Larry_LCFC Posted 16 October 2011 Posted 16 October 2011 Stonewall not a penalty. The first replay angle clearly showed King kicked the ball before the player. The other angle is misleading and doesnt really show anything conclusive. The ref was clueless. End of.
accessory Posted 16 October 2011 Posted 16 October 2011 If Schmeichel's kick and Mills's first touch hadn't been so poor he wouldn't have dived in either. You can't attribute any blame to the referee for the Mills foul; it's exactly the sort of foul we should be looking to cut out of football. It wasn't the most dangerous challenge of the game though. Beausejour's kung-fu challenge on Peltier in the first half was far worse, especially as it was nowhere near the ball. Players and fans are entitled to expect consistency from referees. We didn't get that today.
cc_star Posted 16 October 2011 Posted 16 October 2011 At the time I thought King did get the ball but the other player's speed & momentum still made him favourite for the ball & as King clearly made contact it was a pen. The replays proved it was too
Haydos Posted 16 October 2011 Posted 16 October 2011 Stone wall penalty. And going by the laws of the game, Mills' was a dangerous tackle and warranted a red. Still don't think it was worth one though, is it really a challenge if the other player doesn't compete as well? It was more like a two footed interception <_<
Fox1651 Posted 16 October 2011 Posted 16 October 2011 So a two footed lunge - both feet off the ground which allows no bodily control at impact - isn't a sending off then? Come on, get real. If that was against us it's a red all day. Yes, he won the ball but we all know that those sorts of tackles are outlawed now, and rightly so. should of been yellow only - that chilean fella got away with murder for them - double standards as usual
TheUltimateWinner Posted 16 October 2011 Posted 16 October 2011 Look, He got the ball thus meaning no foul! Even if it was why didn't he give ours? The guy is a pillock and can we please just admit that. The way he sauntered on at half time made him look like a grade A muppet, and he proved that throughout the game. Oh and for the record, Their player should of been sent off.
acooling08 Posted 16 October 2011 Posted 16 October 2011 Look, He got the ball thus meaning no foul! Even if it was why didn't he give ours? The guy is a pillock and can we please just admit that. The way he sauntered on at half time made him look like a grade A muppet, and he proved that throughout the game. Oh and for the record, Their player should of been sent off. He didn't get the ball. I was screaming no penalty at first, but on subsequent replay angles, King misses the ball and stands on the other players foot. Our penalty was 50/50. King was certainly looking for it though.
Larry_LCFC Posted 16 October 2011 Posted 16 October 2011 Was I literally the only one to see the first replay angle? Christ almighty he stuck his foot in and toe-poked the ball and then stood on the guy's foot. The other angles are obstructed and you cant see him touch the ball - that doesnt mean he didnt touch it. It was NOT a penalty. Shit refs making shit decisions yet again.
topharry123 Posted 16 October 2011 Posted 16 October 2011 no complaints this week. Watched both incidents back a few times and think they were fair. If they had been given for us then there would not be one person on here saying we got lucky it would have been 2 right decisions with no questionability. Maybe we should have had one and maybe they should have had a 2nd yellow for a red. Some referees would give both some would give none. Neither decision are 100% right they could both go either way. At the end of the day, the referee had no part in costing us the game today our own stupidity and poor play did. Sure we'll bounce back next game, we just need to learn from our mistakes today.
Corky Posted 16 October 2011 Posted 16 October 2011 He didn't get the ball. I was screaming no penalty at first, but on subsequent replay angles, King misses the ball and stands on the other players foot. Our penalty was 50/50. King was certainly looking for it though. Maybe if he'd thrown himself theatrically to the floor he might've got the decision.
anotherharboroughfox Posted 16 October 2011 Posted 16 October 2011 finally seen it, absolutely bollocks penalty! ref had a bad view though.
Fox1651 Posted 16 October 2011 Posted 16 October 2011 Was I literally the only one to see the first replay angle? Christ almighty he stuck his foot in and toe-poked the ball and then stood on the guy's foot. The other angles are obstructed and you cant see him touch the ball - that doesnt mean he didnt touch it. It was NOT a penalty. Shit refs making shit decisions yet again. i agree for what its worth
purpleronnie Posted 16 October 2011 Posted 16 October 2011 I can't believe that even after replay after replay people still have differing opinions and then question the ref, if people who have seen the incident in slow motion and from different angles cant agree how on earth can you blame the ref who has none of those. I doubt anyone who saw the tackle in real time didnt think pen straight away, and the red card was justified too, a stupid tackle deserving of a red card. Get over it we lost.
Kitchandro Posted 16 October 2011 Posted 16 October 2011 First reaction was penalty. I saw all the angles and on not one of them did I think it wasn't a penalty. First reaction was sending off. It's two-footed on every angle. We did have big decisions go against us but not those two. Believe me I always love to blame refs, they are very often responsible for our dropped points. Once again though it's pointless dwelling on it, we only have ourselves to blame for losing, we didn't deserve anything.
topharry123 Posted 16 October 2011 Posted 16 October 2011 I can't believe that even after replay after replay people still have differing opinions and then question the ref, if people who have seen the incident in slow motion and from different angles cant agree how on earth can you blame the ref who has none of those. I doubt anyone who saw the tackle in real time didnt think pen straight away, and the red card was justified too, a stupid tackle deserving of a red card. Get over it we lost. Agree with this. It's all very well for people to say "well one of the 4 replay angles shows the ball move slightly" but the referee only has one angle and if 3 angles indicate a penalty but one doesn't is it really a mistake? With a decision like that when most angles show a penalty and 1 angle shows not, the referee has not made a bad decision in my book. It sucks yes but until we have video replays and reviews of questionable plays the referee can't be expected to get a perfect decision when people who have seen 4 replays can't even agree.
mackiepas Posted 16 October 2011 Posted 16 October 2011 RRegardless of whether he was right, he was bloody wrong to not give one to us. It wasn't a penalty for us.. Their was a covering defender so he wouldn't of got to the ball regardless.. The ref got all decisions correct today which I don't say that often... Just cuz it's not in our favour doesn't mean it's wrong.
Kitchandro Posted 16 October 2011 Posted 16 October 2011 It wasn't a penalty for us.. Their was a covering defender so he wouldn't of got to the ball regardless.. The ref got all decisions correct today which I don't say that often... Just cuz it's not in our favour doesn't mean it's wrong. Well no, he certainly didn't get the ones right where Beausejour should have been sent off.
Criggers Posted 16 October 2011 Posted 16 October 2011 Right, here goes my head on the guillotine but screw it I want to air my opinion. Their penalty: If one angle shows King kick the ball then he got the ball. It doesn't matter if you can't tell from any of the other three, the fact is they all show the same moment. It's no different to "is the ball over the line?" and not all angles show it but one does. If one angle shows it as over and 3 don't it is still over the line. You wouldn't say "three cameras don't show it over but one does, three to one against. No goal". Of course not, you'd say "well this camera shows it over, so it's over". I thought he got the ball from the first angle so no penalty. The other angles don't matter. Mills Red: Soon as it happened I said he is off. Ok the other player wasn't close but we all know what is going to happen these days of you go in like that. Especially with the jumped up 4th official (I loved his duck/chicken impersonation as he walked on) taking over. Beasejour Yellows: Foul on the edge of the box. A bad foul where the player had clearly beaten him. Should be a yellow. Without doubt the easiest decision for him and the worst the ref made. He should have been off. Our pen through King: This one was to me a pen. He was blocked off by the defender (ridgewell?) in a way that anywhere else on the pitch would be a free kick. The argument that there was a covering defender is also irrelevant, a foul is a foul no matter what. The only difference a covering defender makes is what card to give if any. If it wasn't a foul it was definitely obstruction so shouldn't that be an indirect free kick? So all in all, 3 wrongs and one right. Much like the camera angles for their pen. I know I'll be told to take off my tinted specs and "get over it". I am over it, we played shit and didn't deserve a win. But by the same token if the pen wasn't given, Marlon King would have stayed looking as uninterested as an unpaid Yakubu and the whole match would have unfolded differently. Looking forward I wanted 7 points from the next 9 but we'll just have to make do with 6 and learn to be more clinical away from home and play a formation that works. When was our last away goal? Ps I can't be arsed to spell/grammar check since I'm on my phone so apologies for mistakes in either!
mackiepas Posted 16 October 2011 Posted 16 October 2011 Well no, he certainly didn't get the ones right where Beausejour should have been sent off. I don't believe that warranted a second yellow.
Kitchandro Posted 16 October 2011 Posted 16 October 2011 Their penalty: If one angle shows King kick the ball then he got the ball. It doesn't matter if you can't tell from any of the other three, the fact is they all show the same moment. It's no different to "is the ball over the line?" and not all angles show it but one does. If one angle shows it as over and 3 don't it is still over the line. You wouldn't say "three cameras don't show it over but one does, three to one against. No goal". Of course not, you'd say "well this camera shows it over, so it's over". I thought he got the ball from the first angle so no penalty. The other angles don't matter. But certain angles can be deceptive also. Some people may say you can see he got the ball from one angle but I watched all of them and it's very clear he didn't get the ball, it just looks as if he may have done from one of them because you are obstructed but the players themselves. When people claim he got the ball it is in fact Beausejours foot that knocks it away from King, but from one deceptive angle, it looks like it's King.
mackiepas Posted 16 October 2011 Posted 16 October 2011 Of course it matters that there's a covering defender!!!
Haydos Posted 16 October 2011 Posted 16 October 2011 Was I literally the only one to see the first replay angle? Christ almighty he stuck his foot in and toe-poked the ball and then stood on the guy's foot. The other angles are obstructed and you cant see him touch the ball - that doesnt mean he didnt touch it. It was NOT a penalty. Shit refs making shit decisions yet again. You need a slo-mo replay to make a call and even then about 80% of people on here still think it's wrong. But yeah, refs fault again. Muppet.
Thracian Posted 16 October 2011 Posted 16 October 2011 It's so marginal but even if it was technically a penalty then there are dozens of penalties that could be given in every game for much more obvious contact. Yet they're not. And the deliberate impeding of King in the box was one such example. There was nothing marginal about that - it should have been a free-kick for obstruction at the least. Selective officiating as usual just like the sending off.
Finnegan Posted 17 October 2011 Posted 17 October 2011 As I said in the other thread, I don't hate the ref for making the call, it was very marginal and it didn't have to cost us the game, we were just shit. But replays showed King clearly did get to the ball first with the toe poke and it clearly wasn't a foul. That Keown, after seeing multiple repeats, kept saying it was a good call was just infuriating me. Fair play to the ref, he came on not expecting to and did reasonably, but that one got away from him and the fact people are agreeing with the call is just odd.
Finchy Posted 17 October 2011 Posted 17 October 2011 The fact is, we should have finished them in the first half. They couldn't get near us. Our fault completely.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.