Was it a penalty? Was it a red card?

[Mister Chops 7]

I sit in the upper Barclay and have to say that I thought we were very lucky to get the penalty today.  It looked like contact was outside the area, and was marginal at best.

That said, if it was a penalty, why wasn''t it a professional foul and red card?  And why did the ref talk to the linesman for about a minute before deciding no card should be issued?

[James Kent 0]

Well sitting in the lower Barclay I would say yes to both.  The contact was probably minimal, but there was contact and Pattison isn''t the type of player to dive.  As you rightly say it should have been a red card and in my opinion the only way the ref can''t give a red is if he doesn''t give a penalty.  As Roeder said a very bad day at the pffice for the officals and I am quite angry about it as who knows what could have happened had they been down to ten men for most of the second half.  On top of that why wasn''t play stopped for fozzy injury, I thought they were the rules stop play whenever there is a head injury.

[Rudolph Hucker 0]

My reaction was - not a penalty and a ref who wanted to give us something after some poor decisions.

 

[Lincs CR 0]

In the heat of the moment i thought it could have been a free kick on the penalty line, and when i checked out the Championship Goals on TV this morning, it appears there was a slight foul outside the box, but Pattison sort of stumbled and appeared to lose balance more than being hurled down, after stepping into the area.

After the penalty that should have been given earlier in the game, maybe the ref just wanted to balance it out.

[Hooleyfan 0]

[quote user="RUDOLPH HUCKER"]

My reaction was - not a penalty and a ref who wanted to give us something after some poor decisions.

 

[/quote]

Spot On! Rudolph...the refereeing was poor...but then so were we and as much as i hate to say it we didn''t deserve to win yesterday. We made Barnsley look like hard work last week and posts here since said that Blackpool would be harder...they were right and we were found out. Despite our good run of late we do not become a top class side overnight and this just cements the position that there is still much work to do and Mr Shoebridge just added insult to injury.

[Trent Canary 0]

[quote user="RUDOLPH HUCKER"]

My reaction was - not a penalty and a ref who wanted to give us something after some poor decisions.

 

[/quote]

Summed up perfectly.

Never a penalty in a million years, defender clearly won the ball. Referee initially wasnt going to blow, but then after the crowd roar he bottled it and gave it. Would have been very angry if I was a blackpool fan.

And it should have been a red card as the penalty was given. My take on it was that the referee, not convined it was a foul didnt check the player. Then decided to give it. However Couldnt remember which player committed the foul, consulted linesman, linesman didnt know either. Hence no card,

[kdncfc 0]

At the time I thought it was a definite penalty, having seen it on the championship it looked very harsh but having given the penalty the clueless ref should have sent the defender off. The challenge on Hucks in the first half looked a stone waller so I''d guess it all evened itself out in the end. The ref was poor all afternoon but I was more annoyed at our players for not really going for the jugular after we scored, the goal seemed to galvanise them and they looked for more likely to add to their tally in the last 20 minutes. Very disappointing but not really that surprising as we have been playing poorly for a few games now.

[The Sweeney 0]

Certainly right about the penalty being a harsh decision however certainly wrong about Huckerby incident being one. I was dead in line and he had lost the ball when he tumbled. As for the Fotheringham issue beats me how the ref is supposed to know it was a head injury from that distance-the rule is play to the whistle and in my opinion the ref made the right decision by letting play go on. Guess players only have themselves to blame when they are keen to "play act" to get a free kick or somebody booked/sent off. I thought the ref had a reasonable game-it always seems worse when you lose. Beaten by a better side who knew how to defend and played some good football as well-GR take note!

[First Wazzock 1,014]

Was it a penalty? No - The ''foul'' was outside the box.

Was it a red card? No - You get sent off for ''denying a goalscoring opportunity''. Patty tripped over his own feet !

[canarychris 0]

Hucks penalty appeal in 1st half was an absolute stone waller!!! The defender has tackled from behind and not got close to the ball, referee was very badly positioned to see it and i guess having seen a replay at half-time gave us the Patty one to level things up. 

[The Voice of the Thorpe Area 0]

[quote user="RUDOLPH HUCKER"]

My reaction was - not a penalty and a ref who wanted to give us something after some poor decisions.

[/quote]

Spot on RH- a poor performance from a man who for some reason was determined not to give Dion a free-kick all afternoon, amongst many other mistakes.

[The Sweeney 0]

Sorry mate but you are well out on this one. Dion was slow and cumbersome-the legs are catching up on him. He gave away several free kicks seeming to spend most of his afternoon complaining rather than making any impact. As for the thoughts of RH-again wrong as the ref can only give what he sees(or thinks he sees). As for poor decisons as in my earlier post he did alright-the board would have been very quiet if Norwich has won.

Now we have GR ranting about the ref''s poor performance- a feeble excuse for a pathetic performance from the team. Time to grow up and face reality GR-Neil Adams last week,the ref at the weekend-who will he point the finger at next. Just look in the mirror GR.