Jump to content

That 2nd penalty?


Recommended Posts

I was right in line and from my seat it looked like the cross was spinning behind the forward and he went over trying to adjust his position. I would like to see it again but it appeared innocuous. Also the forward didn't look to appeal.

 

It was one of those Mike, 9 refs out of 10 wouldn't have given it but Stam's arm definately came out and nudged the lad. The annoying thing is though,how many times has Hughes been clattered in the box and nowt given ? Same old,same old.....NO CONSISTENCY !!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Neither were penalties, but were CONSISTENT with the very soft one we got last week

Not seen either of yesterday's yet, but correct me if I'm wrong on this one.

 

If a defender trips up an attacker in the box, it is a penalty in my book.

 

There was nothing soft about last week's and the rumpus that followed was nothing short of farce.

 

Possibly the most obvious penalty ever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just watched the Championship. Stam does give a little shove IMO, and if the ref claps eyes on it, then he gives it. But has to be looking directly at it at the time to spot it - most times defenders get away with it. Not a 'big' foul, but a foul still the same. Would want it at the other end. No need for Stam to do it IMO either.

 

Watched the 1st one a number of times in slo-motion on Sky+. To me its not a foul. Very close to the edge of the area, and if it had been outside its a red card and free-kick. But inside - good goal keeping in my mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having watched them both on my televisual device. Both penalites. Correct refereeing (including not sending Fleming off).

 

Sorry OS but disagree.

 

The first penalty I have seen again on my televisual device today and it confirms my opinion yesterday at the game that the incident took place in the box and Fleming gets the ball then the player goes over his arm. Therefore no penalty. However, as the incompetent official awarded the penalty and as Maclean (sp?) would then still have got the ball and had a chance to score the card should have been red. Fortunately for us Mr. Williamson was at his inconsistent best.

 

 

With regard to the second penalty, again having seen the tv today Stam does indeed appear to have his hand on Mackail-Smith and therefore there is contact. However, as football is a contact sport, contact is allowed. The question for the official is did the contact affect the player reaching the ball or put him off in any way? was it any more than 2 players coming together? i.e. 1 slowing down and the other colliding with him etc, etc. Like others I have seen them given and I have no problem with refs giving penalties for such contact. However, that being the case, there would be a penalty awarded at every corner of every game I have seen this season. So we either have them given for each and every offence or they are not given. I just wish they would make their minds up. By the way, there was a very similar incident in the second half, yet we didn't get the penalty. Finally, if the ref saw the "push" by Stam as a foul, then surely he has denied a goalscoring opportunity and as such Stam should have been red carded as Fleming should have been for the 1st goal, having given the penalty.

 

Cheers,

 

 

 

 

Harry

 

C

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be fair, we agree on one thing. Stam should have gone for the second penalty.

 

I have to admit the first penalty seemed so obvious that I gave it only a glance or two. I may have missed him touching the ball - but when watching once I didn't think so. The second I watched very closely and is, to me, certainly a penalty. And as we've mentioned, thereby a sending off.

 

The 'if you give that then there'll be a million penalties' doesn't really wash with me. He had a clean header at goal, and was denied it. If that happens that often I'd be very surprised.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be fair, we agree on one thing. Stam should have gone for the second penalty.

 

I have to admit the first penalty seemed so obvious that I gave it only a glance or two. I may have missed him touching the ball - but when watching once I didn't think so. The second I watched very closely and is, to me, certainly a penalty. And as we've mentioned, thereby a sending off.

 

The 'if you give that then there'll be a million penalties' doesn't really wash with me. He had a clean header at goal, and was denied it. If that happens that often I'd be very surprised.

 

Sorry I think you slightly misunderstand on the second penalty. Mackail-Smith was never getting the ball, the "push" was exceptionally weak and had no bearing on him making contact to the extent that even Mackail-Smith didn't bother appealing. That is the point I was making. Players have their hands all over each other at corners and free kicks in the box and there is far more "contact" in those situations. By and large, players accept it as part and parcel of the game. If you think I am wrong on this, then watch the game this Saturday when there are corners for both teams, there will not be 1 corner in the whole game when there isn't at least the amount of contact that there was between Stam and Mackail-Smith and I would love to get odds on a penalty being awarded on that basis, because it will probably be 500-1.

 

Hope that clears my point up for you.

 

Cheers,

 

 

 

 

Harry

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...