Haydos Posted 18 October 2011 Posted 18 October 2011 Also, doesn't it say something that everyone on here is split about it, ever after a zillion replays. I don't begrudge him it.
unreachable Posted 18 October 2011 Posted 18 October 2011 The slow motion replays don't take into account King's intention and surely if there is any doubt the referee shouldn't give the penalty. What is the burden of proof on the referee? In view of the uncertainty doesn't that prove that it was the wrong decision to award a penalty? In a court of law the burden of proof is based on "the balance of probabilities" in a civil case and "beyond reasonable doubt" in a criminal case. The decision made seems to satisfy neither criteria. I suppose that so long as the referee honestly felt he made the right decision then that's all that counts.
potter3 Posted 18 October 2011 Posted 18 October 2011 That angle is hardly the best as it looks like King pokes the ball away but how can anyone who's seen it from another angle argue agains't the penalty? Clear foul. Still can't make up my mind on the red card aside from the fact I have no idea why he needed to jump in with both feet.
Benji Posted 18 October 2011 Posted 18 October 2011 Penalty decision is very dubious on that angle, much like when it happened. It's the one from behind King that makes it clear the ball had gone before King's foot went in. It is very tight though so there must have been an element of guess work from the ref, and in real time it did also look a foul.
Phube Posted 18 October 2011 Posted 18 October 2011 The slow motion replays don't take into account King's intention and surely if there is any doubt the referee shouldn't give the penalty. What is the burden of proof on the referee? In view of the uncertainty doesn't that prove that it was the wrong decision to award a penalty? In a court of law the burden of proof is based on "the balance of probabilities" in a civil case and "beyond reasonable doubt" in a criminal case. The decision made seems to satisfy neither criteria. I suppose that so long as the referee honestly felt he made the right decision then that's all that counts. Easy: If the decisions is 50:50 against Leicester.... Give it! If the decision is 50:50 for Leicester... Don't give it!
Guest MattP Posted 18 October 2011 Posted 18 October 2011 King hands as soon as he has done it give it away.
unreachable Posted 18 October 2011 Posted 18 October 2011 King hands as soon as he has done it give it away. Don't agree. The traditional hands movement says it may look like a penalty but it isn't. The fact remains whether it is a good refereeing decision to make a marginal decision on such uncertain evidence. It was a penalty because the referee said it was but was it a good decision. No.
Kitchandro Posted 18 October 2011 Posted 18 October 2011 Don't agree. The traditional hands movement says it may look like a penalty but it isn't. The fact remains whether it is a good refereeing decision to make a marginal decision on such uncertain evidence. It was a penalty because the referee said it was but was it a good decision. No. Well he stood on his foot and didn't get the ball, when moving at that speed I will give him the benefit of the doubt and say it was enough to trip him up. Even in real time I thought it was a penalty, so if the referee saw it the way I did (and he was closer than the TV angle) then he had to give it. Besides, it was the right decision so it's a good decision.
unreachable Posted 18 October 2011 Posted 18 October 2011 Well he stood on his foot and didn't get the ball, when moving at that speed I will give him the benefit of the doubt and say it was enough to trip him up. Even in real time I thought it was a penalty, so if the referee saw it the way I did (and he was closer than the TV angle) then he had to give it. Besides, it was the right decision so it's a good decision. From the TV replays I don't think the referee had a clear view of the incident so he shouldn't have awarded the penalty.
Ashley Posted 18 October 2011 Posted 18 October 2011 I have NO idea why people say this....Is the attacking player incapable of changing the direction of the ball? I was unaware that in any situation they only ever kicked the ball in one direction. If he's running towards goal, like he was why would he change direction to go away from goal? King changed the direction of the ball. Simple. What's so hard to understand?
Guest ttfn Posted 18 October 2011 Posted 18 October 2011 As others have said, it looks to be a penalty and it was definitely a red card. The real kick in the balls was that Beausejour didn't see red. That was a really shameful piece of refereeing. Question for DB11, re: obstruction: How can you obstruct someone without touching them?
marbelladave Posted 18 October 2011 Posted 18 October 2011 The ref, second half anyway, was an oaf and a regular everyday 'homer'. Simple. There were 4 big decisions he had to make and he gave all of them to the home side. The Mills Red Card was correct, two footed tackle, no argument. The penalty, the foul on King and the tackle from Bousejour were all close calls but they all went against us, about par this season.
ajthefox Posted 18 October 2011 Posted 18 October 2011 First time I've seen any of this so it's interesting to be seeing it from a slightly more neutral standpoint. As for the King pen I'm not sure, looks like there is contact all be it minimal so I can understand giving it. Looks soft but I'm sure most of us would probably shout for it had it been the other way round. Mills gets the ball first. Wreckless, yes, potentially dangerous yes but he gets the ball first. Any tackle is 'potentially dangerous'. I'm undecided on it to be honest, but I wouldn't expect anything less than a red from todays refs. Edit: just watched the highlights on the beeb, and having seen them in real time and from different angles, I think it probably was a pen but giving Mills a red card was harsh.
potter3 Posted 18 October 2011 Posted 18 October 2011 If he's running towards goal, like he was why would he change direction to go away from goal? King changed the direction of the ball. Simple. What's so hard to understand? He knocked the ball that way as Mills was coming across to cover/tackle, knocking it further towards goal would have resulted in him losing it.
topharry123 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? I wouldn't mind staying around a little longer to be honest if they used replays as we would get the right decisions every week. A few extra minutes is worth it if we get something out of a game that we would have lost without the use of technology. To the thread: Mills - 100% red card every single time, there's no room for challenges like that in this day and age. Could have been a leg breaker if the guy was stood slightly differently. Penalty - Pretty sure it was a penalty. One angle looked like King got the ball, but another look like it came off the other guys foot so in my book it was the right decision. I usually always back our team with decisions like this but this time i think he got it right.
Haydos Posted 18 October 2011 Posted 18 October 2011 If he's running towards goal, like he was why would he change direction to go away from goal? King changed the direction of the ball. Simple. What's so hard to understand? King is goal-side of him, if he keeps on running straight King will tackle him. This is why he knocks it down the outside of him with the outside of his boot.
Corky Posted 18 October 2011 Posted 18 October 2011 Mills made one challenge, Beausejour made two and the ball was not in the picture. One was a red, both of theirs were yellow cards. Annoying.
Dylan Posted 18 October 2011 Posted 18 October 2011 This isn't true. And it's falseness is proved with Mills' tackle. He got the ball first before the man. But because it was 2-footed and in the air, it was a red. I mean as in the case of your standard fouls. Mills freekick and sending off was given for using 'excessive force'. And DB11, why is it a penalty if he got the ball first and contact with the man was made after (as it was one movement from King)? Please explain.
stockyfox Posted 18 October 2011 Posted 18 October 2011 1. It wasn't a penalty because King played the ball but to the ref it looked like contact. He should have consulted his linesman but didn't. 2. I said it was a red-card while he was still in the air. Twat! 3. Beausejour tackle warranted a second yellow minimum then off. 4. King was bundled over, Should have been a penalty. 5. We were the better side, Brum were poor. 6. Remember this is Leicester City we are talking about. What did you expect after the brilliant display against Derby! Consistency? Though come to think of it, yes, we are still consistently inconsistent - just like that 4th official who should go back to being a 4th official though I wouldn't trust him to be a teaboy. Thank you Howard Webb for showing the world just how a referee should gp about his job. 7. Remember also: 'The referee doesn't always get it right but on the other hand, he never gets it wrong'!
Ozwin Posted 18 October 2011 Posted 18 October 2011 Anyone saying the Mills challenge wasn't a red needs their heads checking.
Kitchandro Posted 18 October 2011 Posted 18 October 2011 If he's running towards goal, like he was why would he change direction to go away from goal? King changed the direction of the ball. Simple. What's so hard to understand? That you can have seen it so many times and are still getting it wrong? I mean really people what is wrong with you?
l444ry Posted 18 October 2011 Posted 18 October 2011 That you can have seen it so many times and are still getting it wrong? I mean really people what is wrong with you? Because there's none so blind as those who will not see!
Haydos Posted 18 October 2011 Posted 18 October 2011 1. It wasn't a penalty because King played the ball but to the ref it looked like contact. He should have consulted his linesman but didn't. 2. I said it was a red-card while he was still in the air. Twat! 3. Beausejour tackle warranted a second yellow minimum then off. 4. King was bundled over, Should have been a penalty. 5. We were the better side, Brum were poor. 6. Remember this is Leicester City we are talking about. What did you expect after the brilliant display against Derby! Consistency? Though come to think of it, yes, we are still consistently inconsistent - just like that 4th official who should go back to being a 4th official though I wouldn't trust him to be a teaboy. Thank you Howard Webb for showing the world just how a referee should gp about his job. 7. Remember also: 'The referee doesn't always get it right but on the other hand, he never gets it wrong'! Eh? We were more awful than them!
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.