Was Evra's foul on Ramires a penalty?

[FootballFarrago 4]

WTF???

Evra made the offence inside the box, wrapping his leg around Ramires, clear pen without doubt. Even if the offence had taken place outside then it was still a red card, unfortunately for us it wasn't given - yet again!

Like the fact the writer has used frames instead of real time - not! Who needs video technology for stone wall decisions such as this, oh never mind we now have a fifth official that can ease the refs workload but hang on a minute, somebody give him a kick & wake him up from his hammock! Thanks Pratini you first class numptey.

Ah the classic 'stone wall' rears its ugly head again. Another bugbear of mine - it makes no sense! Luckily I've got an article on this too - read the part at the end. http://www.footballfarrago.com/2010/09/rant-softball-and-stone-walls.html

Re. the frames - couldn't find a video of it - plus wouldn't you have just watched a video and stopped it at these points anyway? And how is this a blatant penalty anyway, surely you can see from the pictures that it's inches from being inside/outside the box? A blatant foul, maybe (depending on the position of the referee - although that's what the guys behind the goal are for) - but never a blatant penalty.

[GodZola 630]

Ah the classic 'stone wall' rears its ugly head again. Another bugbear of mine - it makes no sense! Luckily I've got an article on this too - read the part at the end. http://www.footballfarrago.com/2010/09/rant-softball-and-stone-walls.html

Re. the frames - couldn't find a video of it - plus wouldn't you have just watched a video and stopped it at these points anyway? And how is this a blatant penalty anyway, surely you can see from the pictures that it's inches from being inside/outside the box? A blatant foul, maybe (depending on the position of the referee - although that's what the guys behind the goal are for) - but never a blatant penalty.

Are you a Man u fan?

Look I didn't need a replay at the time, I didn't need video evidence & I certainly don't need a stealth Utd fan on here questioning that it wasn't a pen. Evra starts to nibble at Ramires outside & then takes him inside the box, how much more evidence do you want FFS?! It's been almost a week & every major pundit & radio commentator has said exactly the same so I can't be that bad a judge? If it wasn't a pen then why didn't the ref give a free kick & send off Evra then?

[spuz 143]

Ah the classic 'stone wall' rears its ugly head again. Another bugbear of mine - it makes no sense! Luckily I've got an article on this too - read the part at the end. http://www.footballf...tone-walls.html

We need to show good bouncebackability tonight,we're in a good moment,it's a game of 2 halves and you never know anything can happen in football.

I expect Drogs to give their defence trouble he's got good feet for a big man, I think he can score a worldy tonight.

[spuz 143]

Re. the frames - couldn't find a video of it - plus wouldn't you have just watched a video and stopped it at these points anyway? And how is this a blatant penalty anyway, surely you can see from the pictures that it's inches from being inside/outside the box? A blatant foul, maybe (depending on the position of the referee - although that's what the guys behind the goal are for) - but never a blatant penalty.

O.k even if no penalty (although it was) you do admit that it was a straight red?

[pHaRaOn 2,131]

if this is not a penalty, in any case a red card

[FootballFarrago 4]

O.k even if no penalty (although it was) you do admit that it was a straight red?

Yes of course, it was a foul and a sending-off offence for sure. But (a) the referee probably couldn't tell it was a foul from where he was (so it was the 5th official's call) and ( it was PROBABLY outside the area. If people took time to read the article thoroughly they'd notice it's more of a critique of video technology than an argument about one specific incident. This particular foul was just one of many that obviously wouldn't be cleared up by using replays.

Not sure why I'm being accused of being biased by others on here, I'd have thought these lines, taken from the piece, would show that I'm not:

the referee basically made a massive boo boo in not seeing the challenge as a foul

it's a foul. Pure and simple

I'm still none the wiser on this specific incident (i.e. whether it was a pen)

[GodZola 630]

Yes of course, it was a foul and a sending-off offence for sure. But (a) the referee probably couldn't tell it was a foul from where he was (so it was the 5th official's call) and ( it was PROBABLY outside the area. If people took time to read the article thoroughly they'd notice it's more of a critique of video technology than an argument about one specific incident. This particular foul was just one of many that obviously wouldn't be cleared up by using replays.

Not sure why I'm being accused of being biased by others on here, I'd have thought these lines, taken from the piece, would show that I'm not:

I did read the article & then went on to mention the 5th official as well as having a sarcastic dig at Pratini for the answer to prevent technology. My point is, if technology would of been used then a pen & a sending off would of been given, failing that a free kick & a sending off which would of been a fairer outcome than the current system that is used.

[FootballFarrago 4]

Sure, it would have been more accurate a decision - but it still wouldn't have cleared up whether it was a pen or a free kick!

[GodZola 630]

Sure, it would have been more accurate a decision - but it still wouldn't have cleared up whether it was a pen or a free kick!

I've already said that Evra started to nibble at Ramires outside the box but the foul or offence was made inside the box, so it doesn't take a rocket scientist to work that out, but I suppose you & a very small minority called Utd fans will think differently.

[eldo 868]

Yes of course, it was a foul and a sending-off offence for sure. But (a) the referee probably couldn't tell it was a foul from where he was (so it was the 5th official's call) and ( it was PROBABLY outside the area. If people took time to read the article thoroughly they'd notice it's more of a critique of video technology than an argument about one specific incident. This particular foul was just one of many that obviously wouldn't be cleared up by using replays.

Not sure why I'm being accused of being biased by others on here, I'd have thought these lines, taken from the piece, would show that I'm not:

the referee basically made a massive boo boo in not seeing the challenge as a foul

it's a foul. Pure and simple

I'm still none the wiser on this specific incident (i.e. whether it was a pen)

What technology did you use for those four pictures?

[FootballFarrago 4]

I've already said that Evra started to nibble at Ramires outside the box but the foul or offence was made inside the box, so it doesn't take a rocket scientist to work that out, but I suppose you & a very small minority called Utd fans will think differently.

You call me what you want, I'll just copy and paste the RULES and you make what you want of them:

Like most replays, slow motion often actually inhibits the viewer from being able to tell when, and how much, contact is made. Had the offence been of a holding nature (i.e. shirt pulling, bear hugging, tree hugging, wedgying) then it would have been a penalty, as stated on page 110 of the FA's Rules and Regulations document:

"If a defender starts holding an attacker outside the penalty area and continues holding him inside the penalty area, the referee must award a penalty kick."

As it wasn't a holding offence, we must consult Julian Carosi ('Corsham Ref'), who clears things up nicely when explaining Law 12: Direct Free Kicks:

"After an initial tackle by a defender just outside of the penalty area, the forward momentum of the players' involved can sometimes continue on into the penalty area. So be sure to make the correct decision to award a direct free kick outside of the penalty area, and not a penalty (if the initial contact was made outside of the penalty area)."

Doesn't take a rocket scientist to work that out...

[Wilson 358]

Definately was. Blatant.

[Gianfranco_Z 202]

[GodZola 630]

You call me what you want, I'll just copy and paste the RULES and you make what you want of them:

Like most replays, slow motion often actually inhibits the viewer from being able to tell when, and how much, contact is made. Had the offence been of a holding nature (i.e. shirt pulling, bear hugging, tree hugging, wedgying) then it would have been a penalty, as stated on page 110 of the FA's Rules and Regulations document:

"If a defender starts holding an attacker outside the penalty area and continues holding him inside the penalty area, the referee must award a penalty kick."

As it wasn't a holding offence, we must consult Julian Carosi ('Corsham Ref'), who clears things up nicely when explaining Law 12: Direct Free Kicks:

"After an initial tackle by a defender just outside of the penalty area, the forward momentum of the players' involved can sometimes continue on into the penalty area. So be sure to make the correct decision to award a direct free kick outside of the penalty area, and not a penalty (if the initial contact was made outside of the penalty area)."

Doesn't take a rocket scientist to work that out...

You just don't get it do you, the offence, foul, leg wrapped around Ramires occurred/happened IN THE 18 YARD BOX!!!!!!!!! There was some contact just outside but nothing to warrant a free kick, hence a penalty kick should of been awarded & a red card.

I'm sure there are plants on here just to go on fishing trips & perhaps I've taken the bait too many times!

[FootballFarrago 4]

You just don't get it do you, the offence, foul, leg wrapped around Ramires occurred/happened IN THE 18 YARD BOX!!!!!!!!! There was some contact just outside but nothing to warrant a free kick, hence a penalty kick should of been awarded & a red card.

I'm sure there are plants on here just to go on fishing trips & perhaps I've taken the bait too many times!

I think splitting a foul into separate parts - which contact is enough to fell a player - is pretty impossible. Especially when it's just one action, not a holding offence, which is why I think they made the differentiation. You've admitted yourself there was contact outside - I'm not saying it was the decisive contact that made Ramires fall, but it was the initial contact - So be sure to make the correct decision to award a direct free kick outside of the penalty area, and not a penalty (if the initial contact was made outside of the penalty area)."

Them's the rules!

Anyway, as I mentioned before, the example of Evra fouling Ramires was merely that - an example to discuss how video technology doesn't really solve much. United and Chelsea fans will STILL disagree whether it was a penalty, having seen exactly the same footage. If this was used to make such a decision, it's still a human making the call, at the end of the day. Could even make things MORE controversial, knowing the FA and their amazingly inconsistent rulings!