|
Post by Birchesheadpotter on Apr 27, 2014 11:48:40 GMT
About time a referee had the stones to do that. Shame he got the thing wrong
|
|
|
Post by GrahamHyde on Apr 27, 2014 11:49:03 GMT
Okay should have been a free kick but we should see more fouls given like that when the forward is honest. Will stop them going down so easily.
|
|
|
Post by MarkWolstanton on Apr 27, 2014 11:49:16 GMT
Dowd is a Stokie! Hates Arsenal. Hates Cardiff.
Great decision mind.
|
|
|
Post by scfcno1fan on Apr 27, 2014 11:49:17 GMT
Horribly wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Apr 27, 2014 11:50:12 GMT
Right explain the rules here to me then lads.
If Wickham goes on and scores there, does Cala ultimately NOT get sent off because he didn't prevent a goal scoring opportunity?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 27, 2014 11:52:24 GMT
This is moving Sunderland out of the bottom 3, damn!
|
|
|
Post by MarkWolstanton on Apr 27, 2014 11:52:49 GMT
Right explain the rules here to me then lads.
If Wickham goes on and scores there, does Cala ultimately NOT get sent off because he didn't prevent a goal scoring opportunity?
He would have stayed on as he didn't deny a goal scoring opportunity. You answered it yourself Paul. It's why there is an element of stupidity in deliberately fouling a forward in that position.
|
|
|
Post by staffordpotter78 on Apr 27, 2014 11:52:59 GMT
Right explain the rules here to me then lads.
If Wickham goes on and scores there, does Cala ultimately NOT get sent off because he didn't prevent a goal scoring opportunity?
He'd stay on as he hadn't prevented it, however probably get a yellow for the intent
|
|
|
Post by Sergeant Muttley on Apr 27, 2014 11:54:03 GMT
The only question here is would Dowd have given a pen and sent the player off if it was one of the big clubs?Would he bollocks,they're all corrupt.
|
|
|
Post by Squeekster on Apr 27, 2014 11:54:12 GMT
A player shouldn't have to go down to get a penalty if its a foul just like a cricketer shouldn't have to appeal for an LBW but unless they do they tend not to be given.
|
|
|
Post by bmstoke on Apr 27, 2014 11:55:34 GMT
I've got Sunderland as the first leg of an accumulator.
Great decision by the ref.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Apr 27, 2014 11:57:39 GMT
Right explain the rules here to me then lads.
If Wickham goes on and scores there, does Cala ultimately NOT get sent off because he didn't prevent a goal scoring opportunity?
He would have stayed on as he didn't deny a goal scoring opportunity. You answered it yourself Paul. It's why there is an element of stupidity in deliberately fouling a forward in that position.
Indeed Mark.
Crazy.
|
|
|
Post by boskampsflaps on Apr 27, 2014 11:58:23 GMT
The only question here is would Dowd have given a pen and sent the player off if it was one of the big clubs?Would he bollocks,they're all corrupt.
|
|
|
Post by MarkWolstanton on Apr 27, 2014 11:58:28 GMT
A player shouldn't have to go down to get a penalty if its a foul just like a cricketer shouldn't have to appeal for an LBW but unless they do they tend not to be given. If you don't appeal in cricket the umpire can't give a decision.
|
|
|
Post by GrahamHyde on Apr 27, 2014 11:58:58 GMT
Great question by Paul has changed my mind on the incident. Cardiff hard done by and that's why that law is a load of bollocks. He puts the ball in the net, they are better off than if he didn't.
|
|
|
Post by sportsman on Apr 27, 2014 12:00:26 GMT
Quinn says if the tug continues into the box then it makes it a penalty.
|
|
|
Post by boskampsflaps on Apr 27, 2014 12:03:31 GMT
Quinn says if the tug continues into the box then it makes it a penalty. Quinn's thick as shit.
|
|
|
Post by FullerMagic on Apr 27, 2014 12:04:43 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Squeekster on Apr 27, 2014 12:04:55 GMT
A player shouldn't have to go down to get a penalty if its a foul just like a cricketer shouldn't have to appeal for an LBW but unless they do they tend not to be given. If you don't appeal in cricket the umpire can't give a decision. Why?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 27, 2014 12:05:40 GMT
A player shouldn't have to go down to get a penalty if its a foul just like a cricketer shouldn't have to appeal for an LBW but unless they do they tend not to be given. If you don't appeal in cricket the umpire can't give a decision. Exactly, that's one of the differences between Umpires and Referees.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 27, 2014 12:08:09 GMT
|
|
|
Post by slother on Apr 27, 2014 12:08:14 GMT
Precisely :) He did play a bit of a rugby advantage but then rugby's rule in that regard has always been better than football's. Otherwise, Dowd's got to decide whether Wickham's got more chance of scoring from the spot or finishing the action. Six and 2 threes.
|
|
|
Post by boskampsflaps on Apr 27, 2014 12:10:12 GMT
Oh, I always thought it goes from where it started, fair enough, seems stupid to me.
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Apr 27, 2014 12:10:19 GMT
If you don't appeal in cricket the umpire can't give a decision. Why? Based on old gentleman rules
|
|
|
Post by markfitdt on Apr 27, 2014 12:10:43 GMT
thank you! I know Quinn is thick but I thought he was right this time!
|
|
|
Post by Squeekster on Apr 27, 2014 12:11:53 GMT
Interesting but that seems to be an American view on their umpires and referees in relation to football and soccer.
|
|
|
Post by stokiejoeofalsager on Apr 27, 2014 12:12:44 GMT
Johnson diving as usual.
|
|
|
Post by iancransonsknees on Apr 27, 2014 12:12:55 GMT
What's worse the smug Welsh prick Daibando on here next season or the supercilious Mackem Fishpaste?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 27, 2014 12:18:17 GMT
|
|
|
Post by petershiltonsmini on Apr 27, 2014 12:19:37 GMT
What's worse the smug Welsh prick Daibando on here next season or the supercilious Mackem Fishpaste? Quite like fishpaste.
|
|