It’s the attacking player manufacturing the contact, that’s the issue

Clearly this pen is one of those that people debate because apparently we all see it differently.

But can we all agree that this is one of those where the attacking player initiates the contact? He has to veer out of his direction of travel to get into Dimi’s path, and then hits the deck as soon as he draws the contact from a defender that simply will have not anticipated he was about to forget about the ball and fling himself to the left. He was trying to buy one from the ref, and the ref gave it.

I totally accept that we have had players who tried to do the same thing of course (interesting that Hucks reckons it was a pen - draw your own conclusions!). And also that trying to buy penalties is commonplace in the game. But this wasn’t even a “cute” effort to do so. It was right out of the Andy Johnson playbook (for those with longer memories).

I don’t get the line that “morally” it’s a penalty either. I might accept “technically” it’s a penalty if you believe that, but if so then the game would be in better shape if it wasn’t (in my opinion). And I did think refs were making efforts to avoid giving penalties in cases where the striker initiates the contact?

Maybe the bottom line is that there are two schools of thought, an attackers view and a defenders view, depending on whether you think that “contact” is enough to warrant a penalty. Clearly Bailey thinks it was a pen too, so he’s in the “there was contact” and “don’t give the ref the option” school.

Posted By: Under soil heating, Aug 13, 11:47:17