Bizarre penalty

[Itchysphincter]

Goal kick. Card the player for being a dumbo and get on with the game.

 

[AceJack]

Goal kick. Card the player for being a dumbo and get on with the game.

So what if a sub is warming up behind the goal, an opposing player breaks through and rounds the keeper, the sub could run onto the pitch and tackle the player and all he’d receive would be a booking.

 

[MrSwerve]

Maybe you need to watch the video again, because the impression that the ref and the commentators give is that the ball has not yet crossed the line...so he has kept it in play. It does look marginal though, but they used VAR to decide it.

I hear you what you’re saying but you don’t need to be a rocket scientist to know that there was only one place that ball was going. He wasn’t keeping it in, he was just stopping it instinctively to give it back. He wasn’t interfering with play and his actions could have zero impact.

Anyway, we’ll disagree for all eternity on it, you think it should be a pen, I think giving a pen for it is stupid. No point arguing over it.

Itchy, it doesn’t matter if you think they’ve been hard done by, thems the rules.

If a ball was trickling into an empty goal and a sub ran on and hoofed it, would you give the goal because ‘for all intents and purposes it was going in’?

 

[bakajack]

As much as you might hate it the rules are pretty clear on it. If the ref had not followed the rulebook them his assessment would have been negatively affected which could potentially hurt his own prospects to referee in the bundesliga.

 

[Itchysphincter]

Goal kick. Card the player for being a dumbo and get on with the game.

So what if a sub is warming up behind the goal, an opposing player breaks through and rounds the keeper, the sub could run onto the pitch and tackle the player and all he’d receive would be a booking.

Are you saying that’s the same thing?

It obviously isn’t, it’s just argumentative. Sense says that is a completely different set of circumstances. If the subs foot had been a couple of inches further back the ball would have crossed the line and nothing would have been said, he just instinctively and rather stupidly stopped it prematurely. It was a brain fart and should have been treated as such.

 

[Itchysphincter]

I hear you what you’re saying but you don’t need to be a rocket scientist to know that there was only one place that ball was going. He wasn’t keeping it in, he was just stopping it instinctively to give it back. He wasn’t interfering with play and his actions could have zero impact.

Anyway, we’ll disagree for all eternity on it, you think it should be a pen, I think giving a pen for it is stupid. No point arguing over it.

Itchy, it doesn’t matter if you think they’ve been hard done by, thems the rules.

If a ball was trickling into an empty goal and a sub ran on and hoofed it, would you give the goal because ‘for all intents and purposes it was going in’?

I get it, you’re a stickler for the rules. Refs interpret the rules all the time and that was a stupid interpretation.

Ask yourself this - if the penalty had not been given would you be jumping up and down shouting pen, cos them’s the rules?

I’m doing my best to extract myself from this because it’s going nowhere but never in a million years are you going to convince me that that is an offence worthy of a penalty, and comparing it to something like a sub running on and scoring is like comparing apples and oranges . You clearly think it is. I think that’s sad but it’s your prerogative.

 

[MrSwerve]

Itchy, it doesn’t matter if you think they’ve been hard done by, thems the rules.

If a ball was trickling into an empty goal and a sub ran on and hoofed it, would you give the goal because ‘for all intents and purposes it was going in’?

I get it, you’re a stickler for the rules. Refs interpret the rules all the time and that was a stupid interpretation.

Ask yourself this - if the penalty had not been given would you be jumping up and down shouting pen, cos them’s the rules?

I’m doing my best to extract myself from this because it’s going nowhere but never in a million years are you going to convince me that that is an offence worthy of a penalty, and comparing it to something like a sub running on and scoring is like comparing apples and oranges . You clearly think it is. I think that’s sad but it’s your prerogative.

I didn’t mention a sub scoring a goal - read it again.

And yes, I would be annoyed if the rules weren’t being applied.

No need to get worked up by the debate.

 

[Itchysphincter]

I’m not worked up but I’m not debating either. I’ve already agreed that it’s a rule and you’re entitled to the rule. All I’ve said is that I think the rule applied there is stupid. I’m not going to change my mind. No need to worked up.

 

[MrSwerve]

I’m not worked up but I’m not debating either. I’ve already agreed that it’s a rule and you’re entitled to the rule. All I’ve said is that I think the rule applied there is stupid. I’m not going to change my mind. No need to worked up.

Well you keep asking questions mun, so I’m replying lol.

Anyway, as you say, we’ll agree to disagree. What I will say is that maybe it would have been fairer if it was an indirect free-kick in the box or something.

 

[WxmJax]

Put it this way, he won't do it ever again.

 

[Itchysphincter]

I’m not worked up but I’m not debating either. I’ve already agreed that it’s a rule and you’re entitled to the rule. All I’ve said is that I think the rule applied there is stupid. I’m not going to change my mind. No need to worked up.

Well you keep asking questions mun, so I’m replying lol.

Anyway, as you say, we’ll agree to disagree. What I will say is that maybe it would have been fairer if it was an indirect free-kick in the box or something.

Well you keep trying to make the point that it’s the rule, over and over and over ..... still ain’t going to change my mind about it being stupid. :lol: ..... and if you think a free kick is fairer you don’t think it should be a pen, therefore you agree with me. Sense at last, you’re welcome.

 

[MrSwerve]

Well you keep asking questions mun, so I’m replying lol.

Anyway, as you say, we’ll agree to disagree. What I will say is that maybe it would have been fairer if it was an indirect free-kick in the box or something.

Well you keep trying to make the point that it’s the rule, over and over and over ..... still ain’t going to change my mind about it being stupid. :lol: ..... and if you think a free kick is fairer you don’t think it should be a pen, therefore you agree with me. Sense at last, you’re welcome.

I’ve been saying all along it was a harsh pen mun :lol: but it is a pen.

Anyway, happy Valentine’s Day.

 

[exiledclaseboy]

Rules is rules.

 

[AceJack]

So what if a sub is warming up behind the goal, an opposing player breaks through and rounds the keeper, the sub could run onto the pitch and tackle the player and all he’d receive would be a booking.

Are you saying that’s the same thing?

It obviously isn’t, it’s just argumentative. Sense says that is a completely different set of circumstances. If the subs foot had been a couple of inches further back the ball would have crossed the line and nothing would have been said, he just instinctively and rather stupidly stopped it prematurely. It was a brain fart and should have been treated as such.

But then you have to create a whole subset of rules to allow for mitigating factors for subs who aren’t on the pitch interfering with live play. That sounds a bit stupid tbh.

 

[MrSwerve]

Rules is rules.

Don't wind him up mun. :lol: