Lets be honest,that wasn't a penalty or was it?

[PAULCFC]

Good clean tackle from their lad,and if the shoe was on the other foot we'd be fuming.

[Lestoh]

Don't tell me what is and isn't

[Mad Dog]

Second one was though, so swings and roundabouts

[jmono84]

Thought they both were, clear tackle from behind

[One Legged Beaver]

My view of it is that he got a slight nick on the ball which didn't alter the path of the ball a great deal, and Vardy would still have quite easily have got shot away had he not been hacked down. So I'd say it was a penalty.

[Soar Fox]

My view of it is that he got a slight nick on the ball which didn't alter the path of the ball a great deal, and Vardy would still have quite easily have got shot away had he not been hacked down. So I'd say it was a penalty.

I've looked at it a couple of times and the trajectory of the ball doesn't move. I didn't think it at the time but seeing it back I do think it is a penalty.

Also I think the 2nd penalty shout was stonewall. Anywhere else on the pitch and the referee gives it as a foul.

[Mad Dog]

He'd have given the second if he hadn't given the first

[Dan]

I can't make my mind up on the first, he seems to have got Vardy and the ball simultaneously, which is probably a penalty. It's unlucky as it's a good effort, but I think that's a very tough one for the ref, and even if the boot was on the other foot I'd have a little sympathy even if I was angry.

 

The second is stone wall. But no-one can sit there with a straight face and put our failure to get the win down to that decision. We were the total opposite of what we've been this season.

[Carl the Llama]

Thought it was a peno at first and still thought so after seeing the replays, clearly plays Vardy's leg before the ball which he barely influenced anyway.

 

Tbh I was convinced Mahrez was going to fluff it the second he stepped up, he just didn't look all there.

[foxtillidrop]

Both penalties in my view.

 

For the one that was given, the defender pulls Vardy's arm/shoulder back from behind before sliding in. When he slides in, he takes out Vardy before he gets a touch on the ball.

 

For the second, the defender pushes Vardy's lower back and knocks Vardy off balance.

[Soar Fox]

Thought it was a peno at first and still thought so after seeing the replays, clearly plays Vardy's leg before the ball which he barely influenced anyway.

Tbh I was convinced Mahrez was going to fluff it the second he stepped up, he just didn't look all there.

The people who I sit with all said he would miss, it was just one of those games where nothing was going for us. We could still be playing now and we still wouldn't have scored.

[Donut]

I think it falls into the "seen them given" category.

 

For me, the red card one wasnt a penalty, BUT its understandable that you can be on the end of a decision like that.

[ithuriel]

For me, they were both penalties, ref decided only to give one though and we fluffed that.

Still, not as bad as when Nuge shot his over the bar against the trees the season we were promoted.

[cjslcfc]

IMO both penalties. Don't feel like the bournemouth player was in control of the ball/tackle in the first instance. In the second he simply runs into the back of Vards. The trip means Vardy can't stay on his feet when in a fantastic position to pull the ball back.

 

Just highlights how frustrating a day it was...

[inckley fox]

A few years ago, when it was still accepted that you could have significant contact without committing a foul, especially if you came out with the ball at the end of it, yes, that would have been a great challenge.

 

Maybe it was still a legitimate challenge. As far as the rules are concerned, the key questions are (a) had enough contact been made with Vardy to bring him down before the defender touched the ball? (b) if the defender did touch the ball, did he subsequently take Vardy out while he still had a good chance of reaching the ball?

 

As regards (a), in the replay it looks like Vardy is going down before the defender touches the ball. The only question is whether that split second of contact was sufficient to take Vardy out, or if he was taking a tumble. So if the defender had evaporated the exact moment before he touched the ball, would Vardy still have fallen over? If he would have, then it's a penalty.

 

As for (b), a lot of people get confused by referees giving fouls when a tackling player makes contact with the ball, but if that player impedes someone from reaching the ball without properly dispossessing them in the process of touching the ball, it's still an offence. Looking at the challenge again, his touch isn't a strong one and Vardy was clearly going to be first to the ball if he could stay on his feet. Is there enough contact to stop him from staying on his feet? Yes, obviously. So yeah, it's a penalty.

[cjslcfc]

A few years ago, when it was still accepted that you could have significant contact without committing a foul, especially if you came out with the ball at the end of it, yes, that would have been a great challenge.

 

Maybe it was still a legitimate challenge. As far as the rules are concerned, the key questions are (a) had enough contact been made with Vardy to bring him down before the defender touched the ball? (b) if the defender did touch the ball, did he subsequently take Vardy out while he still had a good chance of reaching the ball?

 

As regards (a), in the replay it looks like Vardy is going down before the defender touches the ball. The only question is whether that split second of contact was sufficient to take Vardy out, or if he was taking a tumble. So if the defender had evaporated the exact moment before he touched the ball, would Vardy still have fallen over? If he would have, then it's a penalty.

 

As for (b), a lot of people get confused by referees giving fouls when a tackling player makes contact with the ball, but if that player impedes someone from reaching the ball without properly dispossessing them in the process of touching the ball, it's still an offence. Looking at the challenge again, his touch isn't a strong one and Vardy was clearly going to be first to the ball if he could stay on his feet. Is there enough contact to stop him from staying on his feet? Yes, obviously. So yeah, it's a penalty.

 

Completely agree

[Larry_LCFC]

Go flying in from behind like that in the box and you will always risk giving a penalty away.

[Frank to be]

First one was a clear penalty. You can't rip through the back of someone and say it's fine because I got a tiny touch on the ball, not these days.

Second one Vardy did his trick where he quickly shifts into the path of the defender and allows himself to be taken down. I don't think that should have been a penalty. Ref got it right both times for me.

[Guest]

Both were penalties. Just because you touch the ball doesn't mean it isn't a peno.

[old koppite]

First one was a clear penalty. You can't rip through the back of someone and say it's fine because I got a tiny touch on the ball, not these days.

Second one Vardy did his trick where he quickly shifts into the path of the defender and allows himself to be taken down. I don't think that should have been a penalty. Ref got it right both times for me.

Agree entirely. The sky pundit on my stream kept on repeating first one wasn't - what an idiot; about time sky and Bbc make their pundits pass a test on understanding the current rules

[MC Prussian]

They were both penalties.

 

The first one somewhat harsh on Francis, as he did touch the ball slightly. However, there was also clear contact with the player, it was a tackle from the side (almost from behind), he was the last man in the line and the referee didn't have a better view of it (didn't the linesman indicate the foul first, anyway?).

 

Maybe it was a sign of caving in or compensation that the second one wasn't given (because he thought the first one was controversial). Vardy clearly pushed off his feet, with no intention of getting the ball.

[Jimothy]

It's similar to the one Stoke got at Everton. The defender gets a nick on the ball, but barely moves it and takes the player out. Getting a touch so slight that you'd move it more by breathing on it isn't winning the ball, because if he doesn't take the player out he's still going to get to the ball.

[Thracian]

Both incidents were penalties for me too. In the first the defender came from behind, hadn't taken the ball from Vardy's path yet his actions took Vardy to ground. Second incident was not in any way a shoulder charge it was a deliberate push designed to impede Vardy. Clearer penalty than the first but we should have got both.

 

Doesn't excuse Mahrez for not scoring though. Bloody silly way to take a penalty.          

[Guest Col city fan]

Both were clear penalties.

[Nick]

I've not seen them yet but I'd say both were definitely penalties.