Jump to content
Note to existing users - password reset is required Read more... ×
Sign in to follow this  
First Wazzock

Penalty or not?

Recommended Posts

 I personally thought it was not.

Very soft penalty, looked (as described on MOTD) as a ''coming togther''. If there was any contact (and it''s a big if) it was outside the box. I''m also disappointed at the fact it was given by the lino, where were you Ref? You should have had a better view and reached the right decision - In my opinion!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah bit soft and definitely started outside the area. Ref didn''t have a chance to be fair, it was a quick break and he wasnt that close to the ball when De Laet lost it. Linesman had a good view of it but called it wrong. Should err on the side of the defender in that situation unless you are sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

its the same most games - home striker gets to the box,  there is some contact and a penalty is given.

 

We have had the same sort given for Hux, Holt etc etc over recent years so while I agree its a soft one (and more evidence of football now being a non contact sport)  they are rarely not given.  For me the acid test is had it been a "foul" on Holt would I have expected a pen?  Here, I would.

 

As for the ref not keeping up, it was like the liverpool one,  fast players following a last defender balls up,  not many refs as quick as de laet so shoudl accept the linos help when he was well placed - surely thats what he is there for?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Goals on Sunday had a much better replay of it, broke it down in detail, and analysed it completely.The Wigan player''s foot was on the line of the area when the contact that was considered the foul was made. I believe that if your foot is on the line (so technically having entered the box in my opinion) that you are in the area. I could be wrong with this.When they slowed the move down, you see quite clearly that De Laet''s non standing leg comes over, connects with the Wigan player''s left leg and could cause him to lose his balance.Soft or not, De Laet made contact when the player''s foot was on the line of the box so the only question for me is "Does having half of your foot over the line mean you''re in the box?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="ZippersLeftFoot"]

As for the ref not keeping up, it was like the liverpool one,  fast players following a last defender balls up,  not many refs as quick as de laet so shoudl accept the linos help when he was well placed - surely thats what he is there for?

[/quote]

I agree the lino is there to help and lots of Refs don''t/won''t accept that help.

If the Ref had been further down the pitch he could have had a better view of the incident and not taken the decision of the lino who saw it from the point of view of the attacker going down with absolute minimum (if any) contact. I totally agree with the ''coming togther'' opinion - so was it a foul?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Strikers go down under minimal contact - hence my non contact sport comment - the analysis above seems to confirm there was bodily contact by de Laet,  without winning the ball, that have impeded the strikers progress. 

As such, rightly or wrongly, that seems to me to meet the modern definition of a foul?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No. Not. No way. Especially when compared with the 3 that Chelsea were denied today. Di Santo knew exacly what he was doing.

 

And why wasn''t the Argie cautioned for (a) pointing immediately and clearly to the penalty spot and (b) clearly waving an imaginary card at the referee?

 

OTBC

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
not a penalty, the game has got soft. Sholuder to shoulder. The coming together of legs is accidental, there is no way the way they were tangled that it was deliberate.

There is a reason why the game of football is becoming less attractive to watch with soft free kicks and ridiculous diving.

The game has changed and this is a very soft penalty, that should not be given.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It was a blatant dive, no tackle was made and there was no pushing just shoulder to shoulder.

We can expect more of those in the premier league and no doubt our own players have just noticed the merits of diving.

I would rather people didn''t dive but if you can''t beat them join em!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
" I believe that if your foot is on the line (so technically having entered the box in my opinion) that you are in the area"

like when the ball ''is on the line'', it is a goal

"when the player''s foot was on the line of the box so the only question for me is "Does having half of your foot over the line mean you''re in the box?"

as in having ''half of the'' ball over the line means it''s a goal

Harder sanctions need to be in place.to stop this blatant cheating, as with the second and failed claim.

A foul is not merely making contact with another player. Too many players are ''dragging their feet'', or in the above second case ,throwing themselves onto the floor on the merest contact with an opponents feet/legs.

Funny how these players never seem to fall over during the usual ''argy bargy'' just before a corner is taken or when a player is ''shepherding'' a ball out of play for a goal kick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I asked a question. Do you have an answer? We all know the rule about the whole of the ball having to be over the line. Does anyone know if your whole foot has to be over the line to be in the area? The last time I checked, the football wasn''t part of the human anatomy so I don''t think that applies to this scenario.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Both the De Laet and Martin tackles were Premier League penalties. De Laet may or may not have tripped the guy but that doesn''t really matter, he pushed the guy over (in the opinion of the linesman) and that will result in the penalty, De Laet''s mistake was to get that close to di Santo in the first place, he wasn''t going anywhere dangerous just let him run down the side of the box.

Feel some people maybe being a little hypocritical to attacking divers as Norwich''s biggest heroes over the last few years have been Hucks and Holt, both of whom aren''t shy when it comes to going down a little easily and both of whom would have hit the deck in the same situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Bethnal Yellow and Green"]Both the De Laet and Martin tackles were Premier League penalties. De Laet may or may not have tripped the guy but that doesn''t really matter, he pushed the guy over (in the opinion of the linesman) and that will result in the penalty, De Laet''s mistake was to get that close to di Santo in the first place, he wasn''t going anywhere dangerous just let him run down the side of the box.

Feel some people maybe being a little hypocritical to attacking divers as Norwich''s biggest heroes over the last few years have been Hucks and Holt, both of whom aren''t shy when it comes to going down a little easily and both of whom would have hit the deck in the same situation. [/quote]

I agree, that was the sort of situation that Holty wouldn''t think twice about feeling any contact and hitting the floor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"The last time I checked, the football wasn''t part of the human anatomy so I don''t think that applies to this scenario"

oh yes. silly old me

forgetting that there are two sets of lines

one for the ball and one for the human anatomy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks for your help City1st. Always a pleasure to converse with such helpful people. In a while host of sports there is a notable difference in the rules where your foot can be within the line and the ball the other side of the line but it''s still in play because you are. The opposite can also be true where the ball is still in play but because your foot touches the line it is deemed out of play.Seeing as there is nothing in the FA laws of the game as to whether it is classed as in the box or not if you''re on the line I''ll take it that you don''t know. Thanks for your help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was at the game & I had no complaints it was a pen. Think De Laet had been well & truly beaten but he contact not been made Ruddy would have had a decent angle as the ball was getting away from the attacker.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What sports might these be ?

As to the laws the FA has "A penalty kick is awarded if any of the above ten offences is committed by a player inside his own penalty area, irrespective of the position of the ball,

provided it is in play"

So,

if a ball needs to be completely over the line then it suggests that any line is part of the boundary.

that same definition of the boundary is defined by the lines of the 18 yard box

therefore anything being judged would have to be wholly over that line to be in the penalty box - just as it has to be wholly over the goal line

I think you can work it out from there

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="City1st"]What sports might these be ? As to the laws the FA has "A penalty kick is awarded if any of the above ten offences is committed by a player inside his own penalty area, irrespective of the position of the ball, provided it is in play" So, if a ball needs to be completely over the line then it suggests that any line is part of the boundary. that same definition of the boundary is defined by the lines of the 18 yard box therefore anything being judged would have to be wholly over that line to be in the penalty box - just as it has to be wholly over the goal line I think you can work it out from there[/quote]

 

---

 

Possibly not exactly. Unless the rules have changed since my 1961 "Know the Game" copy the penalty area:

"...is a rectangle 44 yards by 18 yards (including the width of line)..."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If it would of been the other way we''d of been spitting if we hadn''t got a penalty!

I think it was and we were lucky cause Martin definately bought down Di Santos at the end of the 1st half but Di Santos made such a meal of it that the ref thought otherwise!

That point could be vital at the end of the season!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the benefit of those that have never tried officiating in a football match its probably best to explain why this one was the lino’s call (OK I know they’re now Referees Assistants but I prefer to call them their traditional name)

 

When officiating, the pitch is effectively divided into quarters – the linesman will look after one side of half of the pitch, the ref takes the other side.  Whilst the lino’s patrol area stops at halfway, he can (and does) assist with decisions over the far side (usually for offside) or out of play calls at the other end.  The ref patrols the other two quarters, on a diagonal.  Which way the diagonal runs is entirely down to the ref – most seem to opt for the lino to take the left back area (although a few opt for the rightback area) and that is the way Stuart Attwell opted for at the weekend.  Hence why he was close to the Martin incident, but not the DeLaet one – that was in the Linesmans quarter

 

With regards to the two incidents, you have to remember that the ref & Lino have to call this in real time – most discussion on here has been after micro analysis in slow motion

 

Martins incident was a definite pen, but not given.  Possibly because the angle of the ref in relation to the players didn’t give him a full view, possibly because Di Santo went down very easily or possibly because Attwell wasn’t totally sure the previous decision was correct.  I don’t think he was totally sure on this one – hence why no yellow card for simulation – but he couldn’t reasonably give a penalty either

 

For the DeLaet case I was over the other side of the pitch, but my initial thought was it was stonewall.  There was a clear ‘coming together’ – and the law counts this as a foul punishable by a direct free kick.  A direct free kick awarded for an infringement in the penalty area – and this includes the line – results in the award of a penalty  Intent doesn’t have to be there for the free kick/pen to be awarded – although that will have  a bearing on whether a card is shown and also its colour.  The other issue is whether the incident denies a clear goal scoring opportunity (often referred to incorrectly as ‘Last Man’) in which case the ONLY sanction applicable is a straight red card – Attwell clearly didn’t think it was the case nor did the linesman.  Its only on slowing the action down that the contact appears to be minimal – although it was there – and questionable as to whether it was before the penalty area line or afterwards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Like Mr Wazzock - I too referee regularly. I felt, initially that the first incident wasn''t a penalty, I thought they came together and Di Santo went over very easily - on another day, another ref would have waved it away and possibly booked Di Santo for diving. However, I felt we were lucky to get away with the Martin challenge which in my book was a penalty.

Some funny decisions throughout the league on Saturday though, not least the Liverpool penalty incident, where surely Richardson should have been sent off?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="First Wazzock"][quote user="ZippersLeftFoot"]

As for the ref not keeping up, it was like the liverpool one,  fast players following a last defender balls up,  not many refs as quick as de laet so shoudl accept the linos help when he was well placed - surely thats what he is there for?

[/quote]

I agree the lino is there to help and lots of Refs don''t/won''t accept that help.

If the Ref had been further down the pitch he could have had a better view of the incident and not taken the decision of the lino who saw it from the point of view of the attacker going down with absolute minimum (if any) contact. I totally agree with the ''coming togther'' opinion - so was it a foul?

[/quote]interested to hear your views on the Barton incident from Saturday Waz. the fact that Pardew is defending it is shocking!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IMO if the ref had had the benefit of action reply it would have been a free kick just outside the box for De Laet''s foul and a pen for Martin''s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Martins incident was a definite pen .........possibly because Di Santo went down very easily.

The latter explains why IT WAS NOT a penalty. Over reacting to contact does not mean a penalty. His throwing himself to the floor was an afterthought in response to contact from Martin - not the involuntariliy resut of that contact.

As to Purple''s rather muddled guff, might I suggest he actually reads my post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×