Drives Me Mad

[Red Hot Currie]

I find myself yelling at the TV and radio with ever increasing anger when I hear pundits talking about and analysing penalty decisions and saying.... "well, there was contact so it's a definite penalty..."..... FUCK ME!!!! there's contact all over a football pitch all game long.... BUT it doesn't mean it's a FOUL!!!!!

There's way more contact in midfield all game long..... but it's not a foul. It doesn't impede the player. As far as I know the same rules about fouls/contact apply all over the pitch.... but we appear to be applying different rules in the penalty box which mean any contact results in a penalty..... without there being any consideration as to whether the same (often laughably miniscule degree) of contact would result in a foul being given elsewhere on the pitch.

Is it just me (miserable, angry, sinking-into-middle-age-fucker) that I am.... or have we invented an unpublished set of rules which apply in the penalty area???

If it's just me then I'll go and sulk in my shed with a few cans.... but if I'm right then we might as well admit that when the ball enters the penalty area then we are playing to fucking netball 'no contact' rules.

I'll just go and put the heater on in my shed...........

UTB (and bollocks to the precious non-contact footballers of the penalty area. Tossers.)

 

[northsomersetblade]

I find myself yelling at the TV and radio with ever increasing anger when I hear pundits talking about and analysing penalty decisions and saying.... "well, there was contact so it's a definite penalty..."..... FUCK ME!!!! there's contact all over a football pitch all game long.... BUT it doesn't mean it's a FOUL!!!!!

There's way more contact in midfield all game long..... but it's not a foul. It doesn't impede the player. As far as I know the same rules about fouls/contact apply all over the pitch.... but we appear to be applying different rules in the penalty box which mean any contact results in a penalty..... without there being any consideration as to whether the same (often laughably miniscule degree) of contact would result in a foul being given elsewhere on the pitch.

Is it just me (miserable, angry, sinking-into-middle-age-fucker) that I am.... or have we invented an unpublished set of rules which apply in the penalty area???

If it's just me then I'll go and sulk in my shed with a few cans.... but if I'm right then we might as well admit that when the ball enters the penalty area then we are playing to fucking netball 'no contact' rules.

I'll just go and put the heater on in my shed...........

UTB (and bollocks to the precious non-contact footballers of the penalty area. Tossers.)

I completely agree...but my best advice to you is stay in the shed, develop a taste for special brew, grow a long beard and wear a string vest.

 

[Woodwardfan]

I find myself yelling at the TV and radio with ever increasing anger when I hear pundits talking about and analysing penalty decisions and saying.... "well, there was contact so it's a definite penalty..."..... FUCK ME!!!! there's contact all over a football pitch all game long.... BUT it doesn't mean it's a FOUL!!!!!

There's way more contact in midfield all game long..... but it's not a foul. It doesn't impede the player. As far as I know the same rules about fouls/contact apply all over the pitch.... but we appear to be applying different rules in the penalty box which mean any contact results in a penalty..... without there being any consideration as to whether the same (often laughably miniscule degree) of contact would result in a foul being given elsewhere on the pitch.

Is it just me (miserable, angry, sinking-into-middle-age-fucker) that I am.... or have we invented an unpublished set of rules which apply in the penalty area???

If it's just me then I'll go and sulk in my shed with a few cans.... but if I'm right then we might as well admit that when the ball enters the penalty area then we are playing to fucking netball 'no contact' rules.

I'll just go and put the heater on in my shed...........

UTB (and bollocks to the precious non-contact footballers of the penalty area. Tossers.)

I think you are half right. Contact in the penalty area is regularly ignored by referees who pretend they haven't seen it and bottle it. Week in week out there are stonewall penalties not given for whatever reasons I have never understood.

Contact all over the rest of the pitch leads to given fouls even if a player just puts a hand on the opposition's shoulder, over he goes and routine foul given.

As for today's incident, it was definitely a penalty. From the head on angle you could see the studs on the shin.

So you were half right IMO, just got it the wrong way round. Enjoy the shed though.

 

[Red Hot Currie]

I agree about the penalty today WWF. But I do think that we see penalties given for 'contact' rather than a 'bona fide' foul which actually impedes the attacking player. No doubt the main cause of this is that players over egg it and pretend to have been impeded when in fact they could just as easily have stayed on their feet. For me if you chuck yourself to the ground (as opposed to being tripped or dumped to the ground ) then it's cheating.

But I recognise that's hardly an original view. I just hate the phrase "he's entitled to go down"..... I interpret that as meaning 'he wasn't really impeded but chose to pretend he was'.....

Back to the shed.......!

 

[Red Hot Currie]

Incidentally - I also agree about contact in the box going ignored.... just look at the jostling and shirt pulling that goes on at corners...! But the cheating stinks.

 

[Toronto Blade]

The time of the weak penalty was tough 94th minute
the ref could just as easily waved it off and thought, this late let them settle it in a replay, he thought differently.
I wonder if he would have ruled differently if the incident happened in their end.

 

[sitwell]

When you think of Billy Sharp getting Boston crabbed in the first half by Smalling for the ref just jump in the air like a puff waving play on with both hands youre right ,the games gone to shit.

 

[oldblade]

I thought it was a penalty. I also thought it was a challenge that was not necessary and it lost us a game that we should not have lost and undid the good work of the previous 93 minutes..

Angry doesn't even get close.

 

[shrubbery]

I think that it was a stupid decision to dive in on a very slippery pitch in the 94th minute and I also think that it was a dive.

Contact in the penalty area always leading to a penalty is something that proper winds me up. It certainly doesn't help that pretty much every MOTD pubdit nowadays is a striker such as that prick shearer who endorses weekly the bollocks that if you are touched anywhere in the area it is your right to go down like a fairy and claim a penalty.