Ref Watch

[CatMan]

No he can't occupy a space, just because hes trying to block an attacking player, it's called a trip and it's a foul. If you don't play the ball and you play the man it's a foul all day everyday.

Oh please do read what I have already printed off ref Law 12 above.

 

[Churchlawtonblue]

Because Partey got to the playing distance first! It's as simple as that. However obstructive it may look, and as much of a foul it may instinctively feel, the Laws and their interpretation mean that Partey can legally occupy that space immediately in front of the ball before KDB arrives milliseconds later. If the ball was not so close to Partey's foot when he plants it down then I agree it's a penalty. However based on the TV angle from behind the keeper, you can see why VAR agreed with Oliver.

Remember, the laws are not foolproof as Rashford proved at the Swamp, and sadly can be very subjective in their interpretation!

Also he didn't get to the so-called playing distance first. Look again KDB has his right leg their first and Partey then lunges in.

 

[Churchlawtonblue]

Oh please do read what I have already printed off ref Law 12 above.

I've read it, KDB gets there first, Partey lunges in and takes him out. The rule says without contact right? Partey makes contact when he arrives second.
Please check the video and then tell me KDBs right leg is not in the so called space first.

 

[SebastianBlue]

I dont want to really keep explaining about Shielding and Playing Distance, but the interpretation last evening was based on Law 12.

Kev was unfairly held off by Partey’s arms and body…

Not to mention Kev beat Partey to the ball and was the only one of the two actually playing the ball (Partey was playing Kev and no intention of playing the ball).

It is a foul that has been given elsewhere on the pitch literally thousands of times.

And it has to be, because if it isn’t, it is a field day for players taking others out as the run with or for the ball.

I was never allowed to do that when I played as a DM and I was even sent off for a very similar foul in u20 match.

 

[GaudinoMotors]

I dont want to really keep explaining about Shielding and Playing Distance, but the interpretation last evening was based on Law 12.

It doesn't say "even if that involves taking out the legs of the player".

 

[Churchlawtonblue]

It doesn't say "even if that involves taking out the legs of the player".

It's degintely says without contact.

 

[Leeky]

I dont want to really keep explaining about Shielding and Playing Distance, but the interpretation last evening was based on Law 12.

What about Partey‘s wrestling move any rules in there saying that wasn’t another yellow card, it’s bollocks, Oliver bottles all the big decisions

 

[Sir peace frog]

I found an alternate angle of the Partey-Kev incident that I think the part time refs in the thread may have had access to but we haven’t until now.

I can understand their thinking now, Kev absolutely does Partey from this angle.

the refs on here have viewed the footage, its not a foul because the lad doing the kung fu kick was shielding the ball

 

[SebastianBlue]

the refs on here have viewed the footage, its not a foul because the lad doing the kung fu kick was shielding the ball

True, it does appear he has position over the ball…

 

[woody1968]

KDB was 100% attempting to play the ball - Partey was 100% playing the man. Penalty 100%.