I was stood in the north, and to me it was a penalty. However my dilemma is that the ref seemed to play an advantage because the ball broke to a Peterborough player and he had a goal scoring opportunity. It was only when he missed the goal that the ref gave the penalty. Should he have given the penalty if he allowed the goal attempt.
Can someone explain the penalty decision for mel
- Thread starter 1953+1
- Start date
poolseasider
Well-known member
Sue
premierdream2010
Well-known member
Who cares we got stuffed all night penalty or not
King Billy
Well-known member
Nothing about it made sense.
Like you say, he played the advantage then pulled it back once they missed.
Like you say, he played the advantage then pulled it back once they missed.
Bluecabinboy
Well-known member
In the great scheme of things re pens - some you win, some you lose. It’s a lottery & always has been.
Having said that, it really wouldn’t have made much difference last night - other than arguably to the final scoreline.
2-0 or 3-0 - frankly it’s only by the grace of Marv & O’Donnell that it wasn’t a cricket score.
Having said that, it really wouldn’t have made much difference last night - other than arguably to the final scoreline.
2-0 or 3-0 - frankly it’s only by the grace of Marv & O’Donnell that it wasn’t a cricket score.
20togo
Well-known member
think theres a fair bit of difference between an advantage inside the box and one outside. Outside the box and anywhere on the pitch you can pull it back and give a free kick if there is no advantage. But here the player didn't score and as the ref thought it was a clear foul inside the box he then had to pull it back and give the penalty.
Wizaard
Well-known member
It was never a penalty. The lad had gone to ground before he hit into O'Donnell.
THEMISSINGLINK
Well-known member
It was definitely a penalty and their lad scored it as well.
TangerinePeel
Well-known member
Why does Mel want to know?
Wizaard
Well-known member
Even Sky said it wasn't a penalty.
TSSeasider
Well-known member
It didn't look like one from where I was stood.
Said the same about the advantage last night. Ref clearly let them have the advantage and they had the ball under control and the opportunity. They had a shot with no keeper in and missed it. I was pretty miffed when he gave them another go (whether we think it was a penalty or not).
Parky1953
Well-known member
It was 100% not a penalty.
TangerineBayern
Well-known member
Posh fans on their message board said it wasn’t a pen but gladly took it as would we.
20togo
Well-known member
not quite the whole truth that really. Their player was out wide at an angle and we had a player there who comfortably blocked the shot in the only place their player was likely to hit it. The ref decided it was a penalty and because of that it's much more likely that they will have a better chance from scoring from that rather than the player out wide scoring. As it proved. The ref was right to give them the penalty if he was certain in his mind that it was.
King Billy
Well-known member
So had they gone to score he would of disallowed and awarded a penalty?
The attacker messed it up. The ref gave them another opportunity
20togo
Well-known member
does that specify penalty? And read what it said. The player fouled didn't recover and he didn't have a shot at goal. The ball broke to another player out wide and at a very tight angle with a player of ours on the line. The referee realised there was no eal advantage so brought it back for a penalty. Which is what i said.
20togo
Well-known member
no he didn't mess it up at all. see my previous post. It was a different player and he was at such a wide angle with a player of ours covering on the line so the ref decided there was no advantage so he brought it back. As i first said, you weren't really painting the full picture of what happened.
It's about the advantage rule for any situation. The example used is a free kick . The key part of the text is 'However, the non-offending team should not be given two chances'.
They clearly were.
20togo
Well-known member
oh cmon, have you ever seen a ref wave play on but then bring play back when he realises there is no advantage. Of course you have and that's what happened here. The ref decided it was a foul in the area and a penalty is a far bigger chance of scoring than the fact that their player was out wide at a tight angle with a player on the line. I'd say it's pretty much a certainty that if the roles had been reversed you had been saying it was the right decision. And that's because it was once the referee decided that in his mind it was a foul by the gk.
Last edited:
It happens but I don't think I've ever seen the ref let the team shoot and miss when they had the ball under control and a clear opportunity, with the keeper on the floor and then pull it back afterwards. The direction is clear about two chances. Whether refs apply it consistently is a different matter. Whether commentators and pundits understand it properly is doubtful too.
20togo
Well-known member
go and watch it again! There was no real clear opportunity. You seemingly keep wanting to forget the point that we had a player on the line and from a tight angle it was never a clear opportunity. The ref made the right call once he was satisfied that it was a foul. The far clearer opportunity was to score from the spot.
The referee must make a quick, tactical decision and should remember that
He then gave them a second chance contrary to the direction.
- allowing play to continue is not always in the best interests of the non-offending team,
- a free kick in an attacking situation may be better for the non-offending team than allowing play to continue
He then gave them a second chance contrary to the direction.
20togo
Well-known member
but read the first part of that. He made a quick tactical decision and allowed play to continue but then soon realised it wasn't in the best interests of the non offending team. He decided a free kick[ penalty] may be better for the non offending team which it was.
It all happened in a split second and soon realised there was no advantage gained by allowing play to continue. So really there was no chance and no advantage. So the penalty was the first chance. Like i said go and watch it again. There never really was this first chance you talk about and so the ref pulled it back and that became the first real chance.
Wizaard
Well-known member
He had a shot and it was cleared. Therefore an advantage was played. Short of asking the defender to get out of the way, how much more advantage do you want?
In the second half, Gabriel was taken out, but the ball was picked up and crossed but overhit into the stand.
By your logic, the ref should have gone back and given us a free kick.
Wizaard
Well-known member
A foul is a foul, regardless of where on the pitch it is. Leading to a penalty is irrelevant.
You keep ignoring the 'However, the non-offending team should not be given two chances'.
He absolutely gave them two opportunities. if the player does not score, the referee cannot go back and give a free kick for the original offence'
No point discussing it anymore.
20togo
Well-known member
and you know full well that if the roles had been reversed you would have been saying there was no advantage and the ref was right to bring it back to give the penalty. It happens regularly where there is no advantage gained and a ref having at first waved play on then brings it back.
Wizaard
Well-known member
No, because it wasn't a penalty.
20togo
Well-known member
every time a ref waves play on and then brings it back he's giving two opportunites by your logic. But the reality is that there was never real first opportunity in this case.
20togo
Well-known member
deflect all you want. The ref in his mind thought it was a foul and therefore a penalty. Putting it bluntly it's irrelevant what anyone else thinks.
Wizaard
Well-known member
So ignoring the rules is irrelevant to a referee?
It's been spelled out to you, but you're deflecting from the rules of the game.
20togo
Well-known member
no he didn't. Go and watch it again. There was no advantage gained so as such there was no opportunity. The ref thought there might have been but there wasn't so he brought it back. Just like happens in many other games. You are saying there were two chances when in reality there was only one.
The direction covers what should happen but explicitly states the non offending team should not be given two chances.
Whether you think that is fair or not, is irrelevant. That's the direction.
20togo
Well-known member
give over. Every time a ref waves play on and then brings it back then by your interpretation he's giving two chances. The reality is that he's not. He's decided that there is no advantage and so brings play back. It was a penalty in the refs eyes. If you feel that strongly about it then take it up with the authorities where you will be shot down in flames. Get over it, we lost and it wasn't because you feel cheated by a ref.
Nonsense.
You are confusing how you think it should work versus what the laws of the game say.
They had two opportunities to score.
In the whole section of the explanation of the advantage law, this is the very scenario that is called out.
Regardless, when did I say we lost it because we were cheated. I responded to the o/p about the advantage law. It was a good question and the answer is obviously not understood by everybody.
boabthebetter
Well-known member
The ref was about to blow then chose not to when he saw the ball go to the other attacking player. He played the advantage by allowing the attacker the opportunity to score probably what he thought a tap in against possibly missing a penalty. The attacker missed.
The ref then pointed to the spot.
WTF?
Back in my day as a Class 1, once advantage is played that's it, no going back if a player mucks up or a tackle is made etc.
Someone appears to have copied and pasted the law on it nowadays on this thread and to me it appears no different but that's not how refs are using it. I've lost count of the number of times refs have played advantage and then brought it back once a tackle is made 20 yards further upfield. Ridiculous! Either play advantage and continue or give a free kick to begin with....not both!
The ref then pointed to the spot.
WTF?
Back in my day as a Class 1, once advantage is played that's it, no going back if a player mucks up or a tackle is made etc.
Someone appears to have copied and pasted the law on it nowadays on this thread and to me it appears no different but that's not how refs are using it. I've lost count of the number of times refs have played advantage and then brought it back once a tackle is made 20 yards further upfield. Ridiculous! Either play advantage and continue or give a free kick to begin with....not both!
tangerine_neil
Well-known member
Perhaps the ref has been watching too much rugby
Hazi
Well-known member
Agreed, O’Donnell was nearest the ball hence the player went to ground stretching, he then pulled his hands back as the player collided into him. Not a pen in a month of Sundays. As crap as we played without the pen we could easily of gone onto score as we were having our best period in the game.
Commentators thought the player was already going down and that it wasn't a pen. We easily deserved to lose though.
20togo
Well-known member
no, you're the one with nonsense. They didn't have two opportunities to score at all. If the ref had waved play on as he did and they were left with a simple tap in and he'd missed then yes I'd agree with you. However no advantage was GAINED by the ref playing on. He realised that and so brought play back to give the penalty. Explain to me how any advantage was gained by him playing on. There wasn't any at all. That was not an oportunity to realistically score and the ref realised that so give up with this two opportunities. As i sadi, if it had been the other way round you and Wiz would be complaining that we didn't get any advantage from him playing on and it should have been a penalty and you would be backing his decision to bring it back and give the penalty. Read what the law you quoted said. It said it's not always in the best interest of the non attending team to allow play continue. In this case the ref after allowing play to continue realised it wasn't in the best of the interest of the team and so he brought it back. There is nothing to say he can't do that. You then get obsessed with the second part about this opportunity and chance to score and that's where you are getting it wrong. Watch it again and you'll see that realistically there was no chance to score. The ref got it right.
SeasideKurt
Well-known member
You take it as a Posh fan as would we, it killed the chance of us getting anything from the game. Albeit we didn't deserve anything. From the refs angle it looked like a penalty but the Posh player dived into O Donnell. Not the other way around.
If it was VAR it probably would have been a penalty too. But this is where football is going to be honest. It's losing it's soul quick.
If it was VAR it probably would have been a penalty too. But this is where football is going to be honest. It's losing it's soul quick.