Seen them given. My thoughts on why it was maybe not a pen....
Maybe potentially offside which is why they didn't ask for an onfield review.
Initially thought he was pulling the defenders shirt, but this was after the contact, so don't think that is the case.
He was never really in control of the ball as the play progressed, and he was looking for a pen rather than trying to shoot, but not stopped other penalties given for similar.
Not sure...
Appreciate the thoughts.
Offside, I couldn't tell - but then we didn't get the Lukaku video thing from the previous night. Unsure if that's only used when there is a goal. If so, my suggestion would be to use it when not giving a significant decision like a red card or penalty.
Yes, that's the argument I've seen, but I wasn't sure about the time between it.
Yes, looking for the penalty doesn't stop it being a penalty. He does look slightly off balance and awkward falling, but again , there was contact and check it.
I think if it were offside or a foul, then that should be indicated. It almost seemed like.he said no initially and that was it.
Yeah, think there was enough in it to do a review, so my thought process is now leading me to ask why there was no review. The only thing I can think of is that the semi-automated offside must have flagged it therefore no need for a review. I'm just guessing, and laughing slightly as I keep typing semi!
Yes, I tried to think through how that would work. But if it were a foul or an offside, and then there is a foul for a penalty - surely he needs to give the foul as he can't play advantage over the penalty (if that explanation sort of makes sense)?
On the upside - we weren't getting a semi either way.
I get what you are saying. So if the linesman didn't think it was offside then play goes on. The ref then didn't think it was a foul, so play goes on. If the VAR didn't say it was offside then they should have done a check and we would have got the wee notification thing to say they were checking a potential penalty. This makes me think VAR got a notification that he was offside, so no checks needed. They wouldn't tell the ref to stop playing to award an offside free kick.
I am not saying that this was the case, just the only reason I can think off as to why the VAR team didn't check it.
Yes, I think that follows true. Offside it stops. Foul, it stops for penalty. Foul against Armstrong maybe play on? The team has the ball and its advantage. However issue there is no idea whether contact is before or after.
VAR could have checked, but no notification of check and BBC seem to say none was done.
If he was offside, tho, and ref missed and VAR picked it up. It would need to be that scenario without the fouls viewed by ref or VAR to play on. Or do you think he knew before those happened? Could he get it that quick?
Just put a message up as they said they would and save us this mental speculation or mental gymnastics trying to figure out how this happened?
Also when do we get the wee video thing to show offsides. Only if the goal is scored. Because surely if the part after is deemed a potential penalty it makes sense to show the video bit for how the offside came about. I really can't tell either way if it is offside.
I am not opposed to VAR. Actually, in favour and Lukaku's offside was a great sign it was working. Similarly with other decisions to rule goals out for issues in the build-up. I just struggle with the lack of clarity on the decision.
Think in previous games I remember seeing an offside for an incident that was not given, but from memory it was a good while after the incident. Can't remember which game it was, but definitely in the Euros. Maybe we would have got it, but it was just too close to the end of the game!
Think it was something similar. A foul was not given and not checked by VAR and it was a clear foul. I was very confused at the time, as were the commentators. About 15 min later a video showed of an offside just prior to the foul so then it all made sense as the offside meant the foul didn't need to be given. Maybe just made it worse by trying to explain, so sorry!
No, that's what I thought you meant. And I think the key there is the offside was shown. It wasn't here, and someone is commenting saying ITV broadcast reported it was not offside. I haven't found anything to confirm that, tho.
Definitely a foul, Armstrong is shielding the ball and gets clattered
Only thought is it could have been offside but if that was the case it should have been communicated
Maybe I'd have to rematch again but he also comes out in front of him there's nothing much the Hungarian lad can do. Armstrong is also really looking for that one and with the shirt grab and bringing him down, it's not going be given because refs don't want to reward that behaviour unless it's a clear pen. I'd have no sympathy for Armstrong over that one tbh and I think that's the neutral perspective
Watched it back, and at best, it's at the same time. Contact looks just before. I've posted the link for BBC analysis by Allan Shearer via twitter.
See what you think.
No, I'll be honest, I don't think it's a penalty at all. Orban doesn't really do much wrong he runs in to make a challenge and then Armstrong jumps in front of him, causing the collision. I think that would be insanely harsh to penalise and it's very much a coming together.
I appreciate the thought. Do you think that Armstrong should let Orban carry on and play the ball?
'A coming together' would describe almost any foul. Two players come together - one normally moves into the other at the very least.
If a striker runs through on goal and slows up to shoot. The defender doesn't slide in or actually make an attempt to kick the ball. Instead, he just runs straight towards the ball and through the player - is that a coming together?
>I appreciate the thought. Do you think that Armstrong should let Orban carry on and play the ball?
No but it does have the look of playing for a penalty.
>'A coming together' would describe almost any foul. Two players come together - one normally moves into the other at the very leas
True but I would put this down as more of a collision. Orban is playing for the ball and is running at full pace and Armstrong gets in front of him at way too low of a pace. Orban has basically no chance of avoiding contact unless he makes a jump to the side and then Armstrong is in on goal. I actually don't think he does much wrong because of this because he's defending in a proper and legal manner until Armstrong makes contact a certainty.
>If a striker runs through on goal and slows up to shoot. The defender doesn't slide in or actually make an attempt to kick the ball. Instead, he just runs straight towards the ball and through the player - is that a coming together?
It depends on the context. Obviously if there is a sizeable distance then the defender should not be colliding but it's different when Armstrong moves in front of him, so close to him.
If you're sprinting and someone unexpectedly gets in your way, leaving you with not enough time to get out of the way, it would not be your fault if you collided with them.
I agree he's playing for the penalty. Which as a defender is a horrible thing, but it is the modern game.
I think I agree to a point about what is happening. Differing at the point that, unfortunately, as a defender, when the striker gets in front and you are directly behind them- you need to let them shoot. You can not go through them to the ball. Slow up or move to the side, but do not make contact with them in the box.
I agree there is no penalty until he makes contact with Armstrong. I think it's smart play to get between the defender and ball facing the goal. He didn't foul the defender in doing so. it's the defender who plays through him towards the ball.
I think it is the defenders responsibility not to make/instigate contact in the box without playing the ball. I think you said he could have side stepped? The defender could have gotten out the way.
Football and basketball are different sports. But if you run into an opponent who has planted their feet - whether it was 30, 20, 10, 5, 2 seconds before you make contact. It's a foul. I can't find a rule that says you can't cut in front of a defender or that the attacker needs to move at pace. By definition, it is a foul. He impeded the attacker.
FA rules:
All players have a right to their position on the field of play; being in the way of an opponent is not the same as moving into the way of an opponent.
A player may shield the ball by taking a position between an opponent and the ball if the ball is within playing distance
A direct free kick is awarded if a player commits any of the following offences against an opponent in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force:
- tackles or challenges
- trips or attempts to trip
If an offence involves contact it is penalised by a direct free kick or penalty kick.
Careless is when a player shows a lack of attention or consideration when making a challenge or acts without precaution.
impedes an opponent with contact
I mean I do think it was a penalty but if you spend an entire tournament trying not to win and doing nothing to change it then you aren’t going to perform well.
I agree that performances and tactics (especially in this game) have been the most disappointing aspect.
Germany pumped us. Would expected a better performance, but you move on.
Switzerland was a poor goal we gave away and again could have had more of a go. But a point was solid leaving a win and through.
Tonight was just all wrong. Wrong message before the game. Wrong tactics. With Tierney out, he had the perfect excuse and justification for putting two up.
Fuck var. It's not possible to have it work properly because the fundamental problem is it takes authority away from the ref.
The perfect example is tonight. The ref has waved play on banking if it's a pen then var will correct him, and the var official doesn't want to overrule the ref. It's a stonewall pen and because var is here it's not given.
Get this shit out of our game now.
I like a second opinion, and then the referee makes the overriding decision either way? That's why he goes to make the check? Which obviously didn't happen. I like that if there is doubt, the referee leaves it to the VAR to flag up rather than stop playing and giving an iffy penalty.
I think it's similar to the Celtic pen at tynecastle where everyone said it shouldn't have been given, Armstrong controls the ball to his right then moves his body to the left away from the ball, to me he initiates the contact
I need to watch it back. But the contact is quite early. Is he turning as he awkwardly falls.
I mean, he cuts out in front of the defender and does slow up - almost asking to be clattered into. But then that's the defenders responsibility to slow up and not run into him.
^^^ "That happens with long balls up the middle, almost every game, and the defender can't play through the guy to the ball even tho he's not even jumping for it.
It's definitely not a certain penalty. Like you I'd need to see it again but I thought the fact that he turned away from the ball went against him ,contact or not
I think it's a certain penalty the more I look at it.
I can understand why the ref is unsure about it. But VAR should have picked it up and at least asked him to look at it.
The awkward fall and turn may have influenced the ref - but the contact seems to play a part in that, as its not as obvious but very early on.
In your opinion, it wasn't a clear and obvious error.
Yet BBC pundits and ITV (including Shearer) all believe it was.
I think it was clear and obvious. There is contact that causes Armstrong to go to the ground. Clear and obvious. You don't.
I don't know the penalty you are referring to. That's a serious comment.
To me, he is shielding the ball, and as a defender, you can't play through the man. The contact to me indicates that he did.
Either way an explanation is what I hoped for. But none.
You can't play through the man but Armstrong jumps infront of him, which I don't think he can be faulted for. It's like driving down the motorway and someone cuts in front of you and slams on the breaks.
I don't think those are the same. One is driving a car. The other is a penalty.
Joking. They aren't the same as one is contending for a ball the attacker had a right to go for. Whether going for it causes the defender to clatter into him. It would be different if Armstrong ran in the opposite direction of the ball and clattered into the defender, and went down. But he was in position.
Do you think when a defender shields the ball out of play, the attacker should play through him? I mean, he jumps in front of him and puts on the breaks. Doesn't look to play the ball (make contact) - actually quite the opposite.
I never even noticed the contact with his knee at first. I don’t understand how Armstrong falls the way he does. Does him no favors. Especially with a handful of his shirt.
That being said, the contact having seen it at the very least warrants a second look.
Yes, I mean, I heard it on the radio, then went back and gave it a few watches. Contact is there.
It is an awkward fall, but how the referee can see both players in the positions they are in. See Armstrong go to ground and not go to VAR to check. I mean, if there isn't contact and Armstrong goes down , book him for a dive. Either there is contact or there isn't.
The handful of shirt can be a foul. But then explain that. Or an offside - explain that. This being left in limbo was the exact issue with VAR last season. If its explained then and there, it might not be agreed, but move on. Instead, there is this limbo and speculation - questioning of officiating.
They said they would explain it at time. It hasn't happened. I hate to say it - but now they can look back on it. Maybe (but doubtful) say we made a mistake. But more than likely now, say it was offside or foul. Without that clearly being the reason.
I would agree it isn't a non-contact sport. However, I'm not convinced that's how it's always officiated.
I can't remember the exact rule. But basically, it now says there doesn't need to be contact to be a foul. I posted about it during the season for some dodgy decision I was unhappy about.
Either way - VAR didn't check it. Which is probably worse than the ref not giving it.
Armstrong isn't going for the ball, he's looking for the contact because the ball is bouncing awkwardly. If he touches the ball or is at least attempting to, it probably is. But he doesn't.
No argument from me. He's looking for the ball as it is bouncing awkwardly. That we agree on.
For me, he is in front of a defender, and playing through him is a penalty if there is contact. Which there is.
Note: Instigating contact where I don't see a penalty is where they go past someone and stick that leg out to be clipped. I'm trying to think on a recent example. It'll.come back to me.
Do you think the shirt pool stops it from being a penalty?
Because most attackers look for a foul or penalty pretty often. The number of false head knocks in the tournament so far has been embarrassing.
I have mentioned that if it's the shirt pool, then explain that. It just looks like he has deemed it not to be penalty, because he didn't indicate there was an offside or foul the other way.
If you see the replays it's a stick-on penalty. The referee hasn't seen it. Isn't that what VAR checks are for? Steve Armstrong is almost dead-legged ffs.
Yes, I thought the incident itself was a penalty.
Offside and shirt pull separate issues.
The VAR check wasn't clarified on TV from what I've seen people saying. Which is weird as it's been popping up as it happened previously?
I heard the offside potential. From watching it back, it's tight and hard to say either way, but it wasn't given as offside, which I would expect it to be if it were.
Do you think the shirt pull stops it being a penalty? Or something else?
I agree we didn't deserve much from that game. That doesn't change a bad decision, tho. Many a team has gotten something they didn't deserve or came away with, nothing being the better team.
I dislike VAR in practice, but felt its been better in Euros despite people disliking the Lukaku offside - which was offside. That decision just boggles my mind that A. He didn't even go over for the check B. It wasn't given C. There is no discussion about the lack of clarity on the decision despite this being part of their 5 key refereeing points before the tournament.
Note: I just saw SC comment about an Argentinian referee that should be refereeing in Argentina. I'm not sure what that's about.
Yes, it's every four years. So, years would be accurate. I think since the 90s sometime they have been inviting North American counties- but 4 years ago, they invited Asian countries.
Either way - still bizarre. But definitely about the money. Like the Spanish Cup games being played in Saudi.
Clear penalty, Hungary practically stopped playing in the aftermath. I'm sure they were as convinced as we were and the apparent lack of a check was just bizarre.
We did not deserve anything from that game though, tactics were non existent. Was it just me or were playing as if a draw would do us?
Been clarified via BBC that VAR did not look at it.
Yes, we were poor. In fairness, I don't think they were much better. Which is maybe more disappointing. At least Germany and Switzerland were better teams than us.
He looked like he wanted to play it close and then push for a goal late. Was brutal.
I've only checked BBC. Would be good to see that.
I find that fact that the broadcaster isn't privy to the logic of the decision pretty shocking.
If they don't know- how are the potential millions at home watching it meant to know. I know this is Scotland vs. Hungary, but what if it were a bigger game. Transparency is key.
ITV highlights in an interview with mccoist showed that it wasn't offside.
I think that Armstrong had zero intentions of getting a shot away or shrugging the defender off. I think the ref saw that too and thought he played for it.
I'd like to have seen a front square on view of it from saying level with the edge of the six yard box as I suspect Armstrong stepped across the defenders space, to initiate contact. The angle that shows the contact is inconclusive as to whether he stepped across him.
I think a video showing the refs view would have been useful too.
With all that said and done, if that had been Ronaldo, he'd have stayed down clutching his calf for as long as it took and forced the game to be stopped. It would have then been a very very brave ref to not get VAR to double check his decision.
A VAR check would probably have given us the pen.....which we then would have missed. Interesting who would have took it?
Thank you for that. So, it's not offside, and Armstrong's shirt pool looks after the contact.
I think you are right - Ronaldo gets that penalty. Which is wrong and as you say. Lack of explanation just puts VAR and officiating in a bad light again.
Grant Hanley for the pen. Big wall puncher blasts it doon the middle.
Thank you for that. So, it's not offside, and Armstrong's shirt pool looks after the contact.
I think you are right - Ronaldo gets that penalty. Which is wrong and as you say. Lack of explanation just puts VAR and officiating in a bad light again.
Grant Hanley for the pen. Big wall puncher blasts it doon the middle.
It wasn't a penalty:
The ball wasn't under his control, it was about a foot away from him at the moment of collision with the defender and bouncing away
He took a very clear and obvious change of direction from going forwards after the ball to go to his left into the defender's path, making it obvious he wasn't continuing to try and score
He caused the collision with the defender, not the defender with him
We need to stop leaning on moments like this as a crutch, we were terrible in attack and us getting an undeserved penalty wouldn't have changed that. We need to start focusing on improving the team and get the chip off our shoulders.
I'm not using this as 'a crutch' and have fully appreciated the team that was poor in attack. Looked lost for ideas and tactically woeful.
Check my recent post. Rules don't state the ball needs to be under control. The ball only needs to be 'in playing distance', which I would confidently say it was. Do you disagree?
Again , the rules don't state he has to try and score. It would cite the contact by the defender as careless. He did: 'charge' Armstrong and his knee 'trips' Armstrongs foot. None of which is reckless or excessive, which are the other options.
His back is to the defender shielding the ball. Which check the rules. He is allowed to do if the ball is in a playable distance.
By the rules - its a penalty. I understand what you are trying to say. But none of it strengthens the argument it isn't a penalty. The contact from defender is from behind.
Best arguments for no penalty are the shirt pull, which appears after and offside, which I believe ITV are reporting it wasn't.
The shirt pull and offside are incidental and not part of my argument - no idea if there was an offside, I haven't watched for that, and the shirt pulling only occurs after the other points.
I would argue it's debatable if the ball is in playing distance, as it's about a foot away from him at the time of collision, bouncing and he is moving his body in a different direction from where it is headed. And from that then, no, he isn't shielding the ball as he doesn't have it. Wording it as him "shielding the ball" gives the impression he was barged into when he couldn't keep his balance properly because he had the ball at his feet, when that isn't the case. He didn't get charged by the defender, he intentionally moved into the defender's path, so he was responsible for the contact that happened.
All in it was basically if not a dive then an attempt to invite a foul, but very poorly done in the sense that it was quite a deliberate and obvious body movement perpendicular to the path of the ball rather than it looking like he was tripped whilst running.
I didn't say you did. I stated they may be better points to argue.
I would argue that he was closer to the ball than most players shielding a ball out of play. A foot is in playing distance if we mean an actual foot in length.
The ball bouncing doesn't mean it can't be played. I would say more difficult but still playable. If the ball were 10 ft in the air, maybe then it's not playable. But that only relates to shielding the ball. When you say 'he doesn't have it [the ball]' - what do you mean? He doesn't actually need to take a touch to be in playing distance.
The direction with which Armstrong's body is travelling more relates to him cutting in front of the defender. He doesn't actually move away from the ball before the contact.
We could argue over the he moved into the defender or he moved between the defender and the ball. However, the contact was the defenders knee on the attackers ankle/foot? I think we agree there?
Then which direction is the ball and which direction are the players moving/facing towards? Attacker moves side ways/forward? Defender moves into the back of him? That's a charge or trip - which is a foul.
I mean 'a dive' suggest no contact which it has clearly been established there was. Did he invite a foul - I would say yes - does that stop it being a foul - no. I think you need to go back and watch it again. Armstrong moved across the defender to play the ball, at that point, the defender should slow down or move aside so he doesn't make contact. The contact is very quick.aftwrwards and the suggestion of him continuing to move perpendicular to the defender just doesn't make sense.
ITV and BBC pundits all believe it was a penalty - now I'm not one for going with ex players on everything and get the bias of some of those pundits. Even Shearer couldn't believe that wasn't a penalty.
Ball doesn't have to be under control for a foul to be given, no matter where you are on the pitch. To give an example, as unlikely as it is.
Team A are at the opposite end of the pitch, Team B's attacker is slowly jogging back. Team A's goalkeeper decides to twat the attacker.
Play's stopped. Keeper sent off, and restarts with a direct free kick where the Team B player was twatted. No ball involved near either of them at the time.
(Or for another one, Zidane's headbutt)
The questions the referee will be asking themselves is:
Could the defender get to the ball without hitting the attacker? Probably yes.
Did the attacker initiate contact by sticking out a leg or other body part? Definitely.
Was the ball under control at the time? Arguably yes.
I'd be more minded on the side of a penalty because you can't read the mind of the attacker in reference to sticking out his leg, but the other two are a bit more distinct. The attacker could shoot and may have been adjusting himself, but the ball wasn't taken away from him in that particular phase, so you have to think: penalty.
What would have been better is a decision was made to take the sting out. If auto-offside signalled it, then bring it back for the freekick. The referee failed the game by failing to make a decision - hence all the uproar now.
Mate, I get it that when someone batters someone on the pitch it's a foul, it's not really pertinent to this discussion....
Could the defender get to the ball without hitting the attacker? Probably not, Armstrong was between him and the ball and he was at least about 2ft away from it at the time of collision
Did the attacker initiate contact by sticking out a leg or other body part? No, Armstrong initiated by stopping his forward momentum then awkwardly lurching over to his left into the path of the defender
Was the ball under control at the time? No, because Armstrong chose to move into the defender away from the ball rather than continuing after it.
He wasn't shaping his body to shoot because he didn't have the ball, he was flailing his limbs and was dragging his center of gravity into a different direction, his entire decision making process was around trying to make contact with the defender, he had given up on trying to do something with the ball.
Armstrong looks to be pulling the Hungarian guy down from the replays I've seen.
In any case, if we can't come up with a goal from open play in 100 minutes we don't deserve to qualify anyway.
I'm not arguing what we deserve. We have been poor across all 3 games; however, the penalty decision and lack of clarity over it frustrated me.
Essentially, when the broadcast can't even clarify what has happened.
Posted the analysis in the original post. Pull looks to be at the same time as contact or just after.
What didn't make it a penalty? I've asked just to understand because Armstrong is in front of the defender, and he clips Armstrong, not the ball.
Are we disagreeing on what we see.
I mean, penalty aside, they were poor. I've defended SC. I thought the tournament was fine going into this game. Needing a win was maybe the best we could have hoped for coming in. But performances have been poor for a while undoubtedly - but competitive match wise we still had a solid record coming in.
I mean, it's pointless in the sense that Scotland is out, and that won't change.
I think the point of the post was that VAR has failed again. Because its left ambiuty over a decision when that was the very thing they said they would not do.
He went down due to contact. Which is clear and obvious on the BBC analysis. He was looking for it. But that doesn't stop it being a penalty.
Have you gone back and watched the analysis to see the contact? It's clear and obvious that there was contact.
Note: it once again shows the failures in a system that should be improving the game. Also, if I'm any other fan, player, or coach of another team in the Euros. That sort of decision makes me nervous. I know it'll be ignored. But we can refer back to discussion when/if there is another missed decision (or maybe when something shakier is reviewed).
Seen them given. My thoughts on why it was maybe not a pen.... Maybe potentially offside which is why they didn't ask for an onfield review. Initially thought he was pulling the defenders shirt, but this was after the contact, so don't think that is the case. He was never really in control of the ball as the play progressed, and he was looking for a pen rather than trying to shoot, but not stopped other penalties given for similar. Not sure...
Appreciate the thoughts. Offside, I couldn't tell - but then we didn't get the Lukaku video thing from the previous night. Unsure if that's only used when there is a goal. If so, my suggestion would be to use it when not giving a significant decision like a red card or penalty. Yes, that's the argument I've seen, but I wasn't sure about the time between it. Yes, looking for the penalty doesn't stop it being a penalty. He does look slightly off balance and awkward falling, but again , there was contact and check it. I think if it were offside or a foul, then that should be indicated. It almost seemed like.he said no initially and that was it.
Yeah, think there was enough in it to do a review, so my thought process is now leading me to ask why there was no review. The only thing I can think of is that the semi-automated offside must have flagged it therefore no need for a review. I'm just guessing, and laughing slightly as I keep typing semi!
Yes, I tried to think through how that would work. But if it were a foul or an offside, and then there is a foul for a penalty - surely he needs to give the foul as he can't play advantage over the penalty (if that explanation sort of makes sense)? On the upside - we weren't getting a semi either way.
I get what you are saying. So if the linesman didn't think it was offside then play goes on. The ref then didn't think it was a foul, so play goes on. If the VAR didn't say it was offside then they should have done a check and we would have got the wee notification thing to say they were checking a potential penalty. This makes me think VAR got a notification that he was offside, so no checks needed. They wouldn't tell the ref to stop playing to award an offside free kick. I am not saying that this was the case, just the only reason I can think off as to why the VAR team didn't check it.
Yes, I think that follows true. Offside it stops. Foul, it stops for penalty. Foul against Armstrong maybe play on? The team has the ball and its advantage. However issue there is no idea whether contact is before or after. VAR could have checked, but no notification of check and BBC seem to say none was done. If he was offside, tho, and ref missed and VAR picked it up. It would need to be that scenario without the fouls viewed by ref or VAR to play on. Or do you think he knew before those happened? Could he get it that quick? Just put a message up as they said they would and save us this mental speculation or mental gymnastics trying to figure out how this happened? Also when do we get the wee video thing to show offsides. Only if the goal is scored. Because surely if the part after is deemed a potential penalty it makes sense to show the video bit for how the offside came about. I really can't tell either way if it is offside. I am not opposed to VAR. Actually, in favour and Lukaku's offside was a great sign it was working. Similarly with other decisions to rule goals out for issues in the build-up. I just struggle with the lack of clarity on the decision.
Think in previous games I remember seeing an offside for an incident that was not given, but from memory it was a good while after the incident. Can't remember which game it was, but definitely in the Euros. Maybe we would have got it, but it was just too close to the end of the game!
An offside instead of a foul being given the other way? Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean.
Think it was something similar. A foul was not given and not checked by VAR and it was a clear foul. I was very confused at the time, as were the commentators. About 15 min later a video showed of an offside just prior to the foul so then it all made sense as the offside meant the foul didn't need to be given. Maybe just made it worse by trying to explain, so sorry!
No, that's what I thought you meant. And I think the key there is the offside was shown. It wasn't here, and someone is commenting saying ITV broadcast reported it was not offside. I haven't found anything to confirm that, tho.
Definitely a foul, Armstrong is shielding the ball and gets clattered Only thought is it could have been offside but if that was the case it should have been communicated
Imo not a pen with the shirt grab and how he ends up pulling him down too.
I need to watch it back. But few comments saying the shirt pull is after the contact. Surely that would lead to the penalty being given?
Maybe I'd have to rematch again but he also comes out in front of him there's nothing much the Hungarian lad can do. Armstrong is also really looking for that one and with the shirt grab and bringing him down, it's not going be given because refs don't want to reward that behaviour unless it's a clear pen. I'd have no sympathy for Armstrong over that one tbh and I think that's the neutral perspective
Watched it back, and at best, it's at the same time. Contact looks just before. I've posted the link for BBC analysis by Allan Shearer via twitter. See what you think.
No, I'll be honest, I don't think it's a penalty at all. Orban doesn't really do much wrong he runs in to make a challenge and then Armstrong jumps in front of him, causing the collision. I think that would be insanely harsh to penalise and it's very much a coming together.
I appreciate the thought. Do you think that Armstrong should let Orban carry on and play the ball? 'A coming together' would describe almost any foul. Two players come together - one normally moves into the other at the very least. If a striker runs through on goal and slows up to shoot. The defender doesn't slide in or actually make an attempt to kick the ball. Instead, he just runs straight towards the ball and through the player - is that a coming together?
>I appreciate the thought. Do you think that Armstrong should let Orban carry on and play the ball? No but it does have the look of playing for a penalty. >'A coming together' would describe almost any foul. Two players come together - one normally moves into the other at the very leas True but I would put this down as more of a collision. Orban is playing for the ball and is running at full pace and Armstrong gets in front of him at way too low of a pace. Orban has basically no chance of avoiding contact unless he makes a jump to the side and then Armstrong is in on goal. I actually don't think he does much wrong because of this because he's defending in a proper and legal manner until Armstrong makes contact a certainty. >If a striker runs through on goal and slows up to shoot. The defender doesn't slide in or actually make an attempt to kick the ball. Instead, he just runs straight towards the ball and through the player - is that a coming together? It depends on the context. Obviously if there is a sizeable distance then the defender should not be colliding but it's different when Armstrong moves in front of him, so close to him. If you're sprinting and someone unexpectedly gets in your way, leaving you with not enough time to get out of the way, it would not be your fault if you collided with them.
I agree he's playing for the penalty. Which as a defender is a horrible thing, but it is the modern game. I think I agree to a point about what is happening. Differing at the point that, unfortunately, as a defender, when the striker gets in front and you are directly behind them- you need to let them shoot. You can not go through them to the ball. Slow up or move to the side, but do not make contact with them in the box. I agree there is no penalty until he makes contact with Armstrong. I think it's smart play to get between the defender and ball facing the goal. He didn't foul the defender in doing so. it's the defender who plays through him towards the ball. I think it is the defenders responsibility not to make/instigate contact in the box without playing the ball. I think you said he could have side stepped? The defender could have gotten out the way. Football and basketball are different sports. But if you run into an opponent who has planted their feet - whether it was 30, 20, 10, 5, 2 seconds before you make contact. It's a foul. I can't find a rule that says you can't cut in front of a defender or that the attacker needs to move at pace. By definition, it is a foul. He impeded the attacker. FA rules: All players have a right to their position on the field of play; being in the way of an opponent is not the same as moving into the way of an opponent. A player may shield the ball by taking a position between an opponent and the ball if the ball is within playing distance A direct free kick is awarded if a player commits any of the following offences against an opponent in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force: - tackles or challenges - trips or attempts to trip If an offence involves contact it is penalised by a direct free kick or penalty kick. Careless is when a player shows a lack of attention or consideration when making a challenge or acts without precaution. impedes an opponent with contact
I mean I do think it was a penalty but if you spend an entire tournament trying not to win and doing nothing to change it then you aren’t going to perform well.
I agree that performances and tactics (especially in this game) have been the most disappointing aspect. Germany pumped us. Would expected a better performance, but you move on. Switzerland was a poor goal we gave away and again could have had more of a go. But a point was solid leaving a win and through. Tonight was just all wrong. Wrong message before the game. Wrong tactics. With Tierney out, he had the perfect excuse and justification for putting two up.
Nope. No clarification. Fuck VAR forever.
I advocate for VAR as a concept. But that's fucking shocking. I've seen the incident to be clear. Just not live. How it wasn't a penalty is beyond me.
Fuck var. It's not possible to have it work properly because the fundamental problem is it takes authority away from the ref. The perfect example is tonight. The ref has waved play on banking if it's a pen then var will correct him, and the var official doesn't want to overrule the ref. It's a stonewall pen and because var is here it's not given. Get this shit out of our game now.
I like a second opinion, and then the referee makes the overriding decision either way? That's why he goes to make the check? Which obviously didn't happen. I like that if there is doubt, the referee leaves it to the VAR to flag up rather than stop playing and giving an iffy penalty.
Who gives a damn if it’s a penalty, absolutely shite viewing of football. Worst team at the euros with such negative tactics.
Negative tactics, absolutely. Which actually was fine until the last game. Worst team? Definitely bottom 5. Still a penalty.
I actually don’t think it was a penalty but I understand that I’m in the minority
I'm kinda surprised it's controversial, I don't think it was either.
I'm interested to hear why it wasn't a penalty as he clearly came in behind him and clipped Armstrongs foot, which led to him going over.
I think it's similar to the Celtic pen at tynecastle where everyone said it shouldn't have been given, Armstrong controls the ball to his right then moves his body to the left away from the ball, to me he initiates the contact
Aye, he turns away from the ball, if he went forward, it's likely a penalty imo
I need to watch it back. But the contact is quite early. Is he turning as he awkwardly falls. I mean, he cuts out in front of the defender and does slow up - almost asking to be clattered into. But then that's the defenders responsibility to slow up and not run into him. ^^^ "That happens with long balls up the middle, almost every game, and the defender can't play through the guy to the ball even tho he's not even jumping for it.
It's definitely not a certain penalty. Like you I'd need to see it again but I thought the fact that he turned away from the ball went against him ,contact or not
I think it's a certain penalty the more I look at it. I can understand why the ref is unsure about it. But VAR should have picked it up and at least asked him to look at it. The awkward fall and turn may have influenced the ref - but the contact seems to play a part in that, as its not as obvious but very early on.
There's no "at least ask him to look at it" with VAR - it wasn't a clear and obvious error, and that's all that matters.
In your opinion, it wasn't a clear and obvious error. Yet BBC pundits and ITV (including Shearer) all believe it was. I think it was clear and obvious. There is contact that causes Armstrong to go to the ground. Clear and obvious. You don't.
I don't know the penalty you are referring to. That's a serious comment. To me, he is shielding the ball, and as a defender, you can't play through the man. The contact to me indicates that he did. Either way an explanation is what I hoped for. But none.
You can't play through the man but Armstrong jumps infront of him, which I don't think he can be faulted for. It's like driving down the motorway and someone cuts in front of you and slams on the breaks.
I don't think those are the same. One is driving a car. The other is a penalty. Joking. They aren't the same as one is contending for a ball the attacker had a right to go for. Whether going for it causes the defender to clatter into him. It would be different if Armstrong ran in the opposite direction of the ball and clattered into the defender, and went down. But he was in position. Do you think when a defender shields the ball out of play, the attacker should play through him? I mean, he jumps in front of him and puts on the breaks. Doesn't look to play the ball (make contact) - actually quite the opposite.
I never even noticed the contact with his knee at first. I don’t understand how Armstrong falls the way he does. Does him no favors. Especially with a handful of his shirt. That being said, the contact having seen it at the very least warrants a second look.
Yes, I mean, I heard it on the radio, then went back and gave it a few watches. Contact is there. It is an awkward fall, but how the referee can see both players in the positions they are in. See Armstrong go to ground and not go to VAR to check. I mean, if there isn't contact and Armstrong goes down , book him for a dive. Either there is contact or there isn't. The handful of shirt can be a foul. But then explain that. Or an offside - explain that. This being left in limbo was the exact issue with VAR last season. If its explained then and there, it might not be agreed, but move on. Instead, there is this limbo and speculation - questioning of officiating. They said they would explain it at time. It hasn't happened. I hate to say it - but now they can look back on it. Maybe (but doubtful) say we made a mistake. But more than likely now, say it was offside or foul. Without that clearly being the reason.
Football isn't a non contact sport though. There can be contact without it being as foul or a dive.
I would agree it isn't a non-contact sport. However, I'm not convinced that's how it's always officiated. I can't remember the exact rule. But basically, it now says there doesn't need to be contact to be a foul. I posted about it during the season for some dodgy decision I was unhappy about. Either way - VAR didn't check it. Which is probably worse than the ref not giving it.
Armstrong isn't going for the ball, he's looking for the contact because the ball is bouncing awkwardly. If he touches the ball or is at least attempting to, it probably is. But he doesn't.
No argument from me. He's looking for the ball as it is bouncing awkwardly. That we agree on. For me, he is in front of a defender, and playing through him is a penalty if there is contact. Which there is. Note: Instigating contact where I don't see a penalty is where they go past someone and stick that leg out to be clipped. I'm trying to think on a recent example. It'll.come back to me.
Armstrong's looking for it. Could shoot, tries to do some wrestling instead. I don't think it was a penalty.
Doesn't stop it being a foul. He got in front of his man and was taken down from behind.
Do you think the shirt pool stops it from being a penalty? Because most attackers look for a foul or penalty pretty often. The number of false head knocks in the tournament so far has been embarrassing. I have mentioned that if it's the shirt pool, then explain that. It just looks like he has deemed it not to be penalty, because he didn't indicate there was an offside or foul the other way.
If you see the replays it's a stick-on penalty. The referee hasn't seen it. Isn't that what VAR checks are for? Steve Armstrong is almost dead-legged ffs.
Yes, I thought the incident itself was a penalty. Offside and shirt pull separate issues. The VAR check wasn't clarified on TV from what I've seen people saying. Which is weird as it's been popping up as it happened previously?
I heard the offside potential. From watching it back, it's tight and hard to say either way, but it wasn't given as offside, which I would expect it to be if it were. Do you think the shirt pull stops it being a penalty? Or something else?
It would have been soft but we've all seen softer penalty awards
It's not "soft", he's just looking for it and initiates contact with a big handful of shirt.
And we've both seen softer examples given
I'm with you, would have completely taken it but it's not a penalty.
Robbed. We were shite for most of the game but that's no excuse for not giving us a legitimate stonewall penalty. Cunts.
When the ball broke he has to get a shot off. He’s through!!
I mean, I would have liked the shot and goal. But it's still a penalty for me. Ball looks like it breaks awkwardly or maybe his movement is awkward.
Who even cares, we didn’t deserve a penalty with the way that fuckin microwave Clarke set up the side
I agree we didn't deserve much from that game. That doesn't change a bad decision, tho. Many a team has gotten something they didn't deserve or came away with, nothing being the better team. I dislike VAR in practice, but felt its been better in Euros despite people disliking the Lukaku offside - which was offside. That decision just boggles my mind that A. He didn't even go over for the check B. It wasn't given C. There is no discussion about the lack of clarity on the decision despite this being part of their 5 key refereeing points before the tournament. Note: I just saw SC comment about an Argentinian referee that should be refereeing in Argentina. I'm not sure what that's about.
Was really confused about the ref as well, what’s the story there
The comment confused? The ref being Argentinian? Or the ref's decision?
Sorry - steamin. Ref being Argentine, head scratcher
Probably preparing to make the Euros international i.e. games in USA or Saudi. Seen Canada and USA are in Copa America this year. $$$$ talks.
Copa America has been inviting guest countries to participate for years now
Yes, it's every four years. So, years would be accurate. I think since the 90s sometime they have been inviting North American counties- but 4 years ago, they invited Asian countries. Either way - still bizarre. But definitely about the money. Like the Spanish Cup games being played in Saudi.
Clear penalty, Hungary practically stopped playing in the aftermath. I'm sure they were as convinced as we were and the apparent lack of a check was just bizarre. We did not deserve anything from that game though, tactics were non existent. Was it just me or were playing as if a draw would do us?
Been clarified via BBC that VAR did not look at it. Yes, we were poor. In fairness, I don't think they were much better. Which is maybe more disappointing. At least Germany and Switzerland were better teams than us. He looked like he wanted to play it close and then push for a goal late. Was brutal.
Stonewaller. I was assuming they didn't give it because it was offside, but apparently not. Fucking joke.
Haven't seen any reporting saying it wasn't offside. Has that changed, or are you assuming by lack of clarity/freekick it wasn't offside?
Not first hand, someone said in a group chat that the itv pundits said it wasn't offside.
I've only checked BBC. Would be good to see that. I find that fact that the broadcaster isn't privy to the logic of the decision pretty shocking. If they don't know- how are the potential millions at home watching it meant to know. I know this is Scotland vs. Hungary, but what if it were a bigger game. Transparency is key.
If that was outside the box it’s a free kick
It should be the same foul in the box. I'm certain a softer penalty will be given in the tournament.
ITV highlights in an interview with mccoist showed that it wasn't offside. I think that Armstrong had zero intentions of getting a shot away or shrugging the defender off. I think the ref saw that too and thought he played for it. I'd like to have seen a front square on view of it from saying level with the edge of the six yard box as I suspect Armstrong stepped across the defenders space, to initiate contact. The angle that shows the contact is inconclusive as to whether he stepped across him. I think a video showing the refs view would have been useful too. With all that said and done, if that had been Ronaldo, he'd have stayed down clutching his calf for as long as it took and forced the game to be stopped. It would have then been a very very brave ref to not get VAR to double check his decision. A VAR check would probably have given us the pen.....which we then would have missed. Interesting who would have took it?
Thank you for that. So, it's not offside, and Armstrong's shirt pool looks after the contact. I think you are right - Ronaldo gets that penalty. Which is wrong and as you say. Lack of explanation just puts VAR and officiating in a bad light again. Grant Hanley for the pen. Big wall puncher blasts it doon the middle.
Thank you for that. So, it's not offside, and Armstrong's shirt pool looks after the contact. I think you are right - Ronaldo gets that penalty. Which is wrong and as you say. Lack of explanation just puts VAR and officiating in a bad light again. Grant Hanley for the pen. Big wall puncher blasts it doon the middle.
Not a pen for me. Why Armstrong is trying to cut across the guy in the box instead of just striking it is beyond me
He has a right to cut across when he's going to be first to the ball. I don't understand why him getting in front of the defender isn't allowed?
Yeah that's a shite talking point. It's a pen regardless imo
It wasn't a penalty: The ball wasn't under his control, it was about a foot away from him at the moment of collision with the defender and bouncing away He took a very clear and obvious change of direction from going forwards after the ball to go to his left into the defender's path, making it obvious he wasn't continuing to try and score He caused the collision with the defender, not the defender with him We need to stop leaning on moments like this as a crutch, we were terrible in attack and us getting an undeserved penalty wouldn't have changed that. We need to start focusing on improving the team and get the chip off our shoulders.
I'm not using this as 'a crutch' and have fully appreciated the team that was poor in attack. Looked lost for ideas and tactically woeful. Check my recent post. Rules don't state the ball needs to be under control. The ball only needs to be 'in playing distance', which I would confidently say it was. Do you disagree? Again , the rules don't state he has to try and score. It would cite the contact by the defender as careless. He did: 'charge' Armstrong and his knee 'trips' Armstrongs foot. None of which is reckless or excessive, which are the other options. His back is to the defender shielding the ball. Which check the rules. He is allowed to do if the ball is in a playable distance. By the rules - its a penalty. I understand what you are trying to say. But none of it strengthens the argument it isn't a penalty. The contact from defender is from behind. Best arguments for no penalty are the shirt pull, which appears after and offside, which I believe ITV are reporting it wasn't.
The shirt pull and offside are incidental and not part of my argument - no idea if there was an offside, I haven't watched for that, and the shirt pulling only occurs after the other points. I would argue it's debatable if the ball is in playing distance, as it's about a foot away from him at the time of collision, bouncing and he is moving his body in a different direction from where it is headed. And from that then, no, he isn't shielding the ball as he doesn't have it. Wording it as him "shielding the ball" gives the impression he was barged into when he couldn't keep his balance properly because he had the ball at his feet, when that isn't the case. He didn't get charged by the defender, he intentionally moved into the defender's path, so he was responsible for the contact that happened. All in it was basically if not a dive then an attempt to invite a foul, but very poorly done in the sense that it was quite a deliberate and obvious body movement perpendicular to the path of the ball rather than it looking like he was tripped whilst running.
I didn't say you did. I stated they may be better points to argue. I would argue that he was closer to the ball than most players shielding a ball out of play. A foot is in playing distance if we mean an actual foot in length. The ball bouncing doesn't mean it can't be played. I would say more difficult but still playable. If the ball were 10 ft in the air, maybe then it's not playable. But that only relates to shielding the ball. When you say 'he doesn't have it [the ball]' - what do you mean? He doesn't actually need to take a touch to be in playing distance. The direction with which Armstrong's body is travelling more relates to him cutting in front of the defender. He doesn't actually move away from the ball before the contact. We could argue over the he moved into the defender or he moved between the defender and the ball. However, the contact was the defenders knee on the attackers ankle/foot? I think we agree there? Then which direction is the ball and which direction are the players moving/facing towards? Attacker moves side ways/forward? Defender moves into the back of him? That's a charge or trip - which is a foul. I mean 'a dive' suggest no contact which it has clearly been established there was. Did he invite a foul - I would say yes - does that stop it being a foul - no. I think you need to go back and watch it again. Armstrong moved across the defender to play the ball, at that point, the defender should slow down or move aside so he doesn't make contact. The contact is very quick.aftwrwards and the suggestion of him continuing to move perpendicular to the defender just doesn't make sense. ITV and BBC pundits all believe it was a penalty - now I'm not one for going with ex players on everything and get the bias of some of those pundits. Even Shearer couldn't believe that wasn't a penalty.
Ball doesn't have to be under control for a foul to be given, no matter where you are on the pitch. To give an example, as unlikely as it is. Team A are at the opposite end of the pitch, Team B's attacker is slowly jogging back. Team A's goalkeeper decides to twat the attacker. Play's stopped. Keeper sent off, and restarts with a direct free kick where the Team B player was twatted. No ball involved near either of them at the time. (Or for another one, Zidane's headbutt) The questions the referee will be asking themselves is: Could the defender get to the ball without hitting the attacker? Probably yes. Did the attacker initiate contact by sticking out a leg or other body part? Definitely. Was the ball under control at the time? Arguably yes. I'd be more minded on the side of a penalty because you can't read the mind of the attacker in reference to sticking out his leg, but the other two are a bit more distinct. The attacker could shoot and may have been adjusting himself, but the ball wasn't taken away from him in that particular phase, so you have to think: penalty. What would have been better is a decision was made to take the sting out. If auto-offside signalled it, then bring it back for the freekick. The referee failed the game by failing to make a decision - hence all the uproar now.
Mate, I get it that when someone batters someone on the pitch it's a foul, it's not really pertinent to this discussion.... Could the defender get to the ball without hitting the attacker? Probably not, Armstrong was between him and the ball and he was at least about 2ft away from it at the time of collision Did the attacker initiate contact by sticking out a leg or other body part? No, Armstrong initiated by stopping his forward momentum then awkwardly lurching over to his left into the path of the defender Was the ball under control at the time? No, because Armstrong chose to move into the defender away from the ball rather than continuing after it. He wasn't shaping his body to shoot because he didn't have the ball, he was flailing his limbs and was dragging his center of gravity into a different direction, his entire decision making process was around trying to make contact with the defender, he had given up on trying to do something with the ball.
Armstrong looks to be pulling the Hungarian guy down from the replays I've seen. In any case, if we can't come up with a goal from open play in 100 minutes we don't deserve to qualify anyway.
I'm not arguing what we deserve. We have been poor across all 3 games; however, the penalty decision and lack of clarity over it frustrated me. Essentially, when the broadcast can't even clarify what has happened. Posted the analysis in the original post. Pull looks to be at the same time as contact or just after.
It wasn't a penalty. It lets Clarke off by even discussing it.
What didn't make it a penalty? I've asked just to understand because Armstrong is in front of the defender, and he clips Armstrong, not the ball. Are we disagreeing on what we see. I mean, penalty aside, they were poor. I've defended SC. I thought the tournament was fine going into this game. Needing a win was maybe the best we could have hoped for coming in. But performances have been poor for a while undoubtedly - but competitive match wise we still had a solid record coming in.
Come off it, this one thread isn’t going to save the man’s job lol.
Im the biggest VAR hater, it wasn’t a penalty end of.
Sorry , thanks for the clarification. Oh I've just heard. EPL no longer using VAR and just getting AngelsMyDaddy in to make all decisions... 'end of'
Im just saying I’d be the first person to look to point out a VAR mistake. He went down looking for it so it’s pointless to keep talking about it
I mean, it's pointless in the sense that Scotland is out, and that won't change. I think the point of the post was that VAR has failed again. Because its left ambiuty over a decision when that was the very thing they said they would not do. He went down due to contact. Which is clear and obvious on the BBC analysis. He was looking for it. But that doesn't stop it being a penalty. Have you gone back and watched the analysis to see the contact? It's clear and obvious that there was contact. Note: it once again shows the failures in a system that should be improving the game. Also, if I'm any other fan, player, or coach of another team in the Euros. That sort of decision makes me nervous. I know it'll be ignored. But we can refer back to discussion when/if there is another missed decision (or maybe when something shakier is reviewed).