The "foul"

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

Flatulent_Bob said:
Can't understand how anyone can suggest that wasn't a penalty? Referee didn't buy anything it was a foul and penalty kick. The Man Utd player didn't do anything wrong either.
Click to expand...

He did make a massive meal of it, bearing in mind it was minimal contact ......

Yes .... it had to be a penalty ( although our players have suffered far worse and been booked for diving ) but Depay made himself look like a twat by hurling himself 20 feet in the air and rolling round like a stuck pig, followed by a miraculous biblical style recovery and resurrection once the penalty was confirmed.

Not really necessary ....... :rolleyes:

UTB & FTP
 



mosbolad said:
No contact! Dive, all day every day........o_O

not_a_penno.jpg


Although this was a penalty and Hammond the 'offender'. I would still not attribute 'blame' to him as such as all the lads worked their socks off and it was just an unfortunate football incident. So hope we'd hold on though.
Click to expand...

And this is Depay after everyone has fastened their seatbelts, the stewardesses have recited safety information and the pilot has taxied to the end of the runway. But before he leaves the ground.

upload_2016-1-10_20-13-49.png
 

Attachments

  • upload_2016-1-10_20-11-32.png
    upload_2016-1-10_20-11-32.png
    1.1 MB · Views: 1
William Henry Foulkes said:
And this is Depay after everyone has fastened their seatbelts, the stewardesses have recited safety information and the pilot has taxied to the end of the runway. But before he leaves the ground.

View attachment 15402
Click to expand...
Stop being an arse.

It was a foul and a penalty.

Anyone arguing otherwise is extremely silly and is letting their bitterness get to them.
 
LYDON said:
No Barney.
It wan't aggressive.
Was it?
It was quite embarrassing.

I was reminded of a young Bonnie Tyler in the Just William series.

But it's okay, I think I was the only one who saw it.
Click to expand...
You ought to quote a post when replying, otherwise the chances are said person won't get to see it.

It's just because it's me and I'm wise to these things and so I check the threads any way.

Just a tip if ever there was one. Helping out the new 'en's and all that. :)
 
Kenilworth said:
There seems to be an acceptance that as long as any contact is made the possibility of simulation is out of the question. I'm not sure that is an acceptable position.

Many of the laws of the game are there to prevent people taking action to achieve an unfair advantage, for example, holding an opponents shirt, standing in an offside position when the ball is played forward, obstructing and opponent if they are running past to you etc. How is over exaggerating a minimal level of contact any less consistent with this ethos? It's an attempt to pervert a situation to one's advantage.

If Depay had fallen consistent with his left leg being prevented from moving and fallen with his right side going down first then you can genuinely conclude that the contact impeded him. As it was the swan dive is just as deplorable as a defender pulling and attacker back by the shirt if they have got goal side of them.

Che Adams has fallen foul of the reverse of this sort of decision at least three times this season to my knowledge. Is it the fact that Che over emphasised the contact so it wasn't a foul? Is it that Che was less skilled than Depay and couldn't make it look as "professional"? Is it that Manc U were supposed to win so it was inneviable? It's not home advantage that is the key factor, surely, since at least two of Che's situations have been at Bramall Lane.
Where is the consistency in be application of the laws of the game?
I don't see this sort of stuff evening itself out where we are involved.
Click to expand...
So basically the refs make it up as they go along ? I agree.
as for Jon Moss he should have stayed in Culture Club ,bumming the singer.
 
JJBlade said:
On the issue of Man Utd being there for the taking I agree, we had very little to offer going forward but you could almost sense the worry in them on the odd occasion when we did get into decent positions.
That's the difference between us and say Gillingham or Walsall.
Gillingham and Walsall would have done exactly the same as us but then really had a go at them when they got the odd chance to break. We didn't and so eventually lost
Click to expand...

Penalty or not. 93rd minute, 63rd, 33rd it doesn't matter. We lost and that's the end of it. I've watched the highlights of all the third round ties - some three times - and, with one exception, every team had attacks, shots, 'worked the goalie' etc. The exception, of course, was the Blades. It's no use hanging on when you've got nothing to defend - they'll get you in the end (something that would have been repeated in a replay). Saturday showed just how poor we are. Exeter, Scunthorpe, Eastleigh, Oxford etc. all had threats in attack and we don't.

Any half-decent team (including Wendy) will relish being drawn away at OT in tonight's draw. We had our chance but are nowhere near good enough to have taken it.
 
Funny the ref missed a more blatant penalty on our last visit to OT, eagled eyed when they want to be these refs.
 



Most are not disputing contact was made and that it was a penalty the thing that gets fans upset is the play acting and theatricals.Yes it was a dive look at the pictures on page 9 Hammond makes slight contact with the players LEFT ankle the other picture shows the player in mid swan dive screaming and clutching is RIGHT ankle! The player is a cheat he could have stayed on his feet but he dived as he knew he had nowhere to go, credit Rooney in the first half he could have gone to ground when forced wide by Long but he tried to play the game as it should be played. Diving and theatricles deserve a card for unsporting behavior as Che has found out to his cost when trying to make fouls look worse than they are, the trouble is for Che he might have a reputation in referee circles as a diver now. The sad thing is the top teams in the premiership ALWAYS have these decisions go in their favour, just a fact of life in the cheating Premier league.
 
Tables turned and Billy goes down like that it's a 100% penalty. Why on earth would a player stay on their feet in the penalty area when they've felt obvious contact (not slight, really, let's not lie) especially when a player's stupidly gone sliding through him in the most obvious penalty conceding fashion.
 
Top teams at home always get decisions in their favour. Even if he hadn't been touched, he would have been given the penalty. Same happened to Leicester yesterday. Even a top placing does not buy you any favours against "glamour clubs."
Shouldn't have been in that position, Brayford at fault as could have made proper challenge/ foul outside area and thus penalty risk removed.
Tired/ legs brains contributed undoubtedly.
 
metalblade said:
Most are not disputing contact was made and that it was a penalty the thing that gets fans upset is the play acting and theatricals.Yes it was a dive look at the pictures on page 9 Hammond makes slight contact with the players LEFT ankle the other picture shows the player in mid swan dive screaming and clutching is RIGHT ankle! The player is a cheat he could have stayed on his feet but he dived as he knew he had nowhere to go, credit Rooney in the first half he could have gone to ground when forced wide by Long but he tried to play the game as it should be played. Diving and theatricles deserve a card for unsporting behavior as Che has found out to his cost when trying to make fouls look worse than they are, the trouble is for Che he might have a reputation in referee circles as a diver now. The sad thing is the top teams in the premiership ALWAYS have these decisions go in their favour, just a fact of life in the cheating Premier league.
Click to expand...


He catches him on the left shin, which is what he holds and then rubs, not the right ankle.
 
Right then gentlemen, I've had a busy weekend and Monday, so I'm sorry to join this thread on the 11th page, but I'm here to tell you all why that penalty was bullshit.

A major point of the discussion so far has been about the contact from Hammond. It has been about how much contact constitutes "reckless" behaviour. My view is that it was ambiguous at best. Hammond was victim of poor judgement with the timing? Sure. Hammond did not need to make the tackle? Absolutely. However, the tackle had clearly ran out of steam by the time he came into contact with Memphis, and he clearly attempted to take the sting out of it himself by bending his knee. For me - that is not what I would describe as "reckless." It is poorly timed, unnecessary, a silly, rash decision, but it is not reckless. This is a decision for the referee that can go either way. It is in no way a "nailed on" penalty.

Football is a semi-contact sport. This means that categorically, it is not always a foul if there is contact in the box and no winning of the ball. There is ambiguity, which is reflected in the rules. The referee is required to exercise discretion based on the guidelines set out by the rules of the game, and if in doubt, in matters of awarding a penalty, is required to err on the side of the defensive team. Within this portion of the debate, I don't think a penalty should have been given. It's far too ambiguous.

The thing is though, that entire discussion is trumped by a far more important issue - Memphis committed a foul by reacting to the tackle in the way that he did. It is abundantly clear that the tackle did not warrant the reaction Memphis gave. There is absolutely no way that the contact from Hammond would have naturally resulted in Memphis reacting in that way. Therefore he dived. The key point here is - Would the referee have given a penalty if Memphis had not reacted in such an over the top way? It is clear that Memphis was play acting in order to influence the referee's decision. This is defined as simulation in the rules of the game, and is expressly forbidden.

A good way of explaining this is to picture a player receiving the ball in an offside position, then subsequently being fouled by a poor tackle in the penalty box. He would not receive a penalty kick for his team, as he was already violating the laws of the game when he was fouled. It's the same case here. Memphis forfeited his right to win a penalty when he simulated, because what he did is a foul in itself. The tackle on it's own, in my opinion, is open for debate as to whether it constitutes a penalty. The tackle, with subsequent play acting from Memphis? That's a yellow card for simulation, and a free kick to the defending team, as explicitly laid out in the laws of the game.

This is all before we get on to the subjects of refereeing bias towards bigger clubs, the fact that John Moss is a Premier League referee and therefore has a much stronger professional relationship with Manchester United, the fact that this was in front of the Stretford End in the 93rd minute, the fact that John Moss would have received a hail of criticism for not giving the penalty, and the fact that Manchester United were under immense pressure to win the tie. All of which contributed to John Moss pointing to the penalty spot, a very convenient decision for him to have to make. Big clubs get all the breaks, and everything was put in place for the top Premier League club to go through to the next round.

It's not something that will keep me awake at night; personally I believe Adkins threw the game when he subbed off Sharp. I think we actually would have won the game if he had subbed Sammon for Done around 70 minutes, got Adams to eat up all that space going begging on the left wing and stretch the game. But he made the decision to defend a 0-0 and take it to a replay. Which I respect, as Bramall Lane on a cold Tuesday night suits us way more than them, and it's more money, more exposure, more time for us to embarrass possibly the worst Manchester United side in my lifetime. As it happens, we almost did just that. And you know, 3rd round of the FA Cup, who cares that much? We have a far more important game tomorrow night. Onwards and upwards. Let's get into the play-off slots. But I think we need to be very clear on this. Memphis explicitly broke the laws of the game, which directly resulted in his team winning the tie. That's called cheating.
 
Sorry cannot agree with much of that Damski or the few saying it was not a penalty. Amazed thread had gone 11 pages. The laws of the game stress it was a foul and a penalty regardless of how much he made of it. He did not get the ball and was nowhere near it. Yes contact can be made in football but he kicked him on the shin and made enough contact for it to be an easy decision,

The simple fact is: It was a foul. He made contact with him. It was a poor tackle and definite penalty. He made a meal if it and jumped in a ridiculous manner but all pplayers do it. Does it annoy me? Yes.

However our player does not lunge in and does not foul him then there is no argument to be had. It was madness. In all honesty he was lucky not to be booked. Most refs would have brandished a yellow card for a high (shin) lunge.

I think even the most biased Blades fan in their hearts know sadly it was the correct decision.

Just bloody annoying.
 
Deadbat said:
Sorry cannot agree with much of that Damski or the few saying it was not a penalty. Amazed thread had gone 11 pages. The laws of the game stress it was a foul and a penalty regardless of how much he made of it. He did not get the ball and was nowhere near it. Yes contact can be made in football but he kicked him on the shin and made enough contact for it to be an easy decision,

The simple fact is: It was a foul. He made contact with him. It was a poor tackle and definite penalty. He made a meal if it and jumped in a ridiculous manner but all pplayers do it. Does it annoy me? Yes.

However our player does not lunge in and does not foul him then there is no argument to be had. It was madness. In all honesty he was lucky not to be booked. Most refs would have brandished a yellow card for a high (shin) lunge.

I think even the most biased Blades fan in their hearts know sadly it was the correct decision.

Just bloody annoying.
Click to expand...

I'm going to keep posting this image because I like it :) - and to me it shows how ridiculous the decision was.

Hammond withdraws his foot so the recklessness and dangerousness are covered - it was neither.

Excessive force doesn't come into it.

So it has to be contact. If there was any significant contact then Depay's leg would be somewhere behind him - it's not. (When his mum kissed it better later, bless, she probably did it with greater force.) In fact his foot is sufficiently planted that he can use it to take off and reach an impressive altitude.

No penalty.

Yellow card and a Razzie for Depay.

index.php


UTMB
 
That picture says it all for me. If you're not convinced he simulated by that, you won't be by anything.
 
hopefully this gif (is it a gif?) will work.



For me, the awarding of the penalty just tells me what is wrong with football in 2016 (thanks for the explanation Damski) - cheating from top to bottom, that is why I said it should not have been a penalty but I'm old enough and daft enough to know to expect one in the circumstances. Who knows the subject of the conversation between Wayne Rooney and the Ref as they trooped off at half-time (any offers? Silent Blade,??) but its a VERY cosy relationship between starstruck refs and the big name players.

The GIF ( its halfway down this page, if the link above fails to bear fruit http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/socce...ed-wins-on-late-rooney-penalty-211151937.html ) for me suggests that Hammond was trying desperately NOT to touch Memphis and had completely pulled out of his initial intention which was to try and win the ball. So that is why it cannot be either reckless or careless au cointreau, Hammond was being too careful, his very timidity caused him to slide through so far rather than meet the ball or the man in a full blooded challenge, because he realised that might well result in a penalty, he was damned if he did, damned if he didn't by the time he laddered Memphis's stockings.

It reminded me of the way we pussy-footed around the notorious diver Francis (why the hell did u by him Arsene) Jeffers in that equally notorious semi-final, this allowed Arsenal to score and beat us in the semi, the two incidents occured within 3 yards of each other

But everything happened within the blink of an eye, theses have been written about it since

- referees have let this happen to the game till it is now as silly looking as wrestling used to be. Rugby fans keep telling us its like the Emperor's New Clothes, trouble is the football establishment is too arrogant and wealthy to need to care. Well until Blatter and Platini end
up in the State Pen. that is.

Player power - all power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
 
Last edited:
vorpal blade said:
hopefully this gif (is it a gif?) will work.



For me, the awarding of the penalty just tells me what is wrong with football in 2016 (thanks for the explanation Damski) - cheating from top to bottom, that is why I said it should not have been a penalty but I'm old enough and daft enough to know to expect one in the circumstances. Who knows the subject of the conversation between Wayne Rooney and the Ref as they trooped off at half-time (any offers? Silent Blade,??) but its a VERY cosy relationship between starstruck refs and the big name players.

The GIF ( its halfway down this page, if the link above fails to bear fruit http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/socce...ed-wins-on-late-rooney-penalty-211151937.html ) for me suggests that Hammond was trying desperately NOT to touch Memphis and had completely pulled out of his initial intention which was to try and win the ball. So that is why it cannot be either reckless or careless au cointreau, Hammond was being too careful, his very timidity caused him to slide through so far rather than meet the ball or the man in a full blooded challenge, because he realised that might well result in a penalty, he was damned if he did, damned if he didn't by the time he laddered Memphis's stockings.

It reminded me of the way we pussy-footed around the notorious diver Francis (why the hell did u by him Arsene) Jeffers in that equally notorious semi-final, this allowed Arsenal to score and beat us in the semi, the two incidents occured within 3 yards of each other

But everything happened within the blink of an eye, theses have been written about it since

- referees have let this happen to the game till it is now as silly looking as wrestling used to be. Rugby fans keep telling us its like the Emperor's New Clothes, trouble is the football establishment is too arrogant and wealthy to need to care. Well until Blatter and Platini end
up in the State Pen. that is.

Player power - all power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Click to expand...


On a bright note it's good to see Coutts back there in the 93rd minute. Credit to Adkins and his team (amongst others) for getting him back to that level of fitness.
 
Damski said:
Right then gentlemen, I've had a busy weekend and Monday, so I'm sorry to join this thread on the 11th page, but I'm here to tell you all why that penalty was bullshit.

A major point of the discussion so far has been about the contact from Hammond. It has been about how much contact constitutes "reckless" behaviour. My view is that it was ambiguous at best. Hammond was victim of poor judgement with the timing? Sure. Hammond did not need to make the tackle? Absolutely. However, the tackle had clearly ran out of steam by the time he came into contact with Memphis, and he clearly attempted to take the sting out of it himself by bending his knee. For me - that is not what I would describe as "reckless." It is poorly timed, unnecessary, a silly, rash decision, but it is not reckless. This is a decision for the referee that can go either way. It is in no way a "nailed on" penalty.

Football is a semi-contact sport. This means that categorically, it is not always a foul if there is contact in the box and no winning of the ball. There is ambiguity, which is reflected in the rules. The referee is required to exercise discretion based on the guidelines set out by the rules of the game, and if in doubt, in matters of awarding a penalty, is required to err on the side of the defensive team. Within this portion of the debate, I don't think a penalty should have been given. It's far too ambiguous.

The thing is though, that entire discussion is trumped by a far more important issue - Memphis committed a foul by reacting to the tackle in the way that he did. It is abundantly clear that the tackle did not warrant the reaction Memphis gave. There is absolutely no way that the contact from Hammond would have naturally resulted in Memphis reacting in that way. Therefore he dived. The key point here is - Would the referee have given a penalty if Memphis had not reacted in such an over the top way? It is clear that Memphis was play acting in order to influence the referee's decision. This is defined as simulation in the rules of the game, and is expressly forbidden.

A good way of explaining this is to picture a player receiving the ball in an offside position, then subsequently being fouled by a poor tackle in the penalty box. He would not receive a penalty kick for his team, as he was already violating the laws of the game when he was fouled. It's the same case here. Memphis forfeited his right to win a penalty when he simulated, because what he did is a foul in itself. The tackle on it's own, in my opinion, is open for debate as to whether it constitutes a penalty. The tackle, with subsequent play acting from Memphis? That's a yellow card for simulation, and a free kick to the defending team, as explicitly laid out in the laws of the game.

This is all before we get on to the subjects of refereeing bias towards bigger clubs, the fact that John Moss is a Premier League referee and therefore has a much stronger professional relationship with Manchester United, the fact that this was in front of the Stretford End in the 93rd minute, the fact that John Moss would have received a hail of criticism for not giving the penalty, and the fact that Manchester United were under immense pressure to win the tie. All of which contributed to John Moss pointing to the penalty spot, a very convenient decision for him to have to make. Big clubs get all the breaks, and everything was put in place for the top Premier League club to go through to the next round.

It's not something that will keep me awake at night; personally I believe Adkins threw the game when he subbed off Sharp. I think we actually would have won the game if he had subbed Sammon for Done around 70 minutes, got Adams to eat up all that space going begging on the left wing and stretch the game. But he made the decision to defend a 0-0 and take it to a replay. Which I respect, as Bramall Lane on a cold Tuesday night suits us way more than them, and it's more money, more exposure, more time for us to embarrass possibly the worst Manchester United side in my lifetime. As it happens, we almost did just that. And you know, 3rd round of the FA Cup, who cares that much? We have a far more important game tomorrow night. Onwards and upwards. Let's get into the play-off slots. But I think we need to be very clear on this. Memphis explicitly broke the laws of the game, which directly resulted in his team winning the tie. That's called cheating.
Click to expand...


The foul occurred before the simulation. There's no right of forfeit in the rules, no set off.,IF Moss thought it was a foul and blows that's it. Memphis jumping around doesn't change that decision.
 



madeinsheffield said:
Yep Brayford got turned by a £25m player after 90+ mins, and Hammond was slightly reckless, and Coutts was behind him covering but we held a team that had all the big boys in which has had a quarter of a billion pounds spent on it. We did well.
Click to expand...

When I saw their team sheet I thought we could still be losing by a cricket score.

So for us to hold them for 90+ minutes was the last thing I expected and I do think had we attacked them we would have been caught on the counter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Dog and Duck FC
Fouling in the penalty box
2
Replies
31
Views
2K
petcharlie
P
ChipButtyBlade
Plymouth Referee
Replies
0
Views
266
ChipButtyBlade
ChipButtyBlade
Tony Currie
Bamford - referees don't like our captains
2 3
Replies
84
Views
4K
MobileBlade
MobileBlade
Maurice Maurice
First red card...
3 4 5
Replies
130
Views
8K
SB_90
SB_90
FTPE
Their consolation goal
2
Replies
44
Views
5K
Rochdaleblade
R

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

Back
Top Bottom