R12 vs Wanderers | Sunday 28th Dec | 7:00pm | RoF

This of course has by now been done to death, but I will simply add my own view that the main reason we got a penalty was the relative lack of experience on part of their (WSW) defender. A more seasoned player like say our Siggy would know how to get the ball cleanly.

See at 26 seconds the orange boot of the defender clips his leg... 

and the best angle is at 52 seconds which is the angle they don't show on the videos at stuff or Fox Sports Australia...

Can this be sent to the journo (Sam Worthington) who penned the article on Stuff?  

We deserve better from our home press. His article header is not helping (short deadlines notwithstanding).

For heavens sake let it go. We got the 3 points, nothing is going to change it.

the amount of times we've had penalties given against us for similar tackles/trips/dives/whatever we were due to get one , we did, we scored , we won.

first time I have seen Krishna live and he is seriously, seriously quick

It's not so much the reporting of the penalty, it was more the lack of positive comments about the epic defensive effort and the brilliant run of results by the Phoenix. Our best ever in fact.

For me one of the things that stands out the most is the seemingly lack of protest from the Wanderers players.Think that in its self says a lot.

Silent protest?

unrelated note:  That 17 year old CB had an amazing game/recovery from the penalty, Vs Burns Krishna etc.  Has there ever been a younger CB starting in the A League/EPL/ any league anywhere???

On another good note, WSW will take a number of points off other teams this year.  They played well and maybe that game is something of a turning point for them. To see them take points of Perf Pissants and Tards would be more than helpful.

Perf Pissants and Tards.

Sounds like a law firm.  *looks at Auckland Phoenix*

Yeah, but Ive now had a look at the replays and I think this is 'not a penalty'.

The defender doesn't change stride or direction and his focus is in one place. He doesn't do anything but run normally. He makes no effort for make a tackle or to foul Krishna.

Krishnas heel appears to catch the defender on an backward upward motion, which ultimately causes him to trip over himself.

Very very fortunate penalty Id say.

One thing you learn as a defender is not to run across an attacker because it might trip them up and give away a free kick.

There is no foul there.

I personally can't see the foul either, but O'Leary is in a better position than any of the camera angles and had no hesitation to give the pen. If O'Leary didn't see contact which caused Krishna to fall, why would he give the penalty?

Wow. Clear as day to me. Funny how two people can look at the same thing and see it completely differently.

If you say there is no foul, are you saying there was no contact with Krishna's foot and that therefore Krishna tapped his own leg to simulate an ankle tap?

Or are you saying there was contact, but there was no intent, and so it is not a foul?

imagine if Krishna tripped over a poorly placed LFC blanket? 

Actually that may not be a good idea to imagine that...

Pretty obvious trip. Accidental but that doesn't matter.

Incidental contact, it's just a tangle of legs, there is no trip there.

I also disagree that the defender doesn't change direction. He changes the angle of his run so he's heading goalside of Krishna - his first couple of paces are more parallel with the goal line then he starts angling in. You can see it in the video the front on shot starting at about 47 seconds.

It's actually a really good run by Krishna - he got goalside of his man while staying onside, and the defender trying to get back between him and the goal has tripped him up.

Erm, where exactly, did I say anything about intent?

Under the laws of the game, 'careless' means that a player has shown 'a lack of attention or consideration when making a challenge, or that he acted without precaution'. The very wording of the instruction implies that the offending player needs to be actively making a challenge, or interfering with the opponent. 

That clearly doesn't apply in this situation - all there is are two players running in the same direction, whose legs tangle up and one of them ends up on his arse. But no part of the defending player is acting in either careless, reckless, or using excessive force manner, so there's no foul there.

I feel like running into a player and causing him to trip would count as interfering with that opponent. They weren't really running the same way either, the defender came across behind him iirc

But he didn't run into him - if anything, it's Krishna's foot kicking back that initiates the contact. But that's beside the point - there is nothing in the actions of the defending player that can be characterised as a foul under the LotG.

Krishna initiating contact when he's in front and running towards the ball?

The defender runs behind and across Krishna and his leg inadvertently knocks Roy's foot, which causes him to trip. That's interfering with an opponent. It happens many many times in a season and is always penalised. This is only different because it's ended in a penalty rather than a free kick.

As I see it, Alessi running behind Krishna and causing him to trip is 'acting without precaution' - which doesn't require Alessi to be making a challenge to be penalised.

Duff tripped himself up tonight against the planes and got the penalty. Look close and he dragged his own foot twice. Very minimal contact.

Peter O'Leary said it was a foul, and a penalty: so it was a foul and a penalty.

Holy hell so much debate about a game we won,that in the past we probably would have rolled over in or allowed a late equaliser.Frankly dont give a shyte as long as we keep banking 3 points.

El Grap,

the LotG state

"A direct free kick is awarded to the opposing team if a player commits any

of the following seven offences in a manner considered by the referee to be

careless, reckless or using excessive force:

...

the defender made contact which tripped the attacker in the box

the ref gave a peno, which implies the referee sees the contact as a) a trip and b) carelesss

it's over.

LotG are simple - the defender has an obligation to take care not to trip, because tripping IS a foul.  Krishna is entitled to the line he runs and for the normal kick back of his foot to be untouched.  The CB is trying to get goal side and cuts behind him, and gets it too tight.  Krishna is tripped.  Hard luck.  Peno. 

I simply don't get these arguments it was not a peno.  Unless you can show contact was not made, it's a peno.  But O'Leary was in good position, WSW made no complaint.  All Krishna's biomechanics suggest it was a trip imvho.  Pretty straightforward as I see it.

I think it was soft.  If I was the coach I'd be looking for my defender to avoid contact in that situation.  But he was careless enough to fail to do that.  It's a penalty every single time for mine, as defined by the LotG. 

Yep, Krishna's foot initiating the contact can certainly be argued - at least as much as that the defender 'ran into him'.

The rest of your analysis is...well, I guess there's no need for insults. Suffice it to say it is very self-serving, and appears not to be grounded on the actual application of the laws of the game, or indeed the way the games is played. I would just caution you to reconsider what you've suggested - running behind a player is, according to you, acting without precaution, lest it result in contact with the opponent which may cause him to fall. That's not football, that's netball.

And as for 'this happens all the time' - I clearly remember an almost exact replica of this situation in an El Clasico from a few years back, when C. Ronaldo was told in no uncertain terms to get up and play on (I can't remember whether it was Mascherano or Pique in the defending position).

Please read the instructions on the application of the LotG, it's in the same document - you're all giving careless a meaning that is not encapsulated by the instructions on how to apply the actual rule.

Each to their own. 

You might not give a shyte, and that is fine, but I find this sort of discussion VERY educational and VERY worthwhile. I am really interested in whether El Grap is right about this. 

Not having read the rules and defintions and guidance before, I had always thought the defender (or any pursuing player, for that matter) could chose to run as close as they liked, but that if they ran close and there was contact, and an ankle tap resulted, and the other player was tripped/fell as a result of the contact, then it was their fault, and was a foul.

El Grap's interpretation or claimed meaning of the rules is (as I interpret it, correct me if I am wrong) that a pursuing player can run as close as they like... there is no onus on them to avoid contact/bringing the player down, and as long as they don't change their line to initiate contact and/or as long as they are not looking down so as to make sure there is contact, then incidental contact that brings the player they are pursuing down is just bad luck and not a foul...

__IF__ that is the rule, then I am (a) surprised, and (b) confused.

Note: I am not having a go at you here El Grap. I appreciate you taking the time to explain why you think it was not a foul. It's really interesting.

So have we given back the 3 points yet or not?

I'm not trying to be self-serving. Of course I'm not saying running behind someone is in itself acting without precaution. But running close enough that you trip the other player is. I also don't agree that Alessi and Krishna were running the same line - Alessi was running across the back of Krishna.

I don't know the example you mention but could it be possible that the ref didn't see the contact from the defender and thought Ronaldo tripped over himself?

Edit: This one?: 

To me that also looks a dead cert penalty, and also think Mascherano deliberately shouldered him so it's different anyway.

Sorry to those who aren't interested in this but I do find this kind of thing interesting. Especially how people who love the game can have such varying opinions on something.

I've read those ElGrap.  I think you have made it clear that you are relying on an interpretation that careless only applies in the context of making a challenge.  And so you seem to be suggesting that running along behind a player and accidentally tripping them is not a challenge - so can't be regarded as careless and a foul.  I think that's too much of a stretch.

I'm not meaning to be pedantic, I've discussed this sort of thing with referees and assessors and find this sort of thing interesting.  I think partly because I came to the game late, through my kids, and had done a fair bit of refereeing in other sports so was fairly comfortable to offer to referee.  But I had to learn all the rules from scratch and had to ask a lot of questions regarding interpretation, as well as read the rules carefully.  And luckily I had a close mate who is a senior referee and two associates at my kids club who were also senior referees to chew the fat with. 

So I may not be right, but this is how I would understand things. 

Challenge is  used in the interpretation and guidelines (amongst only a few other places) when discussing the offence of charging an opponent.  In that case the wording is challenge "for space"  So it is clear, I believe, that a challenge is not just a tackle for the ball.  In the case of a charge, you may not play directly for the ball but you do contact the player, and it is regarded as a challenge, and a foul.  The key point there is that you don't have to be challenging for the ball to foul, challenging for space counts too.

In the case of a trip I see the laws applying in the same way.  You aren't (necessarily) making a play at the ball but you are making contact with the player in a way that disrupts their play illegally and challenges their space.  So both a trip and a charge are challenges and fouls. 

If you argue this is accidental rather than careless (or reckless or using excessive force), then I think you still have a problem.  Referees can't read minds, so an elbow to the head, or a trip are both going to get whistled.  At best you are going to be regarded as careless.  Playing for a header you are expected to keep your elbows reasonably out of the way so you don't smack someone in the head.  Running behind someone in possession you are expected to keep your feet reasonably out of the way so you don't trip them.

I'd also suggest this is not just the way I see it.  Over and over, a trip from behind that drops a player in possession of the ball is called as a foul, even when this is just from a run crossing behind the player in possession.  I can't see how you could interpret it otherwise.  The player not in possession has a responsibility to not make careless contact.  If s/he does make contact it almost has to be regarded as careless. 

I might be missing something, but that's how I'd see it, same as O'Leary.

Apologies to those just enjoying the win. 

That's a great description of how I have always thought the rule applied (without having ever studied the wording). Thanks mjp2.