Jump to content
IGNORED

Penalties, could have been a few.


1960maaan
 Share

Recommended Posts

I see ONeil was moaning that they should have had 3 Pens, funny enough didn't mention their bloke auditioning for the Flyers.
Personally at the time I was worried about one, the Kalas on Chester. I looked straight at the Ref and waited. One of those that anywhere else on the pitch it could be given, but everyone says it was soft.
Joe Williams Vs Brown, from where I was I thought JW did well to get between man and ball, and we got the free kick , so I think that's a stretch.
HNM Vs Ostigard, that looked like 50/50. If Ostigard doesn't grab HNM he doesn't end up grappling. But it could go either way, but went neither.
Looking at our shout, at the time I couldn't see, the replay though ? Hand away from body and stops the ball going into the box. On the other side it does deflect off of his boot. What made it worse was the pathetic ignoring of the most blatant hand ball seconds later.

Happy the Ref ignored the lot and in didn't prevent the win, just goes to show, sometime Lady Luck is on your side. A shit Ref will always be shit, you just hope decisions fall your way.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ref was awful but they had a case for the push by Kalas.

Our shout was nailed on if we had VAR because the bloke’s arm was away from his body, I don’t like penalties for that myself but if it had been checked I’m sure we’d have got one.

  • Like 3
  • Hmmm 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, GrahamC said:

Ref was awful but they had a case for the push by Kalas.

Our shout was nailed on if we had VAR because the bloke’s arm was away from his body, I don’t like penalties for that myself but if it had been checked I’m sure we’d have got one.

Absolutely they did but who cares?……….:dunno:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin
2 minutes ago, redsince1994 said:

image.png.2d3d7d0b487432e788e8dce3f1f69e1a.png

The guy is literally pulling HNM's hair. 

Would be raging if they had got a penalty for that. 

I mean if we had VAR would that be grounds for a straight red.  Surely its violent conduct? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, redsince1994 said:

image.png.2d3d7d0b487432e788e8dce3f1f69e1a.png

The guy is literally pulling HNM's hair. 

Would be raging if they had got a penalty for that. 

He followed that up with a handful of his shirt on his shoulder.

Penalty my arse.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, GrahamC said:

Ref was awful but they had a case for the push by Kalas.

Our shout was nailed on if we had VAR because the bloke’s arm was away from his body, I don’t like penalties for that myself but if it had been checked I’m sure we’d have got one.

It came off his leg first ridiculous if you are giving penalties for that. Def correct decision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Penalties are a bit stupid most of the time anyway when you think about it.

Is a free shot at goal from 12 yards a fair punishment for any of those incidents? Probably not.

But the rules are as they are, and probably won't change. I'm glad none were given.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Super said:

It came off his leg first ridiculous if you are giving penalties for that. Def correct decision.

While I think that is the rule, it is more for the ball flicking off of boot to hand, player stood or making a challenge. 
Defender spread, arms out and stops the ball going into the area during an attack. 
I think it's easily given and you could understand it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, redsince1994 said:

image.png.2d3d7d0b487432e788e8dce3f1f69e1a.png

The guy is literally pulling HNM's hair. 

Would be raging if they had got a penalty for that. 

Classic case of six of one and half a dozen of the other to me.

Having watched a re-run on Sky today, their bias was cringeworthy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, 1960maaan said:

While I think that is the rule, it is more for the ball flicking off of boot to hand, player stood or making a challenge. 
Defender spread, arms out and stops the ball going into the area during an attack. 
I think it's easily given and you could understand it.

Ref used common sense.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, 1960maaan said:

I see ONeil was moaning that they should have had 3 Pens, funny enough didn't mention their bloke auditioning for the Flyers.
Personally at the time I was worried about one, the Kalas on Chester. I looked straight at the Ref and waited. One of those that anywhere else on the pitch it could be given, but everyone says it was soft.
Joe Williams Vs Brown, from where I was I thought JW did well to get between man and ball, and we got the free kick , so I think that's a stretch.
HNM Vs Ostigard, that looked like 50/50. If Ostigard doesn't grab HNM he doesn't end up grappling. But it could go either way, but went neither.
Looking at our shout, at the time I couldn't see, the replay though ? Hand away from body and stops the ball going into the box. On the other side it does deflect off of his boot. What made it worse was the pathetic ignoring of the most blatant hand ball seconds later.

Happy the Ref ignored the lot and in didn't prevent the win, just goes to show, sometime Lady Luck is on your side. A shit Ref will always be shit, you just hope decisions fall your way.

Really surpised the Kalas one wasn't given, as it was so blatant. He was slow to react and Chester was in for a free header before that push.

The HNM one could go down as the proverbial six of one, half a dozen of the other. Although it didn't look good on Quest highlights.

Edited by NcnsBcfc
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, tin said:

Classic case of six of one and half a dozen of the other to me.

Having watched a re-run on Sky today, their bias was cringeworthy. 

A technical point was made. Citys player does not look at the ball. The offending defending ignores the basic defensive triangle principle. If you cannot see both ball and man you cannot defend them. Its a penalty.

 

Edited by Cowshed
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Cowshed said:

A technical point was made. Citys player does not look at the ball. The offending defending ignores the basic defensive triangle principle. If you cannot see both ball and man you cannot defend them. Its a penalty.

 

Why couldn’t he see the ball, though? Because he was being pulled left, right and centre. The first tug was made by Chester IMO, hence six of one and half a dozen of the other and no penalty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, tin said:

Why couldn’t he see the ball, though? Because he was being pulled left, right and centre. The first tug was made by Chester IMO, hence six of one and half a dozen of the other and no penalty.

Because his position alters. If he stays with the defending principle of face up and ball and man he can then impede the player more efficiently.      

Edited by Cowshed
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...