Can someone explain the penalty decision for mel

20togo said:
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.
Click to expand...
You say no chance to score but there was. Again, if they had scored then what?
 
I get where 20s is coming from with this. Sometimes it isn’t always obvious there is an advantage and he may need to wait to see if one develops.
The Peterborough player rightfully tried to score as he was playing to the whistle and wasn’t to know a penalty would be awarded.
This happened very quickly and the referee decided afterwards there was little advantage and gave the penalty.
Problem is though is they had 2 bites of the Cherry as if they had scored the advantage would have stood and no penalty awarded.
 
It wasn’t a penalty imho.
It happens though and was no more than Posh deserved.
We had a press that wasn’t a press (probably cos of a lack of pace at the back) - which allowed Posh to dictate the game. Been a while since I watched such a shambolic Pool performance.
 
King Billy said:
You say no chance to score but there was. Again, if they had scored then what?
Click to expand...
If in the very unlikely event that he'd scored then he'd have allowed it to stand. See now below.
King Billy said:
I get where 20s is coming from with this. Sometimes it isn’t always obvious there is an advantage and he may need to wait to see if one develops.
The Peterborough player rightfully tried to score as he was playing to the whistle and wasn’t to know a penalty would be awarded.
This happened very quickly and the referee decided afterwards there was little advantage and gave the penalty.
Problem is though is they had 2 bites of the Cherry as if they had scored the advantage would have stood and no penalty awarded.
Click to expand...
Thankyou. The ref had to make a quick decision to play on. He might not have even been aware that we had a player on the line. Like I said, the angle was tight we had a player on the line. There was no advantage gained by him playing on. Pretty much no chance of scoring so no, not really two bites of the cherry. The ref realised that so brought it back. He got it right if in his mind he thought it was a foul and therefore a penalty.
Look at it from a different pov. Did you think the player out wide at a tight angle with a player of ours on the line should have scored? The answer is a blatantly obvious NO so there was no advantage gained whatsoever.
 
Last edited:
20togo said:
If in the very unlikely event that he'd scored then he'd have allowed it to stand. See now below.

Thankyou. The ref had to make a quick decision to play on. He might not have even been aware that we had a player on the line. Like I said, the angle was tight we had a player on the line. There was no advantage gained by him playing on. Pretty much no chance of scoring so no, not really two bites of the cherry. The ref realised that so brought it back. He got it right if in his mind he thought it was a foul and therefore a penalty.
Look at it from a different pov. Did you think the player out wide at a tight angle with a player of ours on the line should have scored? The answer is a blatantly obvious NO so there was no advantage gained whatsoever.
Click to expand...
No the referee should have blown for the penalty immediately not wait to see if the other player scored. That's another way to look at it .,he also let him get a shot off ,when heosdef the side netting he then gave a penalty.
 
LASHER said:
No the referee should have blown for the penalty immediately not wait to see if the other player scored. That's another way to look at it .,he also let him get a shot off ,when heosdef the side netting he then gave a penalty.
Click to expand...
not sure of the last part of your post but you get it wrong if you think he hit the side netting. The shot was blocked. Fact is there was no advantage gained and why he brought it back.
 
Me personally didn’t think it was,I’ve seen them given and seen them waved away,that said we should have been 0-3 before that.Why critch didn’t play his best 11 on the night is beyond me.No wonder 80% want him out.
 
Id say the challenge by the Peterborough player verged on dangerous play, he'd already lost control of the ball and went in with studs raised. O'Donnell was lucky not to get badly injured in the challenge. The ref was a better standard than we usually get, but he still made some bizarre decisions. I wonder why they picked a PL qualified ref for the game instead of the usual numpties that officiate games at this level. TV cameras and not wanting to show a wider public the standard of officiating maybe.
 
Has anyone noticed that the referee didn't actually play the advantage? If he had he would have (or should have) indicated by use of his arms ( personally I preferred yelling "play on" at the top of my voice).

If he had indicated, he should not have been able to bring it back,

He didn't indicate so the only question to be asked, although too late to do anything about it, is was it actually a penalty or not.
 
20togo said:
not sure of the last part of your post but you get it wrong if you think he hit the side netting. The shot was blocked. Fact is there was no advantage gained and why he brought it back.
Click to expand...
Shot blocked or not if he thought It was a penalty,how can you play advantage? Which he did.
 
LASHER said:
Shot blocked or not if he thought It was a penalty,how can you play advantage? Which he did.
Click to expand...
because he wrongly] thought the player might have a tap in into an empty net. and that's been my point all along. He tried to see if any advantage was gained and when he realised it wasn't he brought it back for the penalty.
 
if you watch it back the ref is already putting the whistle to his mouth before the guy gets his shot away.
 
boabthebetter said:
Has anyone noticed that the referee didn't actually play the advantage? If he had he would have (or should have) indicated by use of his arms ( personally I preferred yelling "play on" at the top of my voice).

If he had indicated, he should not have been able to bring it back,

He didn't indicate so the only question to be asked, although too late to do anything about it, is was it actually a penalty or not.
Click to expand...
A referee doesn’t always give advantage straight away. Sometimes they have to give it a second or two to see if an advantage develops.
 
20togo said:
If in the very unlikely event that he'd scored then he'd have allowed it to stand. See now below.

Thankyou. The ref had to make a quick decision to play on. He might not have even been aware that we had a player on the line. Like I said, the angle was tight we had a player on the line. There was no advantage gained by him playing on. Pretty much no chance of scoring so no, not really two bites of the cherry. The ref realised that so brought it back. He got it right if in his mind he thought it was a foul and therefore a penalty.
Look at it from a different pov. Did you think the player out wide at a tight angle with a player of ours on the line should have scored? The answer is a blatantly obvious NO so there was no advantage gained whatsoever.
Click to expand...
I suppose it comes down to did the chance they have after the “foul” give them more of an advantage to score than a penalty. I do agree the answer is no.
I do wonder had they missed a more guilt edged chance would the ref have still have given the pen. I think he would have.
 
1953+1 said:
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.
Click to expand...
No he elected to play advantage,
 
THEMISSINGLINK said:
It was definitely a penalty and their lad scored it as well.
Click to expand...
Explain to me on what planet you think that’s a pen?

Their guy is falling before he runs into O’Donnell. Their fans say it wasn’t. Sky says it wasn’t. You’re the only one who seems to think it was. May I suggest Specsavers?
 
It would've been interesting to see if VAR would have judged it to be a penalty or not. It was difficult to see whether the player got to the ball first before O'Donnell, for me it looked 50:50 so should've been a foul on the keeper.
 
The ref got it wrong.

The laws of the game state:

The referee can wait a few seconds to allow a possible advantage to develop, and if the non-offending team does not benefit and gains no advantage, the original free kick can be given. However, the non-offending team should not be given two chances
 
Delfino said:
The ref got it wrong.

The laws of the game state:

The referee can wait a few seconds to allow a possible advantage to develop, and if the non-offending team does not benefit and gains no advantage, the original free kick can be given. However, the non-offending team should not be given two chances
Click to expand...
nut they weren't given two chances. You can't seem to get away from that point.They gained no advantage. Have you watched it again as I've suggested you do? If you do, you'll see that the ref is already putting the whistle to his mouth as soon as the ball breaks towards their second player. In fact, let's put this debate to bed. Watch it again, and you'll see that the ref gave no indication he was playing advantage at all. Look at what you've quoted. He waited a couple of seconds and decided there was no advantage so brought it back for the penalty..
 
Last edited:
1953+1 said:
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.
Click to expand...
yes, they can play advantage for a few secs to see if an opportunity develops, but if it doesn't can call the ball back for the original offence. I'm not sure the fact that he was going to ground already is relevant.
 
Athers said:
Explain to me on what planet you think that’s a pen?

Their guy is falling before he runs into O’Donnell. Their fans say it wasn’t. Sky says it wasn’t. You’re the only one who seems to think it was. May I suggest Specsavers?
Click to expand...
Falling backwards? He was lunging to get the ball round O'Donnell.
 
dave1772 said:
yes, they can play advantage for a few secs to see if an opportunity develops, but if it doesn't can call the ball back for the original offence. I'm not sure the fact that he was going to ground already is relevant.
Click to expand...
The ref can't do that if he let's them have a shot.

Suggest you read the laws of the game. It explicitly says they can't have two chances.
 
Delfino said:
The ref can't do that if he let's them have a shot.

Suggest you read the laws of the game. It explicitly says they can't have two chances.
Click to expand...
you're making things up. Suggest you watch a replay because clearly you haven't. He didn't "let" them have a shot! He was already in the process of blowing his whistle when they took the shot. That is not letting them have it. You've become obsessed with this two chances and lost focus on what actually happened. Let it go!
 
Last edited:
Delfino said:
The ref can't do that if he let's them have a shot.

Suggest you read the laws of the game. It explicitly says they can't have two chances.
Click to expand...
you may want to read the laws of the game yourself. It's only if it's the same player being fouled but getting up and having a second shot following advantage being played that it cannot be brought back.
 
20togo said:
you're making things up. Suggest you watch a replay because clearly you haven't. He didn't "let" them have a shot! He was already in the process of blowing his whistle when they took the shot. That is not letting them have it. You've become obsessed with this two chances and lost focus on what actually happened. Let it go!
Click to expand...
Look 20s, I normally have respect for you but I'm also aware of your history of digging trenches and keep digging when in discussions. However, I will do you the courtesy of one more reply before I put you on ignore. I'm not willing to waste any more of my life explaining the laws of the game to you. If you want to carry on to have the last say or persuade anyone of your views, then that's your prerogative. If people want to believe you, then more fool them imho.

Unusually for the laws of the game, the scenario on Tuesday is pretty well covered. So let's go back through it.

Under the advantage rule, the referee is entitled to wait and see how play might unfold. There is no definition of "wait" other than he is instructed to make a quick decision. The referee is instructed to weigh up two options - is it better to give the foul or let the team carry on. However, when there is a chance involved, he needs to weigh up whether the chance that would emerge from playing on is better than stopping. In this case, he had to weigh giving a penalty (i.e. a direct shot against the keeper from 12 yards) versus the ball going to a wider angle and shooting with no goalkeeper.

The whistle was in the referee's mouth as it should be in this scenario. He is instructed to make a quick decision, and in the speed of play, it needed to be very quick. He should have been and indeed was ready to make the call either way. Frankly, where his whistle was is irrelevant to anything other than to say the referee was clearly prepared.

He let (allowed or didn't blow the whistle, take your pick) play continue and Peterborough had a chance to score. You may think that chance was hard but there is nothing in the laws that says if the chance is hard, the referee can ignore it. That is the consideration the referee is instructed to consider. If you don't think shooting on target from an angle when there is no goalkeeper is not a chance, then I really can't help you.

The chance was missed and the referee only blew when the chance was missed.

The laws of the games clearly state (black and white, and not open to interpretation), that (unlike other advantage scenarios where no immediate scoring opportunities arise) the referee cannot allow two chances i.e. he can't let them shoot and miss, and then give the penalty.

The facts are the referee thought the foul warranted a penalty, allowed them (by not blowing his whistle) to have a chance and then gave the penalty afterwards. The laws of the game instruct that he shouldn't have done that.

For the record, it would have been quite harsh on Peterborough and maybe the law should be reviewed to allow the referee more flexibility but that wasn't the question. Should he have given a penalty after Peterborough missed their chance. The answer is No.

Also for the record, I was in line with the Peterborough player who took the shot. I thought at the time he should have scored but his shot made it easy for the defender.

And also for the record, given you're earlier unfounded accusation, no I don't write this cos I am bitter about the referee. He actually had a pretty decent game. They make mistakes and you will not find many examples of me criticising them throughout my history. I have done refereeing and I also know referees including one who does National League. I have a lot of respect for the effort they put in, the preparation they make, and how difficult it is only to see the criticism they get. They have a thankless task and have to make decisions in a split second. However, in this case, he got it wrong although I can fully understand why.
 
dave1772 said:
you may want to read the laws of the game yourself. It's only if it's the same player being fouled but getting up and having a second shot following advantage being played that it cannot be brought back.
Click to expand...
Thanks for your reply, and it's really good that you have gone away to read the laws of the game. However, I'd suggest you improve you reading skills.

The law states "the non-offending team should not be given two chances". What you refer to is an example of the interpretation. It is the team not the player who should not be given two chances.
 
20togo said:
If in the very unlikely event that he'd scored then he'd have allowed it to stand. See now below.

Thankyou. The ref had to make a quick decision to play on. He might not have even been aware that we had a player on the line. Like I said, the angle was tight we had a player on the line. There was no advantage gained by him playing on. Pretty much no chance of scoring so no, not really two bites of the cherry. The ref realised that so brought it back. He got it right if in his mind he thought it was a foul and therefore a penalty.
Look at it from a different pov. Did you think the player out wide at a tight angle with a player of ours on the line should have scored? The answer is a blatantly obvious NO so there was no advantage gained whatsoever.
Click to expand...
Where are you getting this very unlikely event bolloxks from?

The keeper was five yards behind him and he initially had an empty net, took a touch and hit a diving defender. If it was the other way round you'd be saying we'd missed a sitter, which it was.

The ref went against the rules of football by allowing a shot on goal, and then going back and giving a penalty.

In exactly the same circumstances, he allowed a cross to go over the bar for a goal kick after a foul on Gabriel had broken to another of our players. In your world he should have gone back and given a free kick as no advantage accrued.
 
Delfino said:
Thanks for your reply, and it's really good that you have gone away to read the laws of the game. However, I'd suggest you improve you reading skills.

The law states "the non-offending team should not be given two chances". What you refer to is an example of the interpretation. It is the team not the player who should not be given two chances.
Click to expand...
How are Dunning and Kruger ?
 
Just watched the Preview Show where Richard O'Donnell said he was fouled by their player standing on his hand, not him fouling their lad.

He was a lot closer than any of us and he says no penalty.

Case closed.
 
Wizaard said:
Just watched the Preview Show where Richard O'Donnell said he was fouled by their player standing on his hand, not him fouling their lad.

He was a lot closer than any of us and he says no penalty.

Case closed.
Click to expand...
Well that’s that then. Just ask the offending player if it was a penalty 🤣
 
Wizaard said:
Just watched the Preview Show where Richard O'Donnell said he was fouled by their player standing on his hand, not him fouling their lad.

He was a lot closer than any of us and he says no penalty.

Case closed.
Click to expand...
let's be clear in this, I've never said it was a penalty.
 
Delfino said:
Look 20s, I normally have respect for you but I'm also aware of your history of digging trenches and keep digging when in discussions. However, I will do you the courtesy of one more reply before I put you on ignore. I'm not willing to waste any more of my life explaining the laws of the game to you. If you want to carry on to have the last say or persuade anyone of your views, then that's your prerogative. If people want to believe you, then more fool them imho.

Unusually for the laws of the game, the scenario on Tuesday is pretty well covered. So let's go back through it.

Under the advantage rule, the referee is entitled to wait and see how play might unfold. There is no definition of "wait" other than he is instructed to make a quick decision. The referee is instructed to weigh up two options - is it better to give the foul or let the team carry on. However, when there is a chance involved, he needs to weigh up whether the chance that would emerge from playing on is better than stopping. In this case, he had to weigh giving a penalty (i.e. a direct shot against the keeper from 12 yards) versus the ball going to a wider angle and shooting with no goalkeeper.

The whistle was in the referee's mouth as it should be in this scenario. He is instructed to make a quick decision, and in the speed of play, it needed to be very quick. He should have been and indeed was ready to make the call either way. Frankly, where his whistle was is irrelevant to anything other than to say the referee was clearly prepared.

He let (allowed or didn't blow the whistle, take your pick) play continue and Peterborough had a chance to score. You may think that chance was hard but there is nothing in the laws that says if the chance is hard, the referee can ignore it. That is the consideration the referee is instructed to consider. If you don't think shooting on target from an angle when there is no goalkeeper is not a chance, then I really can't help you.

The chance was missed and the referee only blew when the chance was missed.

The laws of the games clearly state (black and white, and not open to interpretation), that (unlike other advantage scenarios where no immediate scoring opportunities arise) the referee cannot allow two chances i.e. he can't let them shoot and miss, and then give the penalty.

The facts are the referee thought the foul warranted a penalty, allowed them (by not blowing his whistle) to have a chance and then gave the penalty afterwards. The laws of the game instruct that he shouldn't have done that.

For the record, it would have been quite harsh on Peterborough and maybe the law should be reviewed to allow the referee more flexibility but that wasn't the question. Should he have given a penalty after Peterborough missed their chance. The answer is No.

Also for the record, I was in line with the Peterborough player who took the shot. I thought at the time he should have scored but his shot made it easy for the defender.

And also for the record, given you're earlier unfounded accusation, no I don't write this cos I am bitter about the referee. He actually had a pretty decent game. They make mistakes and you will not find many examples of me criticising them throughout my history. I have done refereeing and I also know referees including one who does National League. I have a lot of respect for the effort they put in, the preparation they make, and how difficult it is only to see the criticism they get. They have a thankless task and have to make decisions in a split second. However, in this case, he got it wrong although I can fully understand why.
Click to expand...
threaten to put me on ignore all you want, that won't impact on me whatsoever. In fact, i find it rather pathetic that you'd put someone on ignore simply because they don't agree with you! I pretty much totally disagree with your assessment and when I ask you have you watched the incident again you don't answer. I've given my thoughts on the incident having watched it many times. The ref got his thought process right imo if he thought it was a penalty which he clearly did. Anyway it's gone now, so move on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top