opinions4u Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/17052404#asset If we score two goals as good as that every game the crowds should come flocking back. Is that a foul or a shoulder barge for the penalty? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyres_28 Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 simply fantastic 2nd goal. shoulder barge for me. if that was in the corner and was shadowing for a goal kick wouldn't be given ... though i think the angle may have been kind on Lee - at least it clears up who was at fault! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ackey Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 Never a Pen, justice done! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
razza699 Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 What a riduclous penalty. Is football becoming non contact?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Break The Silence Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/17052404#asset If we score two goals as good as that every game the crowds should come flocking back. Is that a foul or a shoulder barge for the penalty? That's never a penalty in a million years, thank God Cisak saved it, justice done! It looked a definate pen from the Main Stand paddock but, having seen it again, no way! And 2 great goals, Simmo's in particular for the chest control... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zorrro Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 Definitely not a penalty. That is ridiculous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
razza699 Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 What a riduclous penalty. Is football becoming non contact?! What ridiculous spelling Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave_Og Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 What a riduclous penalty. Is football becoming non contact?! If you listen to the pundits then yes. Time after time when they analyse a player hitting the ground as if shot by a Magnum at point blank range they come up with something along the lines of "well there was contact so he was entitled to go down" when the contact wouldn't have been enough to knock down a toddler taking his first step. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
razza699 Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 If you listen to the pundits then yes. Time after time when they analyse a player hitting the ground as if shot by a Magnum at point blank range they come up with something along the lines of "well there was contact so he was entitled to go down" when the contact wouldn't have been enough to knock down a toddler taking his first step. Yet but we never seem get them. I remember a couple of times against Chesterfield Kuqi was bundled to the ground in the box but it wasnt deemed enough contact to warrant a foul Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
opinions4u Posted February 16, 2012 Author Share Posted February 16, 2012 If you listen to the pundits then yes. Time after time when they analyse a player hitting the ground as if shot by a Magnum at point blank range they come up with something along the lines of "well there was contact so he was entitled to go down" when the contact wouldn't have been enough to knock down a toddler taking his first step. But even then, the rules allow for you to knock somebody over with a shoulder to shoulder challenge. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan up the ladder Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 The ref was woeful irrespective of the penalty decision. How only one of theirs got booked in the game compared to two of ours I'll never know. Simpson must have been fouled about 15 times alone. Kuqi slightly vindicated for his miss as it clipped the post before going wide (couldn't tell that on the night). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stargazer Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 I think the penalty decision was very border line , hard to call for the ref. We will need a bit more steel in midfield away to MK Dons , we did fade badly in the second half imo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeLatics Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 Depends whether you think the shoulder charge was careless or not. It's an offence to charge an opponent carelessly, recklessly or with excessive force. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
opinions4u Posted February 16, 2012 Author Share Posted February 16, 2012 Depends whether you think the shoulder charge was careless or not. It's an offence to charge an opponent carelessly, recklessly or with excessive force. A shoulder charge is fair unless it is done in a careless, reckless or excessively forceful manner. The referee may blow for a foul if the arms are out, use of elbow becomes a push or a hold and both feet are off the ground. A shoulder charge should not be committed in such a way that there is an unnatural step towards the opponent, and no intention to win the ball. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
losesome Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 If you listen to the pundits then yes. Time after time when they analyse a player hitting the ground as if shot by a Magnum at point blank range they come up with something along the lines of "well there was contact so he was entitled to go down" when the contact wouldn't have been enough to knock down a toddler taking his first step. Yes heard Shearer say that on MOTD , in other words , if there is contact the forward is entitled to cheat !!!!!!!!!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jburbri Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 it did seemed to be a bit harsh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeLatics Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 A shoulder charge is fair unless it is done in a careless, reckless or excessively forceful manner. The referee may blow for a foul if the arms are out, use of elbow becomes a push or a hold and both feet are off the ground. A shoulder charge should not be committed in such a way that there is an unnatural step towards the opponent, and no intention to win the ball. Sounds about right, but where's that from? There's no specific reference to the 'shoulder charge' in the LotG (not this year's at least). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
opinions4u Posted February 16, 2012 Author Share Posted February 16, 2012 Sounds about right, but where's that from? There's no specific reference to the 'shoulder charge' in the LotG (not this year's at least). Some random website that Google through up. Refapedia or something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaticsLegend Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 If you listen to the pundits then yes. Time after time when they analyse a player hitting the ground as if shot by a Magnum at point blank range they come up with something along the lines of "well there was contact so he was entitled to go down" when the contact wouldn't have been enough to knock down a toddler taking his first step. Don't think ive ever seen a shoulder barge without contact to be honest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.