Yahoo News story including the QPR 'penalty'.....

[Jonzey 0]

Hopefully this link should work:

 

http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/football/premier-league/video/allvideos-22327918/30441273#video=30418763

 

Until now this seems to have been swept under the rug by the media, nice to see someone is paying attention out there. It shows why the penalty Cisse cheated out of the ref should have been retaken. And people wonder why refs are suspected of corruption!

[CDMullins 498]

So what.......

Penalty would be re-taken with a high probability that he would score (Yes I know Ruddy ''Saved'' the first one)

There were 4 City players in the box when the ball was kicked, yet non of them really followed the ball in.

Not so sure Cisse ''Cheated'' it out of the ref either, yes it was soft, but Cisse didnt dive, Stupid Stupid tackle from Bassong.

Why is it never our fault, always looking for someone else to blame?

Had Bassong not been reckless, there would have been no penalty, had we followed it in like Zamora did, there would have been no goal!

[ZLF 335]

soft pen yes - cheated no;  was one where if it was holt going down under a hill challenge we would have wanted a pen too.   Not ure I agree Bassong was reckless - but he made it easy for cisse

 

As for the encroachment - it happens at every pen and we were as guilty as QPR - zamora got there first.   Yes the ref SHOULD have noticed and forced a retake - which would probably have been netted anyway.

 

The bigger mistakes were by our team,   failure to take the chances we did make and failure to create enough clear cut chances. 

[Aggy 944]

I would say ''careless'' rather than ''reckless''. Cisse was on his way down anyway, the ball had gone, his legs were all over the place and his balance was terrible. Bassong could quite easily have stood up and we would have probably dealt with the loose ball. So clumsy, yes, as it was a challenge that didn''t need making, and was a penalty. As for the encroaching, yeah, should have been retaken, but it''s one of these things that everyone does. As said, our defenders were also in the box, just not as much as Zamora. A retake would probably have gone in, so it''s not something that I''m getting too worked up about.

We had some fairly clear cut chances that we missed - could quite easily have gone home with the three points regardless of the penalty.

[JC 0]

Was it a penalty...Yes

Should it have been retaken...Yes

The comment about us having 4 players in the box who didn''t follow it in...pretty hard to when a player is 2 metres ahead of you and you''re trying to react

I am a big believer in these things evening out over the season, I just hope we don''t follow suit of last season of 5 pens in 5 games

[Surfer 1,547]

The fact is Zamora was miles inside the penalty box when the kick was taken, and clearly seeking (and gaining) an unfair advantage. Whether there were any Norwich defenders in the area or not is not relevent, if anyone other than the keeper and the penalty kick taker the ball is dead and the kick should be re-taken.

So would Cisse have scored the re-taken penalty? The odds are that he would, but the fact remains Zamora committed a dead ball infractraction, the penalty should not have stood.

As for Norwich defenders being in the area (but reacting more slowly) - what do you expect them to do ?

[CDMullins 498]

[quote user="Surfer"]The fact is Zamora was miles inside the penalty box when the kick was taken, and clearly seeking (and gaining) an unfair advantage. Whether there were any Norwich defenders in the area or not is not relevent, if anyone other than the keeper and the penalty kick taker the ball is dead and the kick should be re-taken.

So would Cisse have scored the re-taken penalty? The odds are that he would, but the fact remains Zamora committed a dead ball infractraction, the penalty should not have stood.

As for Norwich defenders being in the area (but reacting more slowly) - what do you expect them to do ?[/quote]React more fastly