This is a PENALTY? Yes or No? Support your answer please!

[JayM]

I wasn't informed football was a no contact sport.

 

[juveboy]

well, I have to respect everyones opinion, but hell, i'm suprised that anyone can even say it isn't a penalty. It's a clear foul, in the box, ence a penalty. He hit the player on the leg, how can it not be a penalty?

Well then each to it's own.

I rest my case :applause:

 

[PLF]

Indeed it does: never a penalty...
Something happened i agree... but the forward made an irrealistic challenge to the ball...never a penalty unless refs give penalties for everything that happens in the box (like holding each other's short...if that is always a penalty kick , then i agree that this is one too...).

So in strictu senso: it is a penalty.
Realistic: no penalty.

Nop it was a penalty. Like I said it's not like you said at all with Liedson having no reason to go after ball. As long as ball is in play and no whistle has been blown, everyone has the right to go after it and in this case Liedson was clever and knew Beto is being too slow to react, so he got there first and got kicked hence the penalty.

He had every right to go for the ball. Just because you see someone in shooting animation doesn't mean you hold back.

@JayM, nobody said it was. I'm all for physicall LEGEL challenges like when players shoulder check each other and I see it many times giving fouls in La Liga and I hate that. It's like they're punishing bigger/more stronger players who spent more time in gym for being stronger when in reality that's just a skill such as dribbling is.

But this is a foul. Cuz it's not legel like shoulder-check. Once there is contact with someone's boots and another guy's nuts.. I'd say that's a foul not that the sport isn't a non-contact sport! :mrgreen: