|
|
Post by Chips Longhorn on Nov 23, 2014 1:43:43 GMT 1
That's how I saw it... As blatant a pen as you'll see
|
|
|
|
Post by Captainslapper on Nov 23, 2014 1:47:22 GMT 1
That looks like a dive to me!! Pictures don't always tell the whole story:  Im surprised the ref let Maguire play wearing that big earring. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2014 2:24:52 GMT 1
Just seen it on tv and that was a blatant pen. No real doubt about it either and Powell thinks the same. Nowhere near the ball, clips maguire. The only reason I can think of as to why it wasn't given was that maguire made the most of falling and made it look like he was diving. The ref got so many silly decisions wrong it was untrue. Started with Holt who had one bounce of him right at the start so just fell over. So obviously not a foul but we got a free kick. Bunn got brought down on the touchline with a clear trip = no foul. Bunn slipped and fell over with a wednesday player nowhere near him = free kick. Load of poor decisions from the ref but most went our way including the biggy with the pen Sorry Captain but I've watched that 'penalty incident' over and over in slow motion and my conclusion is he's buckled his knees and he's launched into a dive before Lynch makes any contact whatsoever. Well done referee, at the game I thought definite penalty, exonerated in my view. The view from the gantry was my view near enough, it's the side view that gives it away, no way a penalty. CHEATING Mr Gray!! |
|
|
|
Post by Chips Longhorn on Nov 23, 2014 2:32:29 GMT 1
Just seen it on tv and that was a blatant pen. No real doubt about it either and Powell thinks the same. Nowhere near the ball, clips maguire. The only reason I can think of as to why it wasn't given was that maguire made the most of falling and made it look like he was diving. The ref got so many silly decisions wrong it was untrue. Started with Holt who had one bounce of him right at the start so just fell over. So obviously not a foul but we got a free kick. Bunn got brought down on the touchline with a clear trip = no foul. Bunn slipped and fell over with a wednesday player nowhere near him = free kick. Load of poor decisions from the ref but most went our way including the biggy with the pen Sorry Captain but I've watched that 'penalty incident' over and over in slow motion and my conclusion is he's buckled his knees and he's launched into a dive before Lynch makes any contact whatsoever. Well done referee, at the game I thought definite penalty, exonerated in my view. Does it matter he was " looking for it ? " all players are all the time .. Surely it's about whether lynch ploughs in and takes his legs .. I can't see that McGuire wanting him to, or starting the process, negates that fact |
|
|
|
Post by terrierng on Nov 23, 2014 10:02:20 GMT 1
Definitely a pen! Put it this way how many of you saying it wasnt would be saying the same if it had happened at the other end?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2014 10:29:50 GMT 1
Sorry Captain but I've watched that 'penalty incident' over and over in slow motion and my conclusion is he's buckled his knees and he's launched into a dive before Lynch makes any contact whatsoever. Well done referee, at the game I thought definite penalty, exonerated in my view. Does it matter he was " looking for it ? " all players are all the time .. Surely it's about whether lynch ploughs in and takes his legs .. I can't see that McGuire wanting him to, or starting the process, negates that fact A dive is a dive, going down before contact is made means he made no attempt to hurdle Lynchs challenge and follow thw ball. It does happen a lot that doesn't make it right. Sent from my GT-I9300 using proboards |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2014 10:45:20 GMT 1
That looks like a dive to me!! Pictures don't always tell the whole story: Without that other picture it does look bad and doesn't tell the whole story. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2014 10:45:23 GMT 1
I think it was a dive as he was looking for it - he fell in a theatrical way. However, I think we were lucky nonetheless given that the tackle was late. Many would have given it. On balance I think the ref got it right.
Bunn should have had a pen at Fulham, so we don't have to feel too guilty.
|
|
|
|
Post by Captainslapper on Nov 23, 2014 10:46:41 GMT 1
Sorry Codd, but Ive no idea how you can think that wasn't as nailed on a pen as you're ever likely to see!
Lynch made a huge barrier for Maguire to fall over, and he duly did. It doesn't matter if he made a meal of it and it doesn't matter if Lynch's lunge was SO badly timed that Maguire saw it coming and could even start falling over before there was contact.
The striker doesn't have to try and avoid contact!!
The facts are that Lynch got nowhere near the ball but made contact with the player. definite pen and a shocker from the ref ( fortunately for us, although in that game I'd have put money on either team missing a pen anyway)
Makes up for the 2 yellows = no red against Wednesday from a couple of years ago.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chips Longhorn on Nov 23, 2014 10:48:12 GMT 1
Does it matter he was " looking for it ? " all players are all the time .. Surely it's about whether lynch ploughs in and takes his legs .. I can't see that McGuire wanting him to, or starting the process, negates that fact A dive is a dive, going down before contact is made means he made no attempt to hurdle Lynchs challenge and follow thw ball. It does happen a lot that doesn't make it right. Sent from my GT-I9300 using proboards You make it sound like he was on the deck before lynch " lynched" him . If he was going down already it was marginal. I despise diving I'm not condoning it.. But surely you would agree lynch made significant impact with the player, and not the ball ... And that's a pen |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2014 10:48:45 GMT 1
I think it was a dive as he was looking for it - he fell in a theatrical way. However, I think we were lucky nonetheless given that the tackle was late. Many would have given it. On balance I think the ref got it right. Bunn should have had a pen at Fulham, so we don't have to feel too guilty. And Vaughan should have had one at home to Charlton when we might have gone two up instead of drawing 1-1. It happens to all teams. |
|
|
|
Post by Christ in Shades (art) on Nov 23, 2014 10:58:18 GMT 1
Just seen it on the FLS....umm it could easily be given and usually they are but he is going down as soon as Lynch thinks about making the tackle. Good decision, but I accept it could easily have gone against us and 9 times out of 10 they do get given.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2014 11:01:45 GMT 1
I remember when Delroy should have had a pen at Palace. We were playing Wimbledon, mind. In fact, the Wimbledon fans were cheering for Town as they wanted Palace to go down, but that's another story. Wimbledon had no ground and all three teams were in a relegation scrap.
Anyway, the ball was on the line and only needed poking over for a Town goal. It was just within reach of Delroy who was standing, but the Wimbledon defender on the ground had his legs wrapped around Delroy's ankles. The ref should have given a pen, but Delroy should have gone down to make sure, which he didn't, and no pen was given! The ball was cleared.
The moral of the story is that some times you have to take a fall/dive to win the pen but, equally, taking a dive when you have the chance to dodge a tackle should not necessarily win you a pen.
IMHO.
|
|
|
|
Post by Christ in Shades (art) on Nov 23, 2014 11:03:48 GMT 1
I remember when Delroy should have had a pen at Palace. We were playing Wimbledon, mind. In fact, the Wimbledon fans were cheering for Town as they wanted Palace to go down, but that's another story. Wimbledon had no ground and all three teams were in a relegation scrap. Anyway, the ball was on the line and only needed poking over for a Town goal. It was just within reach of Delroy who was standing, but the Wimbledon defender on the ground had his legs wrapped around Delroy's ankles. The ref should have given a pen, but Delroy should have gone down to make sure, which he didn't, and no pen was given! The ball was cleared. The moral of the story is that some times you have to take a fall/dive to win the pen but, equally, taking a dive when you have the chance to dodge a tackle should not necessarily win you a pen. IMHO. I was at that game and we should have won despite the pen not being given. |
|
|
|
Post by Captainslapper on Nov 23, 2014 11:08:26 GMT 1
I remember when Delroy should have had a pen at Palace. We were playing Wimbledon, mind. In fact, the Wimbledon fans were cheering for Town as they wanted Palace to go down, but that's another story. Wimbledon had no ground and all three teams were in a relegation scrap. Anyway, the ball was on the line and only needed poking over for a Town goal. It was just within reach of Delroy who was standing, but the Wimbledon defender on the ground had his legs wrapped around Delroy's ankles. The ref should have given a pen, but Delroy should have gone down to make sure, which he didn't, and no pen was given! The ball was cleared. The moral of the story is that some times you have to take a fall/dive to win the pen but, equally, taking a dive when you have the chance to dodge a tackle should not necessarily win you a pen. IMHO. Think you might get your wish soon!  |
|
|
|
Post by bluedogs, Esq. on Nov 23, 2014 11:16:30 GMT 1
Most definitely not a pen for me and if the ref is not 100% sure he can't give it
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2014 11:18:38 GMT 1
Sorry Codd, but Ive no idea how you can think that wasn't as nailed on a pen as you're ever likely to see! Lynch made a huge barrier for Maguire to fall over, and he duly did. It doesn't matter if he made a meal of it and it doesn't matter if Lynch's lunge was SO badly timed that Maguire saw it coming and could even start falling over before there was contact. The striker doesn't have to try and avoid contact!! The facts are that Lynch got nowhere near the ball but made contact with the player. definite pen and a shocker from the ref ( fortunately for us, although in that game I'd have put money on either team missing a pen anyway) Makes up for the 2 yellows = no red against Wednesday from a couple of years ago. Exactly why the referee didn't award it, something I doubt we'll ever agree on, was badly mistimed by Lynch agreed but choosing to fall over an out stretched leg isn't necessarily a penalty. Something that Hunt made a habit of, sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. Edit... Just to be clear, if he'd actually tripped him that would have been another story. |
|
|
|
Post by Chips Longhorn on Nov 23, 2014 11:20:58 GMT 1
Ok lads we can use this thread to say what we really think about Nickhudds as he has decided not to read it Personally I like him  |
|
rocky
Andy Booth Terrier
Posts: 3,067
|
Post by rocky on Nov 23, 2014 11:27:11 GMT 1
Sorry Codd, but Ive no idea how you can think that wasn't as nailed on a pen as you're ever likely to see! Lynch made a huge barrier for Maguire to fall over, and he duly did. It doesn't matter if he made a meal of it and it doesn't matter if Lynch's lunge was SO badly timed that Maguire saw it coming and could even start falling over before there was contact. The striker doesn't have to try and avoid contact!! The facts are that Lynch got nowhere near the ball but made contact with the player. definite pen and a shocker from the ref ( fortunately for us, although in that game I'd have put money on either team missing a pen anyway) Makes up for the 2 yellows = no red against Wednesday from a couple of years ago. It is a penalty, but there's no way I'd describe it in that manner. We see far more blatant penalties every week. The theatrical fall means there's a lot more for the ref to take into account (in a split second decision) than just Lynch's challenge alone. It's as much Maguire's fault as the ref's that he didn't get the decision. Not singling him out as most players do it, but until the authorities do something about the endless cheating that goes on, these type of penalty incidents will continue to go against the attacker. |
|
|
|
Post by Captainslapper on Nov 23, 2014 11:41:16 GMT 1
Sorry Codd, but Ive no idea how you can think that wasn't as nailed on a pen as you're ever likely to see! Lynch made a huge barrier for Maguire to fall over, and he duly did. It doesn't matter if he made a meal of it and it doesn't matter if Lynch's lunge was SO badly timed that Maguire saw it coming and could even start falling over before there was contact. The striker doesn't have to try and avoid contact!! The facts are that Lynch got nowhere near the ball but made contact with the player. definite pen and a shocker from the ref ( fortunately for us, although in that game I'd have put money on either team missing a pen anyway) Makes up for the 2 yellows = no red against Wednesday from a couple of years ago. Exactly why the referee didn't award it, something I doubt we'll ever agree on, was badly mistimed by Lynch agreed but choosing to fall over an out stretched leg isn't necessarily a penalty. Something that Hunt made a habit of, sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. Edit... Just to be clear, if he'd actually tripped him that would have been another story.Well theres definitely contact. A p[layer doesn't have to even fall to the floor for it to be a penalty if hes impeded. Though in reality those are rarely given so players like to 'ram in home' by going to ground. No doubt Maguire was looking to go down and no doubt he made no effort to stay on his feet. But he doesn't have to. Whether he was already going down in anticipation or not, Lynch clearly catches him. Thats why IMO its such a blatant pen. Magiure was fouled but I think what saved us was that he made such a meal of being fouled, that he managed to convince the ref hed dived. |
|
|
|
Post by 3Pipe on Nov 23, 2014 11:54:15 GMT 1
Ok lads we can use this thread to say what we really think about Nickhudds as he has decided not to read it Personally I like him I was about to say I like him but now I think he's a twat |
|
|
|
Post by Doc Halladay 32 on Nov 23, 2014 12:50:50 GMT 1
Exactly why the referee didn't award it, something I doubt we'll ever agree on, was badly mistimed by Lynch agreed but choosing to fall over an out stretched leg isn't necessarily a penalty. Something that Hunt made a habit of, sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. Edit... Just to be clear, if he'd actually tripped him that would have been another story.Well theres definitely contact. A p[layer doesn't have to even fall to the floor for it to be a penalty if hes impeded. Though in reality those are rarely given so players like to 'ram in home' by going to ground. No doubt Maguire was looking to go down and no doubt he made no effort to stay on his feet. But he doesn't have to. Whether he was already going down in anticipation or not, Lynch clearly catches him. Thats why IMO its such a blatant pen. Magiure was fouled but I think what saved us was that he made such a meal of being fouled, that he managed to convince the ref hed dived. I really hate when pundits on all footie shows say that there is contact so the striker has a right to go down. Diving for penalties has become such a part of today's game that it takes away a bit of the honesty of it. If i'm honest it's the main reason for my dislike of Ronaldo (sorry FDB) but his dives whilst at Man U were borderline thespian, he may even have stopped doing it now, I hope he has. Part of the reason Gary Roberts, Danny Schofield and Alan Lee were never my favourites at Town were their theatrics at times. I do believe the front on view on the pic doesn't show the actual distance between the players that the side on view does, foreshortening is the term they use in cricket where hawkeye etc still can't determine whether a catch is made from a front on view. IMO as soon as Maguire hits the ball he is on his way down thus why his arms are splayed which is not a normal running style. There is no doubt contact by Lynch's mistimed tackle but the contact doesn't induce Maguire's fall as he is almost on top of Lynch when the contact is made, I don't think it's a foul, it's a striker conning the ref by waiting for the contact. Anywhere else but the penalty area, Maguire skips over the challenge and continues onwards. It was a poor challenge from Lynch, simulation by Maguire and an excellent refereeing decision. I would have understood if the ref had given it but I definitely applaud him for not doing so. |
|
|
|
Post by 3Pipe on Nov 23, 2014 12:55:51 GMT 1
Did you see Moses' dive yesterday Doc?
And Barkley's?
If the authorities were serious about eradicating this kind of behaviour, those two should be on mandatory 3 match bans.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2014 12:56:11 GMT 1
Well theres definitely contact. A p[layer doesn't have to even fall to the floor for it to be a penalty if hes impeded. Though in reality those are rarely given so players like to 'ram in home' by going to ground. No doubt Maguire was looking to go down and no doubt he made no effort to stay on his feet. But he doesn't have to. Whether he was already going down in anticipation or not, Lynch clearly catches him. Thats why IMO its such a blatant pen. Magiure was fouled but I think what saved us was that he made such a meal of being fouled, that he managed to convince the ref hed dived. I really hate when pundits on all footie shows say that there is contact so the striker has a right to go down. Diving for penalties has become such a part of today's game that it takes away a bit of the honesty of it. If i'm honest it's the main reason for my dislike of Ronaldo (sorry FDB) but his dives whilst at Man U were borderline thespian, he may even have stopped doing it now, I hope he has. Part of the reason Gary Roberts, Danny Schofield and Alan Lee were never my favourites at Town were their theatrics at times. I do believe the front on view on the pic doesn't show the actual distance between the players that the side on view does, foreshortening is the term they use in cricket where hawkeye etc still can't determine whether a catch is made from a front on view. IMO as soon as Maguire hits the ball he is on his way down thus why his arms are splayed which is not a normal running style. There is no doubt contact by Lynch's mistimed tackle but the contact doesn't induce Maguire's fall as he is almost on top of Lynch when the contact is made, I don't think it's a foul, it's a striker conning the ref by waiting for the contact. Anywhere else but the penalty area, Maguire skips over the challenge and continues onwards. It was a poor challenge from Lynch, simulation by Maguire and an excellent refereeing decision. I would have understood if the ref had given it but I definitely applaud him for not doing so. Spot on Doc. |
|
|
|
Post by detox on Nov 23, 2014 13:12:25 GMT 1
Pictures don't always tell the whole story: Without that other picture it does look bad and doesn't tell the whole story. this 2nd photo looks worse, but this is after the ball has moved on a yard from the 1st photo...and the 1st photo shows clearly there is a dive in progress, this front on photo doesn't show as clearly the player is already lunging forward prior to any contact. So based on this it wasn't a penalty and the ref got it dead right... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2014 13:14:18 GMT 1
Going down early in anticipation of a collision makes it NOT a penalty. If the soft lad had waited for the impact then it would have been a stonewall one. However, the diving offence is committed BEFORE the collision occurs and, quite rightly, that is the first of the two offences and the one that should be called. It is irrelevant what happens after the first offence. Fine lines, I know- but them's the rules!
|
|
|
|
Post by 3Pipe on Nov 23, 2014 13:19:55 GMT 1
Im surprised the ref let Maguire play wearing that big earring. This post didn't get enough love. |
|
|
|
Post by Nickhudds.UTT on Nov 23, 2014 14:01:48 GMT 1
He got the ball.
|
|
|
|
Post by ACW on Nov 23, 2014 19:27:32 GMT 1
Im with arterrier. Amazed anyone thought he had a good game! Some of the decisions were comical they were so obviously wrong. Most of them went our way though, so maybe thats why he isn't getting panned. At times in the 1st half, he was like Mr Magoo!! I genuinely thought his eyesight must be impaired and he'd forgotten his specs. Agreed. He started poorly by giving Town a free kick when Holt did a ridiculous dive when no one touched him and failed to give a free kick when a Town player (forget who) was clearly fouled a few minutes later. Didn't think he had a shocker, but he certainly wasn't great either. As for the penalty incident - Chris Powell's reaction said it all - he couldn't stop smiling and knew, like most us, that we'd got away with one. Not as clear as the one we were denied against Charlton, but it was pretty blatant. The Sheff Wed player might have made the most of it, but Lynch did not get the ball and took his legs. If it had been at the other end I'd have been incensed had it not been given. |
|
|
|
Post by ACW on Nov 23, 2014 19:30:15 GMT 1
Sorry Captain but I've watched that 'penalty incident' over and over in slow motion and my conclusion is he's buckled his knees and he's launched into a dive before Lynch makes any contact whatsoever. Well done referee, at the game I thought definite penalty, exonerated in my view. Does it matter he was " looking for it ? " all players are all the time .. Surely it's about whether lynch ploughs in and takes his legs .. I can't see that McGuire wanting him to, or starting the process, negates that fact Agreed. Lynch is nowhere near the ball and clearly catches him. Whether the Wednesday player is making it look worse or not, it was a poor, poor challenge and deserved a penalty. |
|
