I don't think so...
I'm tempted to create a fake profile & join up just so I can troll the fuck out of them.
Penalties
- Thread starter 6TimesaRed
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Status
I don't think so...
I'm tempted to create a fake profile & join up just so I can troll the fuck out of them.
No it wasn't for the first 'offence'. Flanno nicked the ball first however the ball DOES get his hand on it BEFORE he touches Flanno. However he didn't just touch his leg, he grabbed at it, and IMO that's why the penalty was given.
They are very heavy-handed and quick to ban (due to the sheer number of posters they have). You'd last about 5 posts 😉
Actually many of them, whilst still hating our guts, have been very complimentary and appreciative of our football this year. They undoubtedly believe we've played the best football. However there are naturally a LOT of kids/trolls & ignorant/biased opinions. It does have a simply HUGE poster-base but personally I enjoy it because of all the other team fans on there - you learn a lot and can have serious & interesting debates (if you ignore the kids/trolls) with people who know a lot more about their clubs than I do.
Possibly but, if so, IMO the ref made the right decision for the wrong reason. It actually doesn't matter if the tackling player touches the ball first. If that happens but the tackle is a foul tackle (attacking player is fouled as well as the ball being touched, defending player's studs showing, high tackle, whatever) it's still a foul and a free-kick or peno should be awarded.
With Flanagans penalty against West Ham, the keeper touched the ball but it stayed in play and Flanagan regained possession even after been grounded by the keeper, he would have had a shot on an open goal( which Sturridge missed seconds later) had he not been brought down.
I think the Suarez and Guzan penalty was a similar situation.
I think the point needs clarifying because it's virtually impossible to imagine a sliding tackle not including some contact on the player regardless of how cleanly the ball is won.
It's easy to imagine (we've all seen them) a sliding tackle where the ball is won but a foot is studs up/aimed at a knee or the tackle is thrown in with such force at not the player & the ball that the ball goes one way & both players are immobilised.
Using modern football rules they would both be fouls, despite the ball being 'won'.
True, but I was giving obvious examples.
If that penalty would have been against us I'd have been pissed.
However, I think you can make a case why it's been given. Despite the ball being won initially, the ball was still in play, & in diving at the ball & the player he immobilised the player, so he was stopped from possibly winning the ball back.
As an example, just outside the area, if it were a normal tackle with feet that would be a free kick all day long. The confusion comes from the liberal interpretation by referees in the area, as I doubt a tackle by a defender that won the ball & took the man out of play in the same fashion inside the area would be given as a penalty 9 times out of 10.
I think the point is that a tackling player needs to get a touch on the ball that actually clearly dispossesses the attacker. Just feathering the ball doesn't necessarily do that. It has to be enough of a touch such that subsequently tripping the player as part of the tackle makes no difference to possession of the ball.
About what?!
About it being a foul
All I know is I'd be fuming if it was given against us, and I'd be surprised if as many people were as supportive of the ref if it was against us.
But what about the specific point about whether *any* touch on the ball constitutes a successful tackle, or whether it has to be more significant than that? That's the key to deciding whether it's a foul or not.
For me, any touch on the ball shows that tackle was successful, as you're purposefully trying to get the ball.
Obviously here, he got the ball, but not enough to knock it away fully from flanno. For me, that doesn't make it a foul.
But I didn't write the rules, nor was aware of any such subtle nuances as they so rarely occur.
By that definition a tackle can be "successful" *and* a foul. The fact that you get the ball doesn't turn a foul tackle into a clean one..
For me you have to change the direction the ball is moving in, he didn't do that so it's a penalty
Fair enough if the player doesn't tick the other box about interfering with play. If he *is* interfering with play there's nothing "retarded" about being naffed off about it.
Is that the law though? Might be how we all play on the recreation ground but not how the law is applied to the game..
I don't think it is the law, though I've seen some refs apply it that way. Especially in ManUre's favour during Ferguson's time.
- Status
