purpleronnie Posted 27 December 2010 Posted 27 December 2010 I didn't see that one, I thought the leeds handball was definately a penalty though. But thankfully the ref and linesman didn't.
davieG Posted 27 December 2010 Posted 27 December 2010 I didn't see that one, I thought the leeds handball was definately a penalty though. But thankfully the ref and linesman didn't. In both cases the Assistant Ref's had a seat at the table.
CosbehFox Posted 27 December 2010 Posted 27 December 2010 Makes me laugh when folk say Vassell played for it. Whats he going to do? Run straight at the keeper?
ithuriel Posted 27 December 2010 Posted 27 December 2010 Yes he should have gone, he prevented a clear goal scoring opportunity by diving in feet first at Vassel with the defenders behind Vassel. If it had been a hardline ref he would have walked.
DB11 Posted 27 December 2010 Posted 27 December 2010 Can I just say, once and for all, the "last man" rule is completely fabricated. The rule is based on "denying an obvious goalscoring opportunity". And, for the record, I don't think it was a red. Vassell was struggling to get there, and even if he did, it was going to be a ridiculously acute angle with a defender covering. Not an obvious opportunity in my opinion. I think I have to disagree with you. Freeze it when the foul is made When you watch the video it looks like DV wouldn't have got to the ball because of how long he is in the air, but the momentum that he is going and the speed means that he will get the ball, IMO, had Kasper not taken him.
MOT Posted 27 December 2010 Posted 27 December 2010 Good point made about our penalty shout, that would've been the winner for us. Definite handball.
Bettsj2 Posted 27 December 2010 Posted 27 December 2010 Bednar should definitely had a penalty as should Leeds for the Gallagher handball. However we'll never know how the game would have gone with 11 v 10 for the last 17 minutes. Doesnt matter though as a draw was probably a fair result.
Head Honcho Posted 27 December 2010 Posted 27 December 2010 As I said in a previous post, can you possibly say this is not a clear goalscoring opportunity? Even if the touch was slightly heavy, and he would have to take a touch before shooting, there's no way the keeper would get up and back in time. At best there would be a defender on the line- so is still a clear goalscoring opportunity. Look at the image, can you honestly say that Darius Vassell does not have a CLEAR GOALSCORING OPPORTUNITY there? That is a sending off...............no doubt!
Dylan Posted 27 December 2010 Posted 27 December 2010 With the momentum he was going out he would have DEFINITELY got to it, and even if he did need to take a touch, he would have most the goal to see- probably around corner of the six yard box. From that position, he's calm and steady (cause he's controlled it), even with a defender on the line (maybe two, but the keeper would definitely not have made it back). Can you honestly say that from this position its not a clear goalscoring opportunity- remember its two DEFENDERS not a goalkeeper, so they can't use hands. It would've been a tap in! = The keeper denied a clear goalscoring opportunity = RED CARD.
Stevosevic Posted 27 December 2010 Posted 27 December 2010 Vassell would have got to the ball, no doubt about it.
MOT Posted 27 December 2010 Posted 27 December 2010 If he would've got to the ball and scored why did he play for it? Why not take him on and score himself? He was looking for a penalty all the way, even before Kasper made contact. At the speed he was going at and the angle he would've had to overcome, with two lads on the line, it's not as clear cut as you all believe it is.
Dylan Posted 27 December 2010 Posted 27 December 2010 If he would've got to the ball and scored why did he play for it? Why not take him on and score himself? He was looking for a penalty all the way, even before Kasper made contact. At the speed he was going at and the angle he would've had to overcome, with two lads on the line, it's not as clear cut as you all believe it is. Because he got tripped by your keeper? And whether he was looking for the penalty or not is irrelevant to the colour of the card if the decision is given. If the keeper did not trip him, he would've tapped the ball in- on his STRONGER left foot I must add.
Stevosevic Posted 27 December 2010 Posted 27 December 2010 If he would've got to the ball and scored why did he play for it? Why not take him on and score himself? He was looking for a penalty all the way, even before Kasper made contact. At the speed he was going at and the angle he would've had to overcome, with two lads on the line, it's not as clear cut as you all believe it is. He didn't score himself because he was tripped, I don't see why he would have given up an easy tap in (he would have easily got to the ball, it was a good touch) and build some confidence for himself.
MPH Posted 27 December 2010 Posted 27 December 2010 Well they are 2 or 3 yards away, and in real-time it's possible the ref thought they were behind Kasper. So you admit the ref made a mistake then? And that it should of been a penalty? And if he has given the penalty what possible reasons could he have for not giving a red? If in real time he might of thought they were behind casper then the photo proves he wasn't. So he should of gone. The law says the player needs to go if they deny a goal scoring opportunity, not if they deny an obvious goal. There is no doubt he had an opportunity to score. Wether he would of or not is a different matter, but for sure he would of had the opportunity to score.
MOT Posted 27 December 2010 Posted 27 December 2010 So you admit the ref made a mistake then? And that it should of been a penalty? To begin with I thought it was a definite sending off if a penalty decision was given, but then I saw the mandate about not sending 'keepers off when they commit a foul in the area, so now i'm not sure. Its probably enough of a grey area (clear goalscoring opportunity, heavy first touch, men on the line) that you can give the ref the benefit of the doubt.
North-LondonFox Posted 27 December 2010 Posted 27 December 2010 100% sendong off for me - very poor decision. I think our comeback yesterday has papered over some cracks though, we still haven't hit a real decent run of form.
DB11 Posted 27 December 2010 Posted 27 December 2010 So you admit the ref made a mistake then? And that it should of been a penalty? And if he has given the penalty what possible reasons could he have for not giving a red? If in real time he might of thought they were behind casper then the photo proves he wasn't. So he should of gone. The law says the player needs to go if they deny a goal scoring opportunity, not if they deny an obvious goal. There is no doubt he had an opportunity to score. Wether he would of or not is a different matter, but for sure he would of had the opportunity to score. The player has to deny an obvious goal scoring opportunity.
ScouseFox Posted 27 December 2010 Posted 27 December 2010 Yes, but the ref was a bottler. He denied a clear goalscoring oppurtunity. And they had a blatant penalty when Gally threw his arms in the air to block a cross towards the end.
davieG Posted 27 December 2010 Posted 27 December 2010 Yes, but the ref was a bottler. He denied a clear goalscoring oppurtunity. And they had a blatant penalty when Gally threw his arms in the air to block a cross towards the end. We had a blatant penalty when Bednar was dragged to the ground.
ScouseFox Posted 27 December 2010 Posted 27 December 2010 We had a blatant penalty when Bednar was dragged to the ground. Didn't get a clear view from where I was, but it seems we should have. Just bad refereeing all round, not bias towards either team.
PAULCFC Posted 27 December 2010 Posted 27 December 2010 Right in front of me in the Kop......dvs first touch was shit and i really don't think he would have scored without schmeicles intervention.loved Richie giving schmiecle (sp) a go though!
phillthefox Posted 27 December 2010 Posted 27 December 2010 Right in front of me in the Kop......dvs first touch was shit and i really don't think he would have scored without schmeicles intervention.loved Richie giving schmiecle (sp) a go though! I agree as right in front of me in KOP and thought vassell had heavy touch and was then chasing the ball, was a pen and thought he should have been sent off, but seeing it again in slow on tv today, vassell looked for it all day long, just like all top players do leave a trailing leg..... was hoping richie wellens was gonna knock schmeichel out , cos hes a cr4p keeper WERE ALL OFF TO MILLWALL WERE ALL OFF TO MILLWALL LALALALA LALALALA :sge:
MOT Posted 27 December 2010 Posted 27 December 2010 I agree as right in front of me in KOP and thought vassell had heavy touch and was then chasing the ball, was a pen and thought he should have been sent off, but seeing it again in slow on tv today, vassell looked for it all day long, just like all top players do leave a trailing leg..... was hoping richie wellens was gonna knock schmeichel out , cos hes a cr4p keeper WERE ALL OFF TO MILLWALL WERE ALL OFF TO MILLWALL LALALALA LALALALA :sge: or8 m8
stockyfox Posted 27 December 2010 Posted 27 December 2010 The incident with Schmeichel and Vassell yesterday was yet another example of the increasingly intolerable inconsistency and controversy which we see more and more from modern referees. AND Somebody at the top really does need to sit down and seriously address this problem. AND it also needs somebody with appropriate legal qualifications to come up with a form of words in the rulebook that is straightforward, clear, beyond misinterpretatation and written in such a way that every Tom, Dick and Harry - oh yes, and even referees - can understand. The overall standard of refereeing today is in my opinion not just abysmal but is regularly disgracefully compounded by intransient autocratic officials at the FA, the Football League and further afield who immediately reject any critical comment and seek to deflect that criticism by accusing that person of 'bringing the game into disrepute'. Years ago, we could watch 'The Untouchables' on the TV. To my mind, referees are today's Untouchables. Respect? They deserve what they get. After a game, we can hear comments from the managers, the players, the fans. Anyone and everyone but NEVER the referee. Yet it his decisions that will have determined the outcome of a game, the fortunes of a club, the livelihood of players the mood of anger or anguish from the fans and so on. Finally, I've tried hard to put the Ipswich game out of my mind but apparently the weather there must have been REALLY bad. The pitch was frozen and the referee had to postpone the game! Funny that, 'cos it was perfectly alright last week. I wonder who the referee was? Ivor Diffrentopinion?
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.