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.
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 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.
Absolute rubbish, you are contradicting yourself, its not just a matter of contact. There was contact, but it was made by Krishnas leg going upwards or backwards.
Its down to the interpretation of carelessness, which obviously the ref agreed with.
I am just saying the ref has made the wrong call, I don't think the defender did anything wrong.
Also the laws of the game say nothing about anyone being entitled to "the normal kick back of his foot to be untouched"