Bob Madley's comical errors for Mahrez Penalty.

[Manwell Pablo]

12 minutes ago, fazzyfox said:

Isn't that Slimani on the far right, outside the box or is it Benny? He's leaning forwards but his feet are well outside and he doesn't look like any of him is in to me.

 

 

 

 

Fair enough I was going off the one taken a split second later and he was in.

 

it makes little difference it's a retake at best.

[North East Fox]

There was a Newcastle game a few weeks back where the ref applied the wrong laws of the game regarding encroachment from a pen and apologised afterwards.

There was loads of talk about it up here and I know a few qualified refs. Basically encroachment by the defending team only comes in to play if pen is missed. So ref was right today. We just got unlucky.

Imagine if it wasn't, every pen that was scored you'd have the defending team arguing they encroached

[jammie82uk]

1 hour ago, Ashley said:

Alergian and morrocan parents.. So yeah... Good comparison?

Yet He's still not Algerian just as Morgan is still not Jamaican 

[Foxxed]

28 minutes ago, jammie82uk said:

Yet He's still not Algerian just as Morgan is still not Jamaican 

 

I know this is not what you're saying but please: When you play for a national team it does not mean that is your nationality just that you have close relatives and have decided to play for them. At the most you may have dual nationality.

 

I currently have a Irish boss and work for an Irish company but that is because I am Irish. I have accepted the offer because of the money. In the same way Wes accepted the Jamaican offer probably because he knew he'd get international game time and free holidays.

[Ashley]

46 minutes ago, jammie82uk said:

Yet He's still not Algerian just as Morgan is still not Jamaican 

He's still not Algerian with Algerian & Algerian/Morrocaan parents?

[waylander]

They honestly should all get counselling on there egos . That linesman was a right **** aswell .

[erlee]

12 hours ago, Number 6 said:

The penalty decision was spot on. Encroachment means nothing unless mahrez misses a fairly taken penalty. 2 touches is a foul take and free kick the other way. I think the rules are fair here to be honest.

 

Lesson learned: don't do shitty run ups.

U 'll be surprise how many pundits-wannabe don't actually know the Laws of the Game

[erlee]

8 hours ago, st albans fox said:

But the ball DOES go in. If it misses then you can never know if it would have gone in. If it goes in then what is there to debate. No intent to gain an advantage shouldn't mean you lose the opportunity to score your penalty. i am surprised that anyone thinks changing the law isn't  a sensible thing to do  to avoid this happening again. (To anyone)

 

 

this is a freak incident.. its not likely happen again for the next 10 yrs.

only riyad can conjure a freak kick like this 

 

 

[Lionheart10]

10 hours ago, Ashley said:

 

So his parents aren't nothing to do with it mate?

I do actually agree with you on that,if my parents had moved abroad and I was born there I would still see myself as English.I was going on the legal side and his passport will say he is French mate.

[st albans fox]

3 hours ago, erlee said:

this is a freak incident.. its not likely happen again for the next 10 yrs.

only riyad can conjure a freak kick like this 

 

It's happened twice in five days at the very top level. It probably happens several times on every Sunday morning somewhere. Most occasions the slip means the penalty is missed. That can't be changed. To say it happens once every ten years isn't right. 

 

most times the refs refs don't spot it. Doesn't mean you shouldn't change the law if it isn't being used as it was intended. 

 

beginning to feel slightly obsessed by this so I am retiring from the thread ...........

 

[Bert]

11 hours ago, Manwell Pablo said:

Slimani is in the box when mahrez scores as well, so pretty sure it's a retake no matter the outcome.

They're allowed in the box as soon as the ball is kicked. Slimani wasn't in the box until the ball was struck. 

[justfoxes]

The bloke is a joke of a referee and god hope the premier league if this is the standard of officials that we have to look forward too, his ability to spot a two foot touch on the penalty but not spot the two Man City Players encroaching the spot kick or the fact that their keeper was 2yds or so of his line beggars belief no wonder he missed ferandhinios Elbow on Albrighton and for him to miss a huge shiner after a tackle is just incompetent  !

 

The man is a joke he listened to every whinge and whine of the Man City players allowing them also to have a goal stand when that fugly little Cnut Sterling was in an off side position, if it wasn't so comical you'd say Madely has a real love for Manc City !!

 

This really shows that we need to bring Video evidence in next season far too many contentious decisions are costing clubs points financial rewards and also places in the premier league and ultimately people jobs  as clubs prepare to cope in the championship .

But to miss or ignore a vicious elbow into Albrightons face I just couldn't believe the way he dismissed and waved away Albrighton and the city medical teams protests towards the ref especially with Albrighton sporting a golf ball size lump under his eye it just shows the need of technology into the game it's the 21st century FFS so why not use the technology that is available to you it's not as if the premier league is poor !

 

 

[Plastik Man]

10 hours ago, North East Fox said:

There was a Newcastle game a few weeks back where the ref applied the wrong laws of the game regarding encroachment from a pen and apologised afterwards.

There was loads of talk about it up here and I know a few qualified refs. Basically encroachment by the defending team only comes in to play if pen is missed. So ref was right today. We just got unlucky.

Imagine if it wasn't, every pen that was scored you'd have the defending team arguing they encroached

Surely in this case the intent of the law is to give the penalty taking team the advantage. If they score anyway there's no reason to go back and retake. If they miss then the encroachment is penalised with a retake.

 

In yesterday's penalty the first offence was the encroachment. Once Mahrez made a second touch the advantage was lost.

 

Whilst I acknowledge advantage was lost due to a foul he committed, I have trouble following the logic of penalising the second offence over the first. In effect no advantage was given to the penalty taking team.

 

It would be interesting to apply the advantage rule in another scenario where a foul by the defending team, waved play on for advantage, was followed immediately by an offence by the attacking team, who by doing so score. Who gets the advantage then? You couldn't give the goal but we've  seen refs go back for a free kick when no advantage has resulted. 

 

Ultimately, in the penalty situation, I believe the law was designed to stop the penalty taker from dribbling. Mahrez's offence was unintentional, not played to gain an advantage. To be punished in such a way was incredibly harsh when a prior offence by the defending team had occurred.

 

Talking of intentions, I'm not sure whether intent should make much difference with the elbow incident. Only perhaps to decide if the player should get a red? 

 

He led with his elbow and impeded Albrighton. If he didn't intend to impede him it doesn't change the previous sentence. So surely a free kick?

[coolhandfox]

More importantly why is Mahrez even taking penalties, he's record is poor, his missed 3-4 now.

 

As for the refereeing, poor for the first goal, Sterling is active, when he tries to play the ball. No goal! 

 

As for the penalty, the Man City player is in the box before the ball is struck, so should be a retake.

 

 

 

 

[Jakewilk]

47 minutes ago, coolhandfox said:

More importantly why is Mahrez even taking penalties, he's record is poor, his missed 3-4 now.

 

As for the refereeing, poor for the first goal, Sterling is active, when he tries to play the ball. No goal! 

 

As for the penalty, the Man City player is in the box before the ball is struck, so should be a retake.

 

 

 

 

I don't understand this view. You only get a retake from encroachment or the keeper off the line if the penalty is missed. If the ball goes in the goal then the penalty stands from almost all offences from the defending team. Therefore those offences are null and void in this instance. The only offence the referee could punish was the double touch and he did see it and did punish it. Unfortunately for us the referee got this decision spot on. Shame he didn't with all of them throughout the game but that's part of the excitement of football.

[Ashley]

1 hour ago, coolhandfox said:

More importantly why is Mahrez even taking penalties, he's record is poor, his missed 3-4 now.

 

As for the refereeing, poor for the first goal, Sterling is active, when he tries to play the ball. No goal! 

 

As for the penalty, the Man City player is in the box before the ball is struck, so should be a retake.

 

 

 

 

He hasn't missed one this season? 

[ozleicester]

If we are applying the laws of the game then the first issue is the encroachment.

[Jakewilk]

5 minutes ago, ozleicester said:

If we are applying the laws of the game then the first issue is the encroachment.

Which doesn't count if the ball goes in the goal.

[ozleicester]

5 minutes ago, Jakewilk said:

Which doesn't count if the ball goes in the goal.

according to the laws... it was a no goal so... retaken (see second line below) 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[CupidStunt]

21 hours ago, potter3 said:

 

Mahrez strikes the ball (twice), Madley is looking right at him:

 

 

The ball goes into the goal, Madley turns his head to watch:

 

 

 

 

 

Two Man City players encroaching the area. Pen should have been retaken before the showboater slipped

[Jakewilk]

4 minutes ago, ozleicester said:

according to the laws... it was a no goal so... retaken (see second line below) 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So, just for arguments sake, if your the referee.

 

1) you see the encroachment.

2)the ball goes in so now you determine the encroachment doesn't count.

3) you know that there was two touches from the kick taker before the ball went in.

4) you know that as the ball went in the actions of the defending team can be ignored but the actions of the attacking team cannot be ignored.

5) you don't count the goal and give a free kick to the defending team from the place that the only offence that can be valid took place.

 

Although the referee made mistakes in this game this particular decision was not one of them.

 

to say that because you disallowed the goal it counts as a miss is a huge problem because you will end up going around in circles. The rules are clear. If the ball goes in from the penalty then you have to follow the rules that apply to that scenario. If he had missed then the encroachment should have been counted.

[ozleicester]

10 minutes ago, Jakewilk said:

So, just for arguments sake, if your the referee.

 

1) you see the encroachment.

2)the ball goes in so now you determine the encroachment doesn't count.

3) you know that there was two touches from the kick taker before the ball went in.

4) you know that as the ball went in the actions of the defending team can be ignored but the actions of the attacking team cannot be ignored.

5) you don't count the goal and give a free kick to the defending team from the place that the only offence that can be valid took place.

 

Although the referee made mistakes in this game this particular decision was not one of them.

 

to say that because you disallowed the goal it counts as a miss is a huge problem because you will end up going around in circles. The rules are clear. If the ball goes in from the penalty then you have to follow the rules that apply to that scenario. If he had missed then the encroachment should have been counted.

i think your list is out of order  ... encroachment....kick taken.... no goal....should be retaken

[Guest ttfn]

That the ball goes in is neither here nor there whichever way you look at it.

 

The issue begins and ends with Mahrez kicking the ball twice. At that point the penalty is "missed", under the laws of the game it's incorrect to award a goal.

 

The only issue is whether the encroachment is relevant in the case of a penalty being struck twice. I maintain that it is but I understand why people think it isn't.

[Jakewilk]

4 minutes ago, ozleicester said:

i think your list is out of order  ... encroachment....kick taken.... no goal....should be retaken

You don't seem to understand. A penalty is a special situation where the rules are applied based on the outcome of the penalty kick. If you punish encroachment every time before the kick is taken defenders would constantly do it. You judge offences based on the outcome unlike in open play where the first offence should be punished and further offences are not taken into account unless it's violent conduct. The outcome of the penalty was a goal and therefore only attacking players COULD have committed offences. Therefore the goal was disallowed it wasn't missed. Had he missed then the encroachment should have led to a retake. BUT HE DIDNT MISS.

[ozleicester]

See the rules... they read    GOAL or NO GOAL.