Cuellar and the "penalty"

[Dr Zeuss 0]

Did anyone else feel this was a bit harsh?

I thought it at the time and now having seen the replay Martin started a run about 8 yards behind Cuellar and on his blind side, Cuellar is a bit slow but takes his left leg back to kick the ball at which point Martin nips in front of him with his outstretched right which Cuellar sweeps away in completing the kick.

OK can see why a ref would give it in the real time of the game, but having started to kick the ball it would have been very difficult for Cuellar to pull out of it. For me it was at worst a 50:50 falling into the category of seen them given but also seen them not given.

What was disappointing was that the Sky guys didnt give any consideration to where Martin had come from and the speed at which he arrived - if you see where Cuellar is looking I don''t think he even saw Martin coming round the back.

[morty 0]

Completely agree. Would have been much more stonewall had Martin been face onto him.

I can see why it was given, but it could just as easily, not.

[lake district canary 4,836]

Stonewall penalty.   Cuellar should have been more aware of the danger and Martin did well to win the penalty.   But it was a penalty. 100%

[FCC 94]

Nicely summed up. Certainly wouldn''t be given against Chelsea or Man Utd. Great character to come back from it though.

[Bill 1,788]

What was disappointing was that the Sky guys didnt give any

consideration to where Martin had come from and the speed at which he

arrived - if you see where Cuellar is looking"[quote user="morty"]Completely agree. Would have been much more stonewall had Martin been face onto him.

I can see why it was given, but it could just as easily, not.

[/quote]it is skyMartin made a meal of it, and would certainly not have flung himself to the ground were it to be covered in broken glasshowever as said, the decision has to be made on a split second view and if is far easier to take to safe option - especially in front of a live tv audiencea case of some you win, some you don''t

[Herman 11,136]

Agree with the first two posts. Harsh, but can see why it was given.

[mrs miggins 0]

''Unfortunate'' is the word that comes to mind. It''s a stonewaller imo. It was clear Cuellar wasn''t aware of Martin behind him (he should''ve been), he should''ve attacked the ball instead of waiting for it to come to him, Martin got in ahead of him and the defender cleared him, unfortunate but imo a definite pen. However a similar scenario happened yesterday in the Southampton and Everton match. Jagielka was waiting for the ball to come down, Shane Long got in front of him and nicked the ball, Jagielka then kicked him instead of the ball. Definite pen, but this time wasn''t given, if only we had the bald headed baffoon that is Lee Mason as ref.

[SwindonCanary 457]

Laws of the game  ;-

A penalty kick is awarded to the opposing team if a player commits any

of the following seven offences in a manner considered by the referee to be

careless, reckless or using excessive force:

• kicks or attempts to kick an opponent

• trips or attempts to trip an opponent

• jumps at an opponent

• charges an opponent

• strikes or attempts to strike an opponent

• pushes an opponent

• tackles an opponent

A penalty kick is also awarded to the opposing team if a player commits any

of the following three offences:

• holds an opponent

• spits at an opponent

• handles the ball deliberately It seems to me that the word ''deliberate'' has now disappeared from the laws of the game and there''s no doubt he kicked him.

[Absent Friend 0]

Yes, it was a foul, so it''s a penalty. But credit to the ref for once because Cuellar had already been booked, he could have taken the very easy option of a second yellow. As it was he presumably recognised it was unfortunate timing by Cuellar, an accident waiting to happen, rather than a poor pre-meditated challenge.

[Cantiaci Canary 610]

We would be hurling happy clappers at Carrow Road if that wasn''t given to us as a pen. No question in my mind and not something to bash Cuellar over either.

[morty 0]

[quote user="mrs miggins"]''Unfortunate'' is the word that comes to mind. It''s a stonewaller imo. It was clear Cuellar wasn''t aware of Martin behind him (he should''ve been), he should''ve attacked the ball instead of waiting for it to come to him, Martin got in ahead of him and the defender cleared him, unfortunate but imo a definite pen. However a similar scenario happened yesterday in the Southampton and Everton match. Jagielka was waiting for the ball to come down, Shane Long got in front of him and nicked the ball, Jagielka then kicked him instead of the ball. Definite pen, but this time wasn''t given, if only we had the bald headed baffoon that is Lee Mason as ref.[/quote]

There are two types of ref, one that likes not to be noticed and just let the game flow, and one that wants to be the star of the show, and the centre of attention. Its pretty obvious which one Mason is.

[whoareyou? 0]

Blatant penalty but Cuellar wasn''t strong enough for both their goals. He should have made sure he out-muscled Martin on both occasions.

[Horse Renoir 1]

[quote user="mrs miggins"]''Unfortunate'' is the word that comes to mind. It''s a stonewaller imo. It was clear Cuellar wasn''t aware of Martin behind him (he should''ve been), he should''ve attacked the ball instead of waiting for it to come to him, Martin got in ahead of him and the defender cleared him, unfortunate but imo a definite pen. However a similar scenario happened yesterday in the Southampton and Everton match. Jagielka was waiting for the ball to come down, Shane Long got in front of him and nicked the ball, Jagielka then kicked him instead of the ball. Definite pen, but this time wasn''t given, if only we had the bald headed baffoon that is Lee Mason as ref.[/quote]

I saw that and was fuming after the same incident happened in our game but of course, as usual we were punished for an ambiguous incident whereas a different club isn''t.

It was a penalty annoyingly, Cuellar should have been more alert but if Everton weren''t punished then we shouldn''t have fu(king been either!

Aside from the penalty decision being a good spot (he bloody would spot it with it affecting us negatively) the officials were absolutely appalling yesterday for both teams. He was enjoying the limelight far too much, getting involved with every little thing, mates act with McLaren/Simpson etc

He wasn''t bias, just a completely useless tool!

[Indy 3,477]

Harsh but it was a penalty.....I have to say Cueller is a very slight improvement on Turner but mames the same mistakes....slow on the foot, slow in the brain and loses his man all the time.

Martin has convinced me that he is a central defender has been superb the last three games.

I''d like to see Bennett back alongside Martin.

Still leaves a slight concer IMO at right back, Whittakers goal was superb and all credit to him for the finish but his defending at times was dross.

still January here soon......maybe a new rightback is on the cards.

[king canary 8,763]

Can''t see how anyone can dispute it- it''s clumsy from Cuellar, obviously no idea of what is around him and where Martin is. It''s great work from Martin really as lots of people would have just left that for Cuellar to clear.

[Bill 1,788]

[quote user="SwindonCanary"]Laws of the game  ;-

A penalty kick is awarded to the opposing team if a player commits any

of the following seven offences in a manner considered by the referee to be

careless, reckless or using excessive force:

• kicks or attempts to kick an opponent

• trips or attempts to trip an opponent

• jumps at an opponent

• charges an opponent

• strikes or attempts to strike an opponent

• pushes an opponent

• tackles an opponent

A penalty kick is also awarded to the opposing team if a player commits any

of the following three offences:

• holds an opponent

• spits at an opponent

• handles the ball deliberately It seems to me that the word ''deliberate'' has now disappeared from the laws of the game and there''s no doubt he kicked him. [/quote]''considered'' by the referee - so silly bleats on here are just that ... silly bleats, as the decision is one of consideration rather than absolutefor my part there was nothing about the ''kick'' that was ''careless, reckless or using excessive force'', merely Martin taking a rather clumsy and over elaborate diveso was it a penalty then ?well back to the beginning, it is what the referee considers and I wasn''t the referee yesterday(shame some of the numpties don''t seem capable of grasping the rules of the game)

[king canary 8,763]

Apart from for handball the word deliberate has never been in there- you''ve always been able to foul someone without meaning to, that is what a good 90% of fouls are- people trying to win the ball and failing.

Oh and City1st- how you can be calling others ''numpties'' while trying to claim Martin took an ''overly elaborate dive'' shows a stunning lack of knowledge and self awareness. Cuellar clearly kicks his leg out from under him, how is that even remotely a dive?

[Bill 1,788]

[quote user="king canary"]Apart from for handball the word deliberate has never been in there- you''ve always been able to foul someone without meaning to, that is what a good 90% of fouls are- people trying to win the ball and failing.

Oh and City1st- how you can be calling others ''numpties'' while trying to claim Martin took an ''overly elaborate dive'' shows a stunning lack of knowledge and self awareness. Cuellar clearly kicks his leg out from under him, how is that even remotely a dive?[/quote]I am not trying to claim anything, I am stating something.Not sure what your guff about "a stunning lack of knowledge and self awareness" means, nor I suspect, do you.Watch the clip (around 2.44 secs)https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZNHR0blKfwhe pulls his right leg back, before making a theatrical dive onto the groundthe movement of his right leg was to prepare him for the ''fall''

[Gainer the Gopher 0]

You can''t sweep the leg like you''re Cobra Kai and not expect to be called on it.

[YankeeCanary 0]

 

IMO, it was a penalty and, if it was the other way around, we would almost to a man not only be claiming it was valid but complimenting the player for being clever. Additionally, as some have already pointed out, Cuellar is a little slow on occasions, however, on that particular call, it is a fine margin. A half a second difference and Martin would have been penalized for catching Cuellar''s leg as it went through the ball.  

[king canary 8,763]

My comment about a lack of knowledge and self awareness is from you calling others numpties who dont understand the rules of football while clearly showing your own lack of knowledge by claiming a dive.

It is an absolute stonewall penalty- even Cuellar doesn''t try and complain. As someone else mentioned it is slightly unluck as it is fraction of a second stuff but if you kick someones leg out from under them its a foul, plain and simple.

[Bill 1,788]

[quote user="king canary"]My comment about a lack of knowledge and self awareness is from you calling others numpties who dont understand the rules of football while clearly showing your own lack of knowledge by claiming a dive.

It is an absolute stonewall penalty- even Cuellar doesn''t try and complain. As someone else mentioned it is slightly unluck as it is fraction of a second stuff but if you kick someones leg out from under them its a foul, plain and simple.[/quote]oh dearthis has to be a wind up, but I will go with itit was a dive, watch how Martin pulls his right leg inwards so as to be able to land on his backalmost every player, unless they are running fast, will stumble and attempt to stay upit is NOT a stonewall penalty, read the laws of the gamewhich are, it is the referees consideration, therefore as you are not the referee you cannot make that decision

ps  a decision is signalled by blowing a whistle,  I have yet to hear any ref do this when making a decision

[Tetteys Jig 851]

To be honest, Cuellar isn''t good enough and unfortunately no other options are too. Adams has done a massively poor job of sorting out our back line and i''m yet to be convinced. Yes this may seem damning but while Ipswich, Brentford and Bournemouth can coast to the top on their pitiful budgets, it really gripes me that we are down in 7th.

I went yesterday and we were excellent going forward again, a real class apart but we''ve let ourselves down with pathetic defending. It beggars belief that we haven''t been able to get a decent, strong, reliable centre back in that does the simple stuff well.

This for me is the most important January buy. I wish we could send Hooiveld, Cuellar and Miquel back to their respective clubs and chuck a bit of money at buying a proven centre back.

Until we sort that out, the best we can hope is the playoffs i''m afraid.

[king canary 8,763]

Sorry but there is only one person on a wind up and it is you. You are the only person who seems to think this was a dive yet you state it like its an indisputable fact. No match report I''ve seen even considers it remotely contentious, the Sky team thought it was a clear penalty, even Adams has made no mention of it being up for debate!

[JF 694]

I honestly can''t believe anyone can claim it wasn''t a penalty.

Ps city 1st I suggest you get an adult to help you post (or even think) when you are on here.

[Herman 11,136]

It wasn''t a dive either. A swipe like that at the back of the ankle is enough to take most people out.

[morty 0]

[quote user="Herman "]It wasn''t a dive either. A swipe like that at the back of the ankle is enough to take most people out.[/quote]No, it wasn''t a dive at all, thats just plain daft.But I can sympathiese with Cueller.

[Herman 11,136]

Aye. If he was John Terry or similar he may have got away with it.

[Yellow Wal 315]

The one thing people seem reluctant to accept is that it was very good work by Martin.

There is no question that it was a penalty.

I only wish referees took notice of other fouls on City 1st''s list such as:

pushes an opponent or

holds an opponent

especially at corners and free kicks.

[It's Character Forming 1,204]

My immediate reaction in the ground was that Cuellar was going to play the ball and Martin cut in frog of him. Cuellar''s leg was already in motion and as Martin cut in he clearly swept away his leg but Martin very much made the most of it.

So is that a pen? Questionable - I can see why it was given but as has been mentioned I can see why a pen similar circumstances wasn''t given in another game. Would we have been awarded that if it happened to our striker at Old Traffoed? Absolutely no chance.

They''re judgement calls for the ref and having seen the highlights he had 3 big calls to make - whether to disallow the Tettey goal, the penalty, and the handball claim vs Olsson just before the corner such led to our goal. -all could have been given either way but having watched replays now I think the ref got all 3 correct - Jerome was clearly a distraction for the Tettey shot so "active", Cuellar probably careless enough to be classed a foul on Martin, and Olsson''s hands were by his sides and he didn''t move them when the ball hit his hand so not handball. So credit to the ref although I was cursing him at the time.

And I did almost spill my coffee when watching the FLS and McLaren was complaining they didn''t have the rub of the green! Given that 2 big marginal decisions went in their favour I''d say that was classic sour grapes