Fox92 Posted 18 October 2011 Posted 18 October 2011 If it was the other way around, I'd be calling for both decisions, so I agree with what was given, slow motion or not.
anotherharboroughfox Posted 18 October 2011 Posted 18 October 2011 Mills' red card is not a straight red in my view, however in the modern game it was. Penalty decision is absolute bollocks in my opinion. But it's all in the past now, focus on the Watford game!
Larry_LCFC Posted 18 October 2011 Posted 18 October 2011 I agree with the red card but penalty decision is shit beyond belief. Won the ball.
Finchy Posted 18 October 2011 Posted 18 October 2011 These aren't the decisions I was mad about at the time to be honest. It's the red card that wasn't for Birmingham. We mostly dominated them with 10 men, and if they had Beausejour sent off, I have no doubt we would have got something from the game.
m00nie Posted 18 October 2011 Posted 18 October 2011 we would want the penalty if it was us, and mills tackle was 2 feet off the ground so no choice nowdays.. as above, looking forward to watford.. cant change the past.
The Doctor Posted 18 October 2011 Posted 18 October 2011 King - Difficult to tell, possibly got the ball but got the man - Can't see that the ref could see it perfectly in real time, should have perhaps given benefit of the doubt to king. Mills - Definitely red, dived in two footed, got the ball but excessive force and did get the man.
Thracian Posted 18 October 2011 Posted 18 October 2011 Well on reflection I think the ref is totally out of order. Not because he's got either decision wrong necessarily but because he's not been consistent. In the case of King's penalty irrespective of whether King plays the ball first or whether the striker makes something of nothing, the tackle was from behind and if the referee has seen even minor contact he can argue it's a penalty. But without question there are many referees would have seen it as such a minor coming together they might have chosen to be lenient and give the benefit of the doubt. And there for me is the crux of it. The referee has applied the letter of the law. Minor collision or not, uncertainties to consider or not, he's awarded a penalty. But in allowing their left winger to stay on the field he's not been so harsh at all. He's not refereed to the letter of the law. The winger had been booked. His later tackle was a cynical, calculated foul when we were in a dangerous position and the bloke should have gone. Just the same as Mills. As for the foul on King in the box the impeding and coming together was far more obvious and clearcut than the previous penalty decision so the bloke, once again, has not acted with the same degree of severity. I saw the impeding as a deliberate and cynical act of preventing King getting after the ball. At the very least it was blatant obstruction. The referee has not applied the same degree of severity in his approach. In other words he's acted with bias, unfairness, as a homer - whichever way you want to interpret it. For the millionth time the need for technological assistance screams out. Referees just can't be trusted. That said it should not deflect one iota from why we lost and lost deservedly. Cos the failings on that score were far worse.
Larry_LCFC Posted 18 October 2011 Posted 18 October 2011 Well on reflection I think the ref is totally out of order. Not because he's got either decision wrong necessarily but because he's not been consistent. In the case of King's penalty irrespective of whether King plays the ball first or whether the striker makes something of nothing, the tackle was from behind and if the referee has seen even minor contact he can argue it's a penalty. But without question there are many referees would have seen it as such a minor coming together they might have chosen to be lenient and give the benefit of the doubt. And there for me is the crux of it. The referee has applied the letter of the law. Minor collision or not, uncertainties to consider or not, he's awarded a penalty. But in allowing their left winger to stay on the field he's not been so harsh at all. He's not refereed to the letter of the law. The winger had been booked. His tackle was a cynical, calculated foul when we were in a dangerous position and the bloke should have gone. Just the same as Mills. As for the foul on King in the box the impeding and coming together was far more obvious and clearcut than the previous penalty decision so the bloke, once again, has not acted with the same degree of severity. I saw the impeding as a deliberate and cynical act of preventing King getting after the ball. At the very least it was blatant obstruction. The referee has not applied the same degreee of seeverity in his approach. In other words he's acted with bias, unfairness, as a homer - whichever way you want to interpret it. For the millionth time the need for technological assistance screams out. Referees just can't be trusted. That said it should not deflect one iota from why we lost and lost deservedly. Cos the failings on that score were far worse. I agree with this. Its true what you say aswell about technology. If cricket and rugby can have video referees why cant the most popular sport have one too. Would massively improve the game.
Babylon Posted 18 October 2011 Posted 18 October 2011 Well on reflection I think the ref is totally out of order. Not because he's got either decision wrong necessarily but because he's not been consistent. In the case of King's penalty irrespective of whether King plays the ball first or whether the striker makes something of nothing, the tackle was from behind and if the referee has seen even minor contact he can argue it's a penalty. But without question there are many referees would have seen it as such a minor coming together they might have chosen to be lenient and give the benefit of the doubt. And there for me is the crux of it. The referee has applied the letter of the law. Minor collision or not, uncertainties to consider or not, he's awarded a penalty. But in allowing their left winger to stay on the field he's not been so harsh at all. He's not refereed to the letter of the law. The winger had been booked. His tackle was a cynical, calculated foul when we were in a dangerous position and the bloke should have gone. Just the same as Mills. As for the foul on King in the box the impeding and coming together was far more obvious and clearcut than the previous penalty decision so the bloke, once again, has not acted with the same degree of severity. I saw the impeding as a deliberate and cynical act of preventing King getting after the ball. At the very least it was blatant obstruction. The referee has not applied the same degreee of seeverity in his approach. In other words he's acted with bias, unfairness, as a homer - whichever way you want to interpret it. Wait for it... I agree.
hackneyfox Posted 18 October 2011 Posted 18 October 2011 So there would be at least 4 decisions where we would have asked for help from the technological assistance? What time do you want to go home?
Larry_LCFC Posted 18 October 2011 Posted 18 October 2011 So there would be at least 4 decisions where we would have asked for help from the technological assistance? What time do you want to go home? eh?
StanSP Posted 18 October 2011 Posted 18 October 2011 Penalty - never. It was Beausejour's flailing arms 'I've just been shot a thousand times and I must fall now' act (clichéd I know but I couldn't give a fuck) that really angered me, too. Mills' red card - yes. In the heat of the moment I was cursing and berating the ref. Replays showed me though that it's 2-footed and in the air - causing danger to the opposition. I can totally understand that if it wasn't a red, Birmingham fans would be up in arms.
Simmo86 Posted 18 October 2011 Posted 18 October 2011 Well on reflection I think the ref is totally out of order. Not because he's got either decision wrong necessarily but because he's not been consistent. In the case of King's penalty irrespective of whether King plays the ball first or whether the striker makes something of nothing, the tackle was from behind and if the referee has seen even minor contact he can argue it's a penalty. But without question there are many referees would have seen it as such a minor coming together they might have chosen to be lenient and give the benefit of the doubt. And there for me is the crux of it. The referee has applied the letter of the law. Minor collision or not, uncertainties to consider or not, he's awarded a penalty. But in allowing their left winger to stay on the field he's not been so harsh at all. He's not refereed to the letter of the law. The winger had been booked. His later tackle was a cynical, calculated foul when we were in a dangerous position and the bloke should have gone. Just the same as Mills. As for the foul on King in the box the impeding and coming together was far more obvious and clearcut than the previous penalty decision so the bloke, once again, has not acted with the same degree of severity. I saw the impeding as a deliberate and cynical act of preventing King getting after the ball. At the very least it was blatant obstruction. The referee has not applied the same degree of severity in his approach. In other words he's acted with bias, unfairness, as a homer - whichever way you want to interpret it. For the millionth time the need for technological assistance screams out. Referees just can't be trusted. That said it should not deflect one iota from why we lost and lost deservedly. Cos the failings on that score were far worse. Agreed
savillefoxes Posted 18 October 2011 Posted 18 October 2011 Peno or no peno at the end of the day we let ourselfs down. For me the game should have been won in the first half brum were a very poor side and we never took advantage of that. You might go on and say we were the better side,but can you remember the brum keeper having to make a save in the game.
davieG Posted 18 October 2011 Author Posted 18 October 2011 So there would be at least 4 decisions where we would have asked for help from the technological assistance? What time do you want to go home? Well they seem quite prepared to allow, and be party to free kicks taking an age to set up, whatever happened to quick free kicks I'm sure an extra minute or so for 4 crucial match changing decisions is worth while and it could be limited two 2 appeals for either side.
anotherharboroughfox Posted 18 October 2011 Posted 18 October 2011 Well they seem quite prepared to allow, and be party to free kicks taking an age to set up, whatever happened to quick free kicks I'm sure an extra minute or so for 4 crucial match changing decisions is worth while and it could be limited two 2 appeals for either side. Seems simple to me, 2 appeals to start with you get it right you keep the appeal, you get it wrong you lose it. Although, I am against technology to be used.
Larry_LCFC Posted 18 October 2011 Posted 18 October 2011 Bet the FA would never go along with it because it would expose just how shit the standard of refereeing is in England.
ozleicester Posted 18 October 2011 Posted 18 October 2011 King, yes it was a penalty to them Mills, yes it was a red card King...maybe the rule has changed... but as i remember things that should have been called as obstruction... and an indirect free kick awarded to us in the box.
Corky Posted 18 October 2011 Posted 18 October 2011 The penalty was soft but I thought it was a penalty at the time and still do. And it was a red.
Larry_LCFC Posted 18 October 2011 Posted 18 October 2011 I still dont get whats with all the indecision on the penalty. That video to me is as clear as day. King touches the ball before the man = no penalty.
Jon the Hat Posted 18 October 2011 Posted 18 October 2011 I still dont get whats with all the indecision on the penalty. That video to me is as clear as day. King touches the ball before the man = no penalty. Agreed. I can however see that the ref might have missed it, not having the benefit of slow mo. I'm with Thrac though, the frustration is in the inconsistent application of the rules. Always has been..
Guest MattP Posted 18 October 2011 Posted 18 October 2011 Watched the game with a referee on sunday. His opinion was straight red for Mills, in-direct free kick for obstruction on King. King brought the player down IMO. Penalty.
acooling08 Posted 18 October 2011 Posted 18 October 2011 The red card was 100% correct. The penalty conceded by King is so hard to tell. On the OP it looks like he took the ball, other camera angles on the day said otherwise.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.