|
Post by wildbillthetownfan on Nov 23, 2014 19:32:30 GMT 1
From where i sit it didn't look like a penalty, mind you, after eight pints i cant see beyond the halfway line.
|
|
|
Post by ACW on Nov 23, 2014 19:36:27 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. Did you see Holt's ridiculous dive early on? Utterly embarrassing, although the ref gave it as a Town free kick. One Alan Lee would have been proud of, although Lee would have probably tried to elbow the nearest opposition player on the way down!
|
|
|
Post by impact on Nov 23, 2014 21:16:57 GMT 1
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... You've got them the wrong way round. You can't see the ball on the first pic (it's Lynch's boot). Lynch's arm is up in the 2nd and then goes on the floor in the 1st. Other way round wouldn't make sense. Not sure how McGuire could go from a falling position in the 1st to being upright in the 2nd either. Edit: oh and Lynch's leg is further along in the 1st than the 2nd.
|
|
|
Post by Captainslapper on Nov 24, 2014 1:31:47 GMT 1
Exactly. the 1st photo from the side is clearly AFTER the 2nd photo from the front that shows Lynch making contact. the only way it couldn't be is if Lynch was somehow managing to slide backwards!!
|
|
|
Post by lankystreak on Nov 24, 2014 9:45:50 GMT 1
Firstly it can't have been a perfect refereeing performance as he should have sent Holt off on at least 2 seperate occasions for kicking out at Tom Lees.
Secondly, I can't see how people can say "he dived, but it's still a penalty" how can this be so??? The first offence is the dive, thats what the ref blows up for, Lynch could have chopped him in half after that and it wouldn't have mattered. There was an identical tackle in another match over the weekend (can't remember which) where a penalty was given because the striker wasn't a diving, cheating, prick and waited for the contact to actually happen. Incidents like this are completely putting me off football.
|
|
|
Post by Captainslapper on Nov 24, 2014 10:08:13 GMT 1
Firstly it can't have been a perfect refereeing performance as he should have sent Holt off on at least 2 seperate occasions for kicking out at Tom Lees. Secondly, I can't see how people can say "he dived, but it's still a penalty" how can this be so??? The first offence is the dive, thats what the ref blows up for, Lynch could have chopped him in half after that and it wouldn't have mattered. There was an identical tackle in another match over the weekend (can't remember which) where a penalty was given because the striker wasn't a diving, cheating, prick and waited for the contact to actually happen. Incidents like this are completely putting me off football. Thats just not true. A player can leap out of the way of a challenge and it still be a foul, of course he can! He doesn't have to deliberately allow himself to be clattered and potentially injured!! Anyone whos ever played football must know that if someones about to slide into your ankles at great speed, then you need to get your feet off the floor quick sharpish! By your logic, that counts as diving as a first offence , so no foul. Nonsense.
|
|
|
Post by sapphireblue on Nov 24, 2014 11:21:36 GMT 1
But what lanky says IS true. If (and it is a big if) the referee thought that the player was diving, not taking evasive action, before the challenge, then he was correct in booking him for simulation and awarding the free kick to Town. At that point the ball is dead. He should of(sic), however, booked Lynch for the challenge regardless.
|
|
|
Post by Doc Halladay 32 on Nov 24, 2014 12:26:51 GMT 1
Firstly it can't have been a perfect refereeing performance as he should have sent Holt off on at least 2 seperate occasions for kicking out at Tom Lees. Secondly, I can't see how people can say "he dived, but it's still a penalty" how can this be so??? The first offence is the dive, thats what the ref blows up for, Lynch could have chopped him in half after that and it wouldn't have mattered. There was an identical tackle in another match over the weekend (can't remember which) where a penalty was given because the striker wasn't a diving, cheating, prick and waited for the contact to actually happen. Incidents like this are completely putting me off football. Thats just not true. A player can leap out of the way of a challenge and it still be a foul, of course he can! He doesn't have to deliberately allow himself to be clattered and potentially injured!! Anyone whos ever played football must know that if someones about to slide into your ankles at great speed, then you need to get your feet off the floor quick sharpish! By your logic, that counts as diving as a first offence , so no foul. Nonsense. There a huge difference from getting your feet off the floor quick to avoid injury and diving to earn a penalty which is what the Wednesday sub did on Saturday IMO. As a said earlier in the thread, anywhere else on the pitch but the penalty area Maguire would skip over Lynch's clumsy challenge and continue onwards.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 24, 2014 12:32:30 GMT 1
Firstly it can't have been a perfect refereeing performance as he should have sent Holt off on at least 2 seperate occasions for kicking out at Tom Lees. Secondly, I can't see how people can say "he dived, but it's still a penalty" how can this be so??? The first offence is the dive, thats what the ref blows up for, Lynch could have chopped him in half after that and it wouldn't have mattered. There was an identical tackle in another match over the weekend (can't remember which) where a penalty was given because the striker wasn't a diving, cheating, prick and waited for the contact to actually happen. Incidents like this are completely putting me off football. Agree. Said exactly this further up the thread. If he starts to dive before he's clattered (in anticipation or not), then the dive is the first and only offence. What comes after is irrelevant.
|
|
|
Post by Captainslapper on Nov 24, 2014 12:34:47 GMT 1
I don't think we're going to agree on this! Think what we can agree on is that is was a lousy challenge by Lynch and that we were very lucky it wasn't given.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 24, 2014 12:37:14 GMT 1
Firstly it can't have been a perfect refereeing performance as he should have sent Holt off on at least 2 seperate occasions for kicking out at Tom Lees. Secondly, I can't see how people can say "he dived, but it's still a penalty" how can this be so??? The first offence is the dive, thats what the ref blows up for, Lynch could have chopped him in half after that and it wouldn't have mattered. There was an identical tackle in another match over the weekend (can't remember which) where a penalty was given because the striker wasn't a diving, cheating, prick and waited for the contact to actually happen. Incidents like this are completely putting me off football. Thats just not true. A player can leap out of the way of a challenge and it still be a foul, of course he can! He doesn't have to deliberately allow himself to be clattered and potentially injured!! Anyone whos ever played football must know that if someones about to slide into your ankles at great speed, then you need to get your feet off the floor quick sharpish! By your logic, that counts as diving as a first offence , so no foul. Nonsense. There's leaping up and out of the way (to escape injury) though, and there's diving forward. Not the same. And he did the latter. It's a millisecond before he was clattered, I'll give you that, but that's what he was doing nevertheless.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 24, 2014 12:38:22 GMT 1
I don't think we're going to agree on this! :D Think what we can agree on is that is was a lousy challenge by Lynch and that we were very lucky it wasn't given. Yep - think 9 out of 10 refs would definitely have given it.
|
|