foxfanazer Posted 3 December 2012 Posted 3 December 2012 Another game ruined, never a red card, never a penalty either. Konchesky on Saturday was far worse and that was outside the box. got both teams to score as well. willy puller ref!
Vacamion Posted 3 December 2012 Posted 3 December 2012 Another game ruined, never a red card, never a penalty either. Konchesky on Saturday was far worse and that was outside the box. Agree completely. Fans who spent their money travelling there and paying to get in can feel ripped off at another lamentable bit of reffing. Shocking. Just shocking.
Maybes Posted 3 December 2012 Posted 3 December 2012 got both teams to score as well. willy puller ref! Same.
lcfcsnow Posted 3 December 2012 Posted 3 December 2012 If its a penalty fine but why the need for a red card too? It may be a goalscoring opportunity but theyre going to get that opportunity anyway from the penalty - in most cases an easier chance to score than in normal play.. It's like 2 punishments for one debatable foul. 2-0 now game set and match, well done ref.
Vacamion Posted 3 December 2012 Posted 3 December 2012 The 'goalscoring opportunity' red card was, quite correctly, brought in to stop cynical last ditch foul tackles. Mission creep now means any contact near to or on the way to the goal risks a red. Possible peno (though a very soft one) but never a red. Boo.
Maybes Posted 3 December 2012 Posted 3 December 2012 Bit of common sense should have prevailed. Yellow card, job done. Not even sure it was a penalty to be honest!
Vacamion Posted 3 December 2012 Posted 3 December 2012 Are Wigan playing as if they could score? Not really getting forward too much. Anything is possible, though...
Kitchandro Posted 3 December 2012 Posted 3 December 2012 Sorry, what was wrong with that decision? Cisse would have had a clear goalscoring chance and the defender just ran into him whilst making no attempt to play the ball. It's a stone wall penalty and a definite red card. Just because he was subtle about it doesn't make it any less cynical. Not soft in the slightest for me.
Vacamion Posted 3 December 2012 Posted 3 December 2012 Sorry, what was wrong with that decision? Cisse would have had a clear goalscoring chance and the defender just ran into him whilst making no attempt to play the ball. It's a stone wall penalty and a definite red card. Just because he was subtle about it doesn't make it any less cynical. Not soft in the slightest for me. Gary Neville's analysis was that it was a 50/50 peno and not a red. I would maybe doubt my initial reading of it if the slowed down and repeatedly replayed footage at half time didn't show a shoulder to shoulder challenge with no prior intent visible and the attacker seeming to delay then exaggerate his fall. As such, your argument does not have me convinced and I must disagree.
Guest ttfn Posted 3 December 2012 Posted 3 December 2012 My thoughts on awarding a red card and a penalty for "denying an obvious goalscoring opportunity" are that surely by getting a penalty for the foul, the attacking team hasn't lost an "obvious opportunity" at all. Perhaps if a foul prevents a very clear opportunity (I.e. open goal) then a red is justified but otherwise the double punishment is ridiculous.
Carl the Llama Posted 3 December 2012 Posted 3 December 2012 My thoughts on awarding a red card and a penalty for "denying an obvious goalscoring opportunity" are that surely by getting a penalty for the foul, the attacking team hasn't lost an "obvious opportunity" at all. Perhaps if a foul prevents a very clear opportunity (I.e. open goal) then a red is justified but otherwise the double punishment is ridiculous. If you foul in the penalty area it's a penalty. If you foul, preventing a clear opportunity it's a red. If you foul, preventing a clear opportunity in the area it's a red and a penalty. It seems harsh but it would be an unfair application of the rules to not give the double punishment.
Kitchandro Posted 3 December 2012 Posted 3 December 2012 Gary Neville's analysis was that it was a 50/50 peno and not a red. I would maybe doubt my initial reading of it if the slowed down and repeatedly replayed footage at half time didn't show a shoulder to shoulder challenge with no prior intent visible and the attacker seeming to delay then exaggerate his fall. As such, your argument does not have me convinced and I must disagree. Shoulder to shoulder only works if it's a 50/50 race. It was nothing of the sort, he was clearly going to outpace the defender and would have had a great chance and the defender knew it. He knocked into him on purpose. Whether the fall exaggerated is debateable, but there's no doubt the defender unfairly knocked into him when otherwise he was never getting to the ball.
Guest ttfn Posted 3 December 2012 Posted 3 December 2012 If you foul in the penalty area it's a penalty. If you foul, preventing a clear opportunity it's a red. If you foul, preventing a clear opportunity in the area it's a red and a penalty. It seems harsh but it would be an unfair application of the rules to not give the double punishment. But you get the goalscoring opportunity back with the award of a penalty, so how has a goalscoring opportunity been denied by the foul?
Carl the Llama Posted 3 December 2012 Posted 3 December 2012 But you get the goalscoring opportunity back with the award of a penalty, so how has a goalscoring opportunity been denied by the foul? That isn't the point though: Those are the rules and all footballers know them so they should avoid cynically preventing the opportunity in the first place. Look at it from the point of view of the attacking team: You lose an attacking opportunity outside the area and the defender is sent off, leaving you with a free kick you're more likely to miss than score. Is that fair given the loss of a clear opportunity? The fact that the foul happens in the area, giving you an equally likely scoring chance is much fairer, but the defender still needs to be punished for cynically preventing it - he's well aware of the rules after all and is still being unsportsmanlike in the same manner as if he committed the same offence outside of the area.
ousefox Posted 4 December 2012 Posted 4 December 2012 I was at the game and thought the ref got it spot on to be honest, admittedly i was about 150 metres away and in the gods! Haven't seen the replay but if it was the wrong decision, it ruined the game completely for Wigan. No way back. Still a decent game to go to, just a shame it couldn't have been more competitive.
Super_horns Posted 4 December 2012 Posted 4 December 2012 The current guy accused of diving is Bale...do you think that is right. Just another quick player who goes down too easily? On Saturday I thought he should have been booked for "clapping" at the official after being booked for the "dive"!
Guest ttfn Posted 4 December 2012 Posted 4 December 2012 That isn't the point though: Those are the rules and all footballers know them so they should avoid cynically preventing the opportunity in the first place. Look at it from the point of view of the attacking team: You lose an attacking opportunity outside the area and the defender is sent off, leaving you with a free kick you're more likely to miss than score. Is that fair given the loss of a clear opportunity? The fact that the foul happens in the area, giving you an equally likely scoring chance is much fairer, but the defender still needs to be punished for cynically preventing it - he's well aware of the rules after all and is still being unsportsmanlike in the same manner as if he committed the same offence outside of the area. But if the defender concedes the penalty then he HASN'T prevented a clear goalscoring opportunity. Whether its unsportsmanlike or not is irrelevant. I think that the current rule isn't a bad one and has the right intentions, but the double punishment element is ridiculous.
StanSP Posted 4 December 2012 Posted 4 December 2012 There was a report/survey which was released not too long ago where 72 (?) managers across Europe were asked about referees, rules and potential changes to football (i.e. video technology, transfer windows). One thing I remember reading is that there was a majority percentage of those 72 where they thought the triple jeopardy (penalty, man sent off, player suspended) was unfair, and there will be some consideration for changes to this rule in future.
ScouseFox Posted 8 December 2012 Posted 8 December 2012 Torres and Rafa are aa match made in beautiful heaven. G'won Nando.
AKCJ Posted 8 December 2012 Posted 8 December 2012 Torres and Rafa are aa match made in beautiful heaven. G'won Nando. Really? He's been shite in the games i've seen of him under Rafa's new reign.
ScouseFox Posted 8 December 2012 Posted 8 December 2012 He's scored 4 and got an assist in 5 games since Rafa returned. Shite.
AKCJ Posted 8 December 2012 Posted 8 December 2012 He's scored 4 and got an assist in 5 games since Rafa returned. Shite. In the games i've seen... Against Man City and West Ham he would have had more of an impact in the stands. Didn't see their game against some no hopers from Denmark and Sunderland who have been appaling when i've seen them.
Jon the Hat Posted 8 December 2012 Posted 8 December 2012 If you are Torres in need of confidence it doesn't matter who you score against, just that you score. Would love to see him back to his best.
Guesty Posted 8 December 2012 Posted 8 December 2012 Just seen Cazorla's dive that won him a penalty. Can't believe that was given - it's so bad.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.