Having seen the penalty incident....

[Wings of a Sparrow 1,407]

......I''m not so sure it was.

It appeared that he dragged his trailing leg along the ground therefore inviting contact rather than attempting to avoid contact by jumping over the advancing keeper?

I''m sure there''s someone out there who''ll put me right.

[Icecream Snow 761]

For me it''s a penalty. But it''s insane to send Ruddy off.

[Rasputin was a C... 0]

Got to agree that he was certainly looking for it. Then these tosser''s know they''ll get the decision at this level. Same with the penalty in the Blackburn game, the striker goes over like he''s been shot. In that case it was a penalty, but for the diving it should have been given against the attacker as cheating should be seen as a more serious offence. Sadly, it''ll be a rather nippy day in hell before that sort of logical decision making will occur.

[Rasputin was a C... 0]

[quote user="Rasputin was a C..."]Got to agree that he was certainly looking for it. Then these tosser''s know they''ll get the decision at this level. Same with the penalty in the Blackburn game, the striker goes over like he''s been shot. In that case it was a penalty, but for the diving it should have been given against the attacker as cheating should be seen as a more serious offence. Sadly, it''ll be a rather nippy day in hell before that sort of logical decision making will occur.[/quote]The cheating bastard has just had another one. Can you tell I''m watching Match of the thingy. We''ll need to be careful of this Formica chap as he seems to have quite a poor sense of balance when close to the goal.

[Wings of a Sparrow 1,407]

He is indeed a cheating bar steward and they say nothing sticks to Formica.

Did you notice the Backburn manager still had the time to check out the (Kate lookalike) bird in the raincoat in the immediate aftermath of the penalty award?

[G 0]

You are correct but that is part of football nowadays. If he jumps over Ruddy theres no penalty if he runs into Ruddy its a penalty, the rules need to be tighter and video technology needs to be introduced if we are going to stop players going down to easily.

[Brendo 0]

There is no doubt in my mind that he was looking for it. However by the laws of the game it is infact a penalty, and a red card sadly. [:(]It''s just good striker play ( i know he''s not, but there you go), Holt does it all the time. I just feel the reason so many fans felt agrieved was A) we were playing superb at Stamford Bridge - a very good achievement, and B) conceded two dodgy pens already in first 2 games already, and a debatable red for Barnett. It''s a very frustrating way to lose a game, but thats the way it goes. [:(]I''m just happy we didn''t get trounced or outclassed, we in fact played brilliantly and to be on just 2 points after 3 games is bitterly unlucky. Plenty of positives however, and if we can emulate these peformances over the season I''m 100% sure we will survive. OTBC.

[Mason 47 1,373]

Ramires saw Ruddy on his way out and saw that he wasn''t going to have the ball under strikeable control, so a penalty is the next best thing. He didn''t dive, though; a dive won''t usually involve contact. He could jump over Ruddy and try and chase the ball down or he can simply choose not to avoid the sprawling keeper- taking advantage of the situation afforded to him. Obviously you''d like to think that these footballers are all upstanding gentlemen, but I think we''re learning already this season that we have to be more savvy than that.

 

 

This image is all you really need. To me that player does not look like he is set for running after the ball or jumping the keeper, he looks like he''s ''preparing'' his legs so it doesn''t hurt as much when he collides with him. It''s a nasty, cheap trick but it doesn''t break any rules. On the other issue I have to say it''s a terribly soft sending off. Ramires probably won''t catch the ball, is heading away from goal as it is, and we had a covering player. Ruddy doesn''t intentionally ''trip'' him, but goalkeepers rarely commit true ''professional fouls''- Jens Lehmann in the Arsenal - Barca CL final (grabbing Et''o''s ankle on the way past) is the last one I can clearly remember, but the rules covering these things aren''t exactly watertight. I think a yellow would easily have appeased every party.

[Canaries Utd 0]

[quote user="Wings of a Sparrow"]He is indeed a cheating bar steward and they say nothing sticks to Formica.

Did you notice the Backburn manager still had the time to check out the (Kate lookalike) bird in the raincoat in the immediate aftermath of the penalty award?[/quote]

Muse, I was at the game with the lead singer of... Muse today, well, yesterday :) nice chap Mr Bellamy :)

[Yellow Shirt 17]

He played for the penalty after a very bad touch but Holt, Hoolahan, Martin, Jackson, Crofts etc etc would do exactly the same cos the rules as they stand allow it.It was a penalty- unlucky on Ruddy (who was otherwise excellent again today I thought) but the red card was just wrong as Ramires had lost control, was heading away from goal and Pilkington had got back on the line.If Ruddy has got a finger to the ball it''s not a penalty but he didn''t quite time it right. Worried about WBA with Rudd in goal now- he is going to be good enough for this league but not yet- for Mata''s goal his position was too cautious on the near post and he was nowhere for the Ivanovic header and a couple of other late chances they had. I haven''t seen much of him before so maybe just a confidence thing after mid week?

[Old Shuck 183]

Interesting photo.

Ramires does look like he''s taking the tension out of his trailing leg-in effect, he''s relaxed it, thus reducing the pending impact he is looking for....

We''ll never know of course, but thats another aspect of this league we''ll need to wise up to-yes, the game itself is a lot quicker, but so is the thought process of the players involved.

People are suggesting we give it back a bit-a dive here, an appeal to the ref there, and to look for decisions either when there isn''t one, or when it isn''t ours in the first place. Naive maybe, but I hope we don''t think we have to resort to that. Cheating is cheating, whatever colour shirt the perpetrator is wearing.

[Cantiaci Canary 556]

That photo is a little misleading in my opinion.

Ramires is bracing himself for impact at very speed rather than crumbling maliciously (diving).

 

It is a penalty - we would be screaming blue murder if Holt was denied it.

[Herman 9,710]

[quote user="Cantiaci Canary"]

That photo is a little misleading in my opinion.

Ramires is bracing himself for impact at very speed rather than crumbling maliciously (diving).

 

It is a penalty - we would be screaming blue murder if Holt was denied it.

[/quote]

Don''t want to,but have to agree with this!!

The red i am not too sure as the ball was heading off.

[ZLF 271]

Its a stone wall penalty and a red card. Always I ask if it was holt what outcome would I have wanted.

Yes yes the player went down easily - would Holt? Duh, of course.

The ref got it 100% right for me; some occasions the pen or card are not given, in this case I think its the right choice.

Ruddy tried to minimise the chances of giving away a pen, but as soon as there contact the outcome was inevitable

[crabbycanary 2]

Why a red card though Zipper? Penalty ? yes imo, they will be given all season long like that

[ZLF 271]

Again, who I have been hollering for a red if it was holt brought down? To blooming right and my voice would have been lost amongst 20,000 others.

Any striker going around a keeper goes away from goal, the keeper by definition is the last man. Sadly the rules are quite clear, it should be a red card for denying a goal scoring opportunity.

The inconsistency is a problem - you see them given and you also see yellows in similar situations, so yes we can debate it but do I think red was a gross error and total injustice here? No - I dont

[crabbycanary 2]

Ruddy wsn''t the last man though, Pilkington was, if it was a debate about offside, then Pilkington would have been taken as the last man.

It wasn''t a gimme in terms of a goal

[crabbycanary 2]

And I would have been hollering for a red also, but it doesn''t mean it was, you as a fan are trying to see if the Ref has the balls to take the pressure and make the correct decision - he didn''t.

[nutty nigel 7,509]

Zip calls it spot on for me. Definite penalty and red card. The ''keeper must be the last man and it had to be a goalscoring opportunity when the contact was made. Unlike last week when I believe both decisions were wrong.

 

Also agree about the inconsistency about these decisions. That''s where I believe we will suffer this season. It''s easy for the ref to give a pen and a red card against us. Not so easy if it had been the other way around.

 

Was gutted I couldn''t be there and well done to the yellow army for the way you got behind the team.

[Hooleyfan 0]

I think it is the injustice of these situations that makes all our blood boil. If you make a comparison with a penalty try being awarded in rugby, it shows this refereeing decision to be such a disproportionate unfairness. An attacking player who you couldn''t say was likely to score, goes down in dubious circumstances, not only gets a 90% chance of securing a goal for his team. He also gets the first choice keeper sent off, leaving the team weakened and at a huge disadvantage for the remainder of the game, which could theoretically be for 90 minutes, if occurring at the start of the game. Added to that, the defending team is without the services of the red carded player for the next game.

When you add all that up, it''s a toss up whether an immediate award of 2 penalty goals without even having to kick a ball would be a less harsh sanction.

[Archie 0]

So how does this ''last man'' thing work then? If you are the last defender before the goalie, you are the last man, despite the goalie having a chance to save any shot (eg Barnett last week). If you are the goalie but there is a defender on the line, is the goalie no longer the last man, even though the defender has a smaller chance of stopping any shot?Pilkington was on the line,but based on the Barnett example Ruddy must also be the last man. Did we need two players on the line?I''m confused...

[nutty nigel 7,509]

Not sure he even has to be the last man Archie.

 

"If an attacker is moving towards his opponents'' goal WITH AN OBVIOUS OPPORTUNITY TO SCORE A GOAL, and he is intentionally and physically impeded by ANY unlawful means by a defending player - the defender can be said to have denied the attacking team a goal scoring opportunity."

 

 

[CDMullins 436]

It was a penalty without doubt and having taken it past the keeper you have to say it is a ''clear goal scoring opportuinity'' so Ruddy as to go.

 

Pilkington been on the line is irrelavant.

 

Im suprised no one as questioned Ruddy, he came rushing out when there was no real reason to, had he held him up and pushed him wide, we had got enough yellow shirts back to help block the shot.

 

As for the picture of Ramires, it harsh to say he is already going down, he has drawn the foul and knew it was coming so prepared himself for contact. He played for contact and unfortunatley got contact. However I think had Ruddy have pulled out of the tackle, Ramires would still have gone down.

[ZLF 271]

I think we are all feeling an injustice because we were the better team and deserved to get something out of the game and knew that the pen and red card had scuppered that.  And we all saw ramires what all footballers and commentators "earning" a penalty (a euphemism for cheating) by making sure his leg collided with ruddy rather than trying to skip round and score.  

 

We can all see that Ramires intention was to make it a penalty.    That is an insidious part of the game that all players and clubs indulge in, I loathe it and wish it was removed.  But I do find it hypocritical of mangers (and fans to be honest) to moan about the behaviour of other players looking to earn free kicks, penalties and red cards yet actively encourage their own players to behave in the same way.

 

No wonder so many refs make "mistakes" - it really is the managers players and fans own faults.

 

 

[211203 0]

I think its just a fact of life in the Prem.  Look at the first pen in the Blackburn game.  Forwards make sure their legs catch the goalkeeper/defender and go over, Prem refs will normally give it as a pen if there''s contact and it doesn''t look too much like a dive, even though the forward has really played for it.  We have to wise up defensively.

[grantroederdisaster 0]

G"]You are correct but that is part of football nowadays. If he jumps over Ruddy theres no penalty if he runs into Ruddy its a penalty, the rules need to be tighter and video technology needs to be introduced if we are going to stop players going down to easily.

 

 

 

Agree!

 

It was a penalty from where the ref was only seeing it once with his own eyes, but the guy was looking for it. Had video technology been used (which I think it should be with the 4th official in the stand with a tv monitor which he/she can rewind and replay and linked to the ref) then it may not have been given cause the Chelsea striker started to go over befre making contact with Ruddy!

[Wings of a Sparrow 1,407]

[quote user="Canaries Utd"][quote user="Wings of a Sparrow"]He is indeed a cheating bar steward and they say nothing sticks to Formica. Did you notice the Backburn manager still had the time to check out the (Kate lookalike) bird in the raincoat in the immediate aftermath of the penalty award?[/quote] Muse, I was at the game with the lead singer of... Muse today, well, yesterday :) nice chap Mr Bellamy :)[/quote]

 

I''m slightly jealous as I was supposed to be going yesterday, as a guest with meal and everything chucked in.

 

Please don''t tell me he''s a Chelsea fan though?

[Sjb 11]

My first thought was he has to go, And i still stand by that. If ruddy had kept standing and forced Ramires to take a shot at him he proberly would have saved it. Ruddy shouldn''t have dived in unless he was 100% sure that he would get the ball. He will leanrn from this mistake and will become a better keeper from it!

[Robert N. LiM 4,237]

Cannot believe there''s even a debate. Ruddy brought him down. Clear-cut penalty even if the striker looked for it.

He denied an obvious goalscoring opportunity, so it has to be a red. Personally I think that''s a ridiculous rule, but it is the rule and the ref was right to apply it.

And managers who bleat about consistency have only themselves to blame: that''s what led to the DOGSO rule. It would be far better if the ref was allowed to judge whether the foul was deliberate, but then moronic managers and pundits would complain about different decisions being made in similar circumstances.

Ruddy was left in the lurch by defenders who should have brought a Chelsea player down much earlier, as Shack said on another thread, and taken a yellow for the team. (In my, much better world, it''s that sort of deliberate foul which would earn a straight red, rather than Ruddy''s honest attempt to win the ball - but unfortunately we are living in Mark Lawrenson''s world and not mine.)

[Boris 56]

any chanse ruddy to be baned more than 1 game or this is without doubt 1 game suspension!?

rudd not look sollid enough and we have after the break 4 home games who can be the key because they are all against teams who is bottom 6-7 material.

WBA

Sunderland

Swansea

Blackburn