a player ("Ah, he's gone down there like a dying swan, not giving that!!"). It is a bit of a ridiculous comment.

All this said, neither England (nor Scotland) arguably deserved a win.

So if I now want to sound  just like Walton I will say "no penalty" because on the balance of play England didn't deserve it!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Jim Smith said:

Have you actually watched the replay? It’s a clear trip. 

Have you looked at it closely enough?  The sideways replay shows that he knew exactly what he was doing in getting his foot in behind the defenders foot and then making it look like it was a bad trip. He was going nowhere, running out of space, knew the defender was going to make the challenge and made sure there was contact so that he could go down.  Definitely no penalty - tried to buy it and the ref was right to dismiss it.   

The shame of it is that in the PL VAR would have intervened and it would have been given and so perpetuating this kind of buying of penalties.  Late in the game, needing a goal, Sterling made sure there was contact, stood on his own foot so that he would fall down dramatically.  Ref saw that - and VAR wasn't used. Excellent officiating all round.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
17 minutes ago, sonyc said:

I thought it was an odd comment. If only because he said there had been a trip (and therefore it WAS a foul and it was in the penalty area). That he then said Sterling "went down too easily" becomes a little irrelevant. I mean, was it a foul or not? If it was, then it was a penalty. You cannot referee surely by judging the behaviour of a player ("Ah, he's gone down there like a dying swan, not giving that!!"). It is a bit of a ridiculous comment.

All this said, neither England (nor Scotland) arguably deserved a win.

So if I now want to sound  just like Walton I will say "no penalty" because on the balance of play England didn't deserve it!

Quite - Vardy has made an art of going down ‘too easily’, but nearly always gets the decision.

All this ‘Scotland were great, England were lucky to get a draw’ stuff is garbage.  It was a poor game with 2 shots on target all match, a clear draw and neither side deserved to win.  Scotland played a great tactical game but created next to nothing and anything other than a draw would have been a travesty.   It’s actually a shame one of the few chances didn’t go in as I’m sure the spectacle would have vastly improved. 

The thing is that England played at about 50% whereas Scotland were near-100%; the question is whether England can find that extra as they played as though they were half asleep.

Edited by Branston Pickle
  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, lake district canary said:

Have you looked at it closely enough?  The sideways replay shows that he knew exactly what he was doing in getting his foot in behind the defenders foot and then making it look like it was a bad trip. He was going nowhere, running out of space, knew the defender was going to make the challenge and made sure there was contact so that he could go down.  Definitely no penalty - tried to buy it and the ref was right to dismiss it.   

The shame of it is that in the PL VAR would have intervened and it would have been given and so perpetuating this kind of buying of penalties.  Late in the game, needing a goal, Sterling made sure there was contact, stood on his own foot so that he would fall down dramatically.  Ref saw that - and VAR wasn't used. Excellent officiating all round.

 

Ref can’t possibly have seen that slightly contrived interpretation in that split second. At the very least it ought to have been checked. It’s wrong that it wasn’t - done might say dodgy.

I do generally agree with your point about penalties being bought through drawing “contact” and the way VAR is used in this country making those awards inevitable because as soon as they see contact the refs will give it and slow motion often makes it look worse than it was but I think that’s different to a situation where someone is tripped, as was the case here. It applies perhaps where there is a coming together or players brush against each other but you can’t say “he was tripped but went down too easily” like Walton did when trying to back the referee (who incidentally gave cheap free kicks for any kind of slight physical contact all over the pitch all night).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Jim Smith said:

Ref can’t possibly have seen that slightly contrived interpretation in that split second. At the very least it ought to have been checked. It’s wrong that it wasn’t - done might say dodgy.

I do generally agree with your point about penalties being bought through drawing “contact” and the way VAR is used in this country making those awards inevitable because as soon as they see contact the refs will give it and slow motion often makes it look worse than it was but I think that’s different to a situation where someone is tripped, as was the case here. It applies perhaps where there is a coming together or players brush against each other but you can’t say “he was tripped but went down too easily” like Walton did when trying to back the referee (who incidentally gave cheap free kicks for any kind of slight physical contact all over the pitch all night).

Walton did make a stupid comment. When people say he went down too easily is a silly remark. If you are tripped you will go down. What he should be saying is that he thought Sterling could have stayed on his feet because there was no contact. But, in fact there was contact.

Anything else would have been that Sterling had dived. Then that is simulation and he should be booked but he wasn't.

And who decides about VAR? Sometimes players shout and we are told VAR are looking at it. Has the referee initiated that or the players or even the crowd?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jim Smith said:

Ref can’t possibly have seen that slightly contrived interpretation in that split second. At the very least it ought to have been checked. It’s wrong that it wasn’t - done might say dodgy.

I do generally agree with your point about penalties being bought through drawing “contact” and the way VAR is used in this country making those awards inevitable because as soon as they see contact the refs will give it and slow motion often makes it look worse than it was but I think that’s different to a situation where someone is tripped, as was the case here. It applies perhaps where there is a coming together or players brush against each other but you can’t say “he was tripped but went down too easily” like Walton did when trying to back the referee (who incidentally gave cheap free kicks for any kind of slight physical contact all over the pitch all night).

For me, Sterling made the challenge into a trip. These players are so quick footed and quick witted that they know how to make a challenge into a foul and make it look real. He knew the challenge was coming, knew he was going nowhere anyway so decided to try his luck. Ref didn't fall for it.  Yes, there was a slight trip, but only because Sterling made sure there was a trip.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was a dive all day long. Yes there was contact, caused by sterling dragging his foot into the defender as the ball he had overrun was going out of play. Never a pen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't agree. While it's a bit of a grey area with exactly how much contact is required before VAR would deem it a 'clear and obvious error', if the ref had given it VAR would equally never have overturned it.

As far as I'm concerned, a foul, any foul no matter how minor, should be a penalty. The simple test should be whether it would be a free kick anywhere else on the pitch. This was a clear, very minor, foul. It's objectively a poor decision by the referee.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Petriix said:

I can't agree. While it's a bit of a grey area with exactly how much contact is required before VAR would deem it a 'clear and obvious error', if the ref had given it VAR would equally never have overturned it.

As far as I'm concerned, a foul, any foul no matter how minor, should be a penalty. The simple test should be whether it would be a free kick anywhere else on the pitch. This was a clear, very minor, foul. It's objectively a poor decision by the referee.

But if Sterling was the one to make it into a foul by at the last millisecond, cleverly putting his foot in the way the defender's challenge so he could go down, then it isn't a foul....it's cheating.  Such is the difficulty for refs to decide, imo this ref got it right.

  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, lake district canary said:

But if Sterling was the one to make it into a foul by at the last millisecond, cleverly putting his foot in the way the defender's challenge so he could go down, then it isn't a foul....it's cheating.  Such is the difficulty for refs to decide, imo this ref got it right.

You can't 'make it into a foul'. The defender should be standing off or winning the ball. Moving your feet towards the attacker in such a way that they can make contact without deviating from their path simply is always a foul.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Petriix said:

You can't 'make it into a foul'. The defender should be standing off or winning the ball. Moving your feet towards the attacker in such a way that they can make contact without deviating from their path simply is always a foul.

Sterling was imo actively looking to get contact and that in my mind is cheating. He was running out of space to do anything with the ball as the defender had closed him down so he did the next best thing, in his mind anyway - to try and get a penalty. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, lake district canary said:

But if Sterling was the one to make it into a foul by at the last millisecond, cleverly putting his foot in the way the defender's challenge so he could go down, then it isn't a foul....it's cheating.  Such is the difficulty for refs to decide, imo this ref got it right.

  

He didn’t put his foot in the way. You are seeing what you want to see there because I think you believe Sterling fives. It was a clear trip. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Jim Smith said:

That’s a clear penalty in my view, certainly in the age of VAR. that it possibly wasn’t even checked is very strange. it would have been undeserved but we’ve been hard done by there. 
 

Never a penalty, should have been booked for diving. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That one on the French there that wasn't given at the end was more of a penalty than Sterling's dive. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sterling was stood on, it probably could have been given as a foul, equally the referee did not give it so everyone got on with the game, which was nice to see.  What frustrates is 2 minutes later there was a challenge in midfield, no real contact, a free kick given and the commentator says that is great game management from Scotland, whilst Sterling is labelled a diver.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Jim Smith said:

He didn’t put his foot in the way. You are seeing what you want to see there because I think you believe Sterling fives. It was a clear trip. 

Then it's a matter of what you want to see.  For my money he made it into a trip, he made it look worse by then standing on his own foot to make the fall more dramatic. These "top" footballers are very quick witted and they know how to make something out of nothing.  Unfortunately for Sterling, this time the ref wasn't falling for it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Newtopia said:

Sterling was stood on, it probably could have been given as a foul, equally the referee did not give it so everyone got on with the game, which was nice to see.  What frustrates is 2 minutes later there was a challenge in midfield, no real contact, a free kick given and the commentator says that is great game management from Scotland, whilst Sterling is labelled a diver.

“Game management” is another one of those media inventions - it used to be called time wasting 😂

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Isn’t this where an accidental contact should’ve a foul but indirect free kick and not a penalty! When did indirect free kicks go out the game?

Edited by Indy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

It would have been given for the 19 other teams in the PL, but if that was Pukki or Cantwell v any other team it wouldn't have been a penalty.

 

Don't get me wrong I agree with you, it wasn't a penalty, but if that was against us that would have definitely been given by the way English VAR refs decide things, except if it was us, it would have been ignored. 

See how every one of our PL seasons have gone since the 90's for reference 

Edited by Christoph Stiepermann

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anywhere other than the penalty area on the pitch there would of been a foul given...Sterling had his foot stood on and therefore penalty albeit a very soft one.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Similar incident in the Spain game just now, pen given. Probably more clear-cut to be fair, but another standing on the foot. 

 

Not that England really justified being given it tbh, would have been harsh on Scotland. 

Edited by Evil Monkey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Spain one had slightly more of a connection, still not a penalty for me either, justice done in them missing it. I used to play as a striker for many years, had my feet trodden on accidently all the time and not once did I feel the need to fling myself to the floor, and I can't recall naturally tripping up because of it either. Football is still a contact sport as far as I'm aware. 

I'd suggest those thinking it's a penalty have never actually played the game, without wanting to appear rude 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Ken Hairy said:

The Spain one had slightly more of a connection, still not a penalty for me either, justice done in them missing it. I used to play as a striker for many years, had my feet trodden on accidently all the time and not once did I feel the need to fling myself to the floor, and I can't recall naturally tripping up because of it either. Football is still a contact sport as far as I'm aware. 

I'd suggest those thinking it's a penalty have never actually played the game, without wanting to appear rude 

Those having a differing opinion to yours have never played football??!....the best wind up merchant tonight 👏

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ken Hairy said:

The Spain one had slightly more of a connection, still not a penalty for me either, justice done in them missing it. I used to play as a striker for many years, had my feet trodden on accidently all the time and not once did I feel the need to fling myself to the floor, and I can't recall naturally tripping up because of it either. Football is still a contact sport as far as I'm aware. 

I'd suggest those thinking it's a penalty have never actually played the game, without wanting to appear rude 

To be honest Ken, the football I watch in the top players play has almost no relationship to the football I played.

It was openl discussed that defenders used to give the skilful players a kick early on, as the referees never booked you in the first 10 minutes, and they liked to give a warning first before booking you, so effectively every attacker had to survive the first challenge.  So my direct experience is not really relevant, I definitely played a lot of grass roots football.

Based on my experience I did not believe either of them were penalties or many of the fouls ‘drawn’ from a defender or ‘won’ in midfield are fouls, but the expert referees more often than not do.  I think they are not consistent in the application of the rules.  If the Spain one is given / and the Scottish ones in the middle of the pitch are given, then the Sterling one should.  And until referees give fouls without a player falling over, the players will continue to fall over if that gives them the best chance of scoring.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ken Hairy said:

I'd suggest those thinking it's a penalty have never actually played the game, without wanting to appear rude 

Laughable. I’d suggest you havent watched much premier league football. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...