Redtucks Posted January 31, 2016 Report Share Posted January 31, 2016 41 minutes ago, CotswoldRed said: Are you sure that the rules of the game say any contact is deemed a foul? 13 hours ago, Londoner said: Maybe so, but he still dived, it wasn't momentum that took him down it was his decision, if he had gone down earlier it would of looked a far better shout where i was. Like I said, where I was sitting I was pretty certain he dived, and that when the whistle went I was expecting a card not a penalty... We see it all the time, people diving after the tackle is made, today was a perfect example. Do the rules of the game (laws of the game actually) say that you have to go down to be a penalty. Whether he went down, or when he went down, is irrelevant. If it was a foul in the box it was a penalty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cidered abroad Posted January 31, 2016 Report Share Posted January 31, 2016 13 hours ago, Londoner said: Maybe so, but he still dived, it wasn't momentum that took him down it was his decision, if he had gone down earlier it would of looked a far better shout where i was. Like I said, where I was sitting I was pretty certain he dived, and that when the whistle went I was expecting a card not a penalty... We see it all the time, people diving after the tackle is made, today was a perfect example. So that is your opinion. My opinion is that he was fouled. I played a lot when I was young and have watched league football for 66 years. I always go on my first reaction and in this case it was a nailed on penalty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
citysimmo Posted January 31, 2016 Report Share Posted January 31, 2016 8 hours ago, eric04 said: Respectfully disagree. Nothing like Wilbs at all. Much more like Trundle. He needs to get match fit but I thought his first half contribution was very good. He took a knock at the end of the half and that's why he came off. I said to my mate afterwards Tomlin's got the body of Lee Matthews but the feet of Lee Trundle... And that will do for me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redfieldred Posted January 31, 2016 Report Share Posted January 31, 2016 5 minutes ago, citysimmo said: I said to my mate afterwards Tomlin's got the body of Lee Matthews but the feet of Lee Trundle... And that will do for me! I thought he had the body of lee trundle too. Shares in Greggs by the look of it, but he was very good for most of the first half and actually put a through ball or 3 into the area, something we have been lacking. Other than pack was best player on the pitch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1960maaan Posted January 31, 2016 Report Share Posted January 31, 2016 He can go past a player,he's got a very good touch and control , he looks to pass forward and play people in and he shoots from outside of the box........ yeah rubbish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Son of Fred Posted January 31, 2016 Report Share Posted January 31, 2016 9 hours ago, eric04 said: Respectfully disagree. Nothing like Wilbs at all. Much more like Trundle. He needs to get match fit but I thought his first half contribution was very good. He took a knock at the end of the half and that's why he came off. Don't get me wrong,clearly has ability with the ball at his feet and good touch as you would expect-how long will it take us to get his fitness up to scratch?too few games remaining I guess for us to be focusing on that..a fit Tomlin next season may be interesting but we need another striker in now.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobBobSuperBob Posted January 31, 2016 Report Share Posted January 31, 2016 On a three page thread about LT I can't believe no ones mentioned (unless I've missed it) his thro ball to JK first half that led to JKs attempt from a very narrow angle - Class Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BS4 on Tour... Posted January 31, 2016 Report Share Posted January 31, 2016 2 hours ago, CotswoldRed said: Are you sure that the rules of the game say any contact is deemed a foul? I'm only talking about the Tomlin incident and in the context of that incident I'd say so. A kick in the shin away from the ball inside the area constitutes a pen in my opinion. But I was more replying to Londoner who said repeatedly on here there was zero contact as he had a great view but then did a huge u turn and said repeatedly there was contact but Tomlin went down too late. The lengthy debates around penalties and the circumstances in which some are given, are other things about modern football thing that I hate, in the 70s for example most penalties I saw given were well deserved, resulting from an obvious cynical foul. Dalglish would never go down if he had a sniff of a goal for example. These days some players seem to think it more of an achievement to con officials and cheat their opponents than do all they can to stay on their feet and score. But back to the topic, for what it's worth, I think it was a penalty yesterday as Tomlin was fouled... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex_BCFC Posted January 31, 2016 Report Share Posted January 31, 2016 36 minutes ago, Robert the bruce said: how long will it take us to get his fitness up to scratch?too few games remaining I guess 3 games? Not exactly that hard... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Londoner Posted January 31, 2016 Author Report Share Posted January 31, 2016 50 minutes ago, BS4 on Tour... said: I'm only talking about the Tomlin incident and in the context of that incident I'd say so. A kick in the shin away from the ball inside the area constitutes a pen in my opinion. But I was more replying to Londoner who said repeatedly on here there was zero contact as he had a great view but then did a huge u turn and said repeatedly there was contact but Tomlin went down too late. The lengthy debates around penalties and the circumstances in which some are given, are other things about modern football thing that I hate, in the 70s for example most penalties I saw given were well deserved, resulting from an obvious cynical foul. Dalglish would never go down if he had a sniff of a goal for example. These days some players seem to think it more of an achievement to con officials and cheat their opponents than do all they can to stay on their feet and score. But back to the topic, for what it's worth, I think it was a penalty yesterday as Tomlin was fouled... Not a penalty, clear dive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CotswoldRed Posted January 31, 2016 Report Share Posted January 31, 2016 3 hours ago, Redtucks said: Do the rules of the game (laws of the game actually) say that you have to go down to be a penalty. Whether he went down, or when he went down, is irrelevant. If it was a foul in the box it was a penalty. Absolutely. Was merely pointing out that contact doesn't necessarily mean foul. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caseleyhas2chins Posted January 31, 2016 Report Share Posted January 31, 2016 1 hour ago, Londoner said: Not a penalty, clear dive. 1 hour ago, Londoner said: Not a penalty, clear dive. Spec savers awaits your presents Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esmond Million's Bung Posted January 31, 2016 Report Share Posted January 31, 2016 3 hours ago, Caseleyhas2chins said: Spec savers awaits your presents Seen it now and put it onto a large screen absolute nailed on penalty everyday of the week and I agree with your comment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samo II Posted January 31, 2016 Report Share Posted January 31, 2016 Anyone watching the MK Dons/Chelsea match right now; is that not essentially the same situation as with Tomiln yesterday for the penalty? Caught, but is on his feet, then goes down as he loses his footing, due to the challenge. Not a dive, and clearly a penalty, and not sure the difference from our shout yesterday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cider red Posted January 31, 2016 Report Share Posted January 31, 2016 3 minutes ago, samo II said: Anyone watching the MK Dons/Chelsea match right now; is that not essentially the same situation as with Tomiln yesterday for the penalty? Caught, but is on his feet, then goes down as he loses his footing, due to the challenge. Not a dive, and clearly a penalty, and not sure the difference from our shout yesterday. Difference is its Chelsea! So its given!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redtucks Posted February 1, 2016 Report Share Posted February 1, 2016 21 hours ago, Londoner said: Not a penalty, clear dive. FFS!!! Whether he dived, went down or when he went down is totally irrelevant to whether it was a penalty. A direct free 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 awarded if any of the above offences is committed by a player inside his own penalty area, irrespective of the position of the ball, provided it is in play. (NOTE: No mention of a player needing to go down or not, intentionally or unintentionally, affecting the decision) The defender was careless in that he was nowhere near the ball and kicked Tomlin's shin, or alternatively attempted to trip him, both of which constitutes an offence in the penalty area resulting in a penalty kick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.