|
Post by roylandstoke on Dec 27, 2017 23:18:00 GMT
Diouf was fouled in the penalty area when he was in possession of the ball. Penalty.
Joe Allen got himself closer to a free ball than Mooy and was pushed from behind. A foul should have been awarded to Stoke.
If Mooy had ever been in possession of the ball then Allen's act of running across him would have constituted a foul. Mooy was no more in possession of the ball than Allen and had no right of way to run towards it without another player getting infront of him as Allen did.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Dec 27, 2017 23:19:30 GMT
Diouf was fouled in the penalty area when he was in possession of the ball. Penalty. Joe Allen got himself closer to a free ball than Mooy and was pushed from behind. A foul should have been awarded to Stoke. If Mooy had ever been in possession of the ball then Allen's act of running across him would have constituted a foul. Mooy was no more in possession of the ball than Allen and had no right of way to run towards it without another player getting infront of him as Allen did. He did, illegally.
|
|
|
Post by Laughing Gravy on Dec 27, 2017 23:20:36 GMT
I'm more than happy to accept your last comment if it means you've admitted to being wrong Nah, they both definitely should have penos. 👍😂
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 27, 2017 23:23:43 GMT
Diouf was fouled in the penalty area when he was in possession of the ball. Penalty. Joe Allen got himself closer to a free ball than Mooy and was pushed from behind. A foul should have been awarded to Stoke. If Mooy had ever been in possession of the ball then Allen's act of running across him would have constituted a foul. Mooy was no more in possession of the ball than Allen and had no right of way to run towards it without another player getting infront of him as Allen did. Joe Allen didn't get in front of him. He went through him.
|
|
|
Post by roylandstoke on Dec 28, 2017 0:34:33 GMT
Diouf was fouled in the penalty area when he was in possession of the ball. Penalty. Joe Allen got himself closer to a free ball than Mooy and was pushed from behind. A foul should have been awarded to Stoke. If Mooy had ever been in possession of the ball then Allen's act of running across him would have constituted a foul. Mooy was no more in possession of the ball than Allen and had no right of way to run towards it without another player getting infront of him as Allen did. He did, illegally. Had they been playimg netball Allen's actions would rightly have been penalised.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Dec 28, 2017 0:37:29 GMT
Had they been playimg netball Allen's actions would rightly have been penalised. So you can use your arms now in football to gain an advantage then. It wasn't a shoulder barge, he was all over him.
|
|
|
Post by Staying up for Grandadstokey on Dec 28, 2017 0:47:05 GMT
It's all about opinions isn't it ? We blame referees for poor decisions that they have to make on the spot . We have the benefit of TV replays and still there is no clear cut outcome. Watching live I thought the Allen incident was a penalty and the Diouff one wasn't, having seen the replays I think I was wrong on both
|
|
|
Post by GreaterGlasgowstokie on Dec 28, 2017 0:47:47 GMT
Had they been playimg netball Allen's actions would rightly have been penalised. So you can use your arms now in football to gain an advantage then. It wasn't a shoulder barge, he was all over him. The foul on Diouf, that is a clear penalty. The Allen Mooy incident is not a penalty, and indeed you won't find example anywhere of a penalty being given for that type of challenge as it is correct to say mooy is not in control of the ball. End of conversation.
|
|
|
Post by rambo61 on Dec 28, 2017 1:14:33 GMT
Was the decision influenced by the fact he already booked Diouff for diving earlier???
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Dec 28, 2017 1:18:23 GMT
So you can use your arms now in football to gain an advantage then. It wasn't a shoulder barge, he was all over him. The foul on Diouf, that is a clear penalty. The Allen Mooy incident is not a penalty, and indeed you won't find example anywhere of a penalty being given for that type of challenge as it is correct to say mooy is not in control of the ball. End of conversation. It's like pulling off a corner. It doesn't matter if he's not in control of the ball. He's fouled him to gain an adavantage.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 28, 2017 2:00:46 GMT
Was the decision influenced by the fact he already booked Diouff for diving earlier??? I thought he booked Diouf for handball, cause he put his arms to his face when the ball was hooked toward him.
|
|
|
Post by thegift on Dec 28, 2017 2:03:00 GMT
They had a stonewaller turned down too, evened out. There's wasn't a penalty for me. Allen is shepharding the ball out and doesn't even make a challenge Dave take those stoke blinkers off, the most blatant penalty you will see all season pal
|
|
|
Post by elystokie on Dec 28, 2017 7:51:11 GMT
It's all about opinions isn't it ? We blame referees for poor decisions that they have to make on the spot . We have the benefit of TV replays and still there is no clear cut outcome. Watching live I thought the Allen incident was a penalty and the Diouff one wasn't, having seen the replays I think I was wrong on both Same here re watching live and then replay, I thought same as you and was also wrong, no way is the Allen one a penalty.
|
|
|
Post by davejohnno1 on Dec 28, 2017 9:57:01 GMT
There's wasn't a penalty for me. Allen is shepharding the ball out and doesn't even make a challenge Dave take those stoke blinkers off, the most blatant penalty you will see all season pal Clearly it wasnt because there were different views expressed by pundits over the course of boxing day fixtures. If it was as clear cut as you suggest there would be no debate or contrary opinions.
|
|
|
Post by GreaterGlasgowstokie on Dec 28, 2017 10:03:11 GMT
The foul on Diouf, that is a clear penalty. The Allen Mooy incident is not a penalty, and indeed you won't find example anywhere of a penalty being given for that type of challenge as it is correct to say mooy is not in control of the ball. End of conversation. It's like pulling off a corner. It doesn't matter if he's not in control of the ball. He's fouled him to gain an adavantage. And apart from a short term anti ryan shawcross crackdown you never see penalties given for holding on corners. You still see holding all the time, not necessarily from us granted. You never ever see penalties given for incidents such as the Joe Allen/Mooy incident. I see that TheGift thinks it was a penalty, as well as a moron on MOTD so you are in really good company on this one bayern. Your perception of the incident here is clouded by your frustration at our team and Joe Allen. The only team that should have had a penalty is Stoke
|
|
|
Post by lordb on Dec 28, 2017 10:06:40 GMT
Was the decision influenced by the fact he already booked Diouff for diving earlier??? I thought he booked Diouf for handball, cause he put his arms to his face when the ball was hooked toward him. Yes he booked him for handball which was ludicrous as 1: he was pushed 2: his hands instinctively went up as the defenders boot was flying towards his face
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 28, 2017 11:07:39 GMT
I thought they were both penalties. And I watched again this morning and thought the same. I'll watch yet again later on tell you if I have altered my viewpoint Joe, i think it would be best if you could also just confirm if your view is the same. By only telling us if your viewpoint has altered, i, along with many fellow oatcakers i imagine, are left in a situation where we dont actually know if you have stuck to your commitment to watch it again and kept to your original view. So, please just give us an update anyway so we can all move on.
|
|
|
Post by Laughing Gravy on Dec 28, 2017 11:10:47 GMT
So you can use your arms now in football to gain an advantage then. It wasn't a shoulder barge, he was all over him. The foul on Diouf, that is a clear penalty. The Allen Mooy incident is not a penalty, and indeed you won't find example anywhere of a penalty being given for that type of challenge as it is correct to say mooy is not in control of the ball. End of conversation. Not when you're talking to Bayern it isn't.
|
|
|
Post by Laughing Gravy on Dec 28, 2017 11:12:07 GMT
I thought they were both penalties. And I watched again this morning and thought the same. I'll watch yet again later on tell you if I have altered my viewpoint Joe, i think it would be best if you could also just confirm if your view is the same. By only telling us if your viewpoint has altered, i, along with many fellow oatcakers i imagine, are left in a situation where we dont actually know if you have stuck to your commitment to watch it again and kept to your original view. So, please just give us an update anyway so we can all move on. My hooks are completely tentered.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 28, 2017 11:24:05 GMT
The foul on Diouf, that is a clear penalty. The Allen Mooy incident is not a penalty, and indeed you won't find example anywhere of a penalty being given for that type of challenge as it is correct to say mooy is not in control of the ball. End of conversation. Not when you're talking to Bayern it isn't. A quick kick in the bollocks could end it
|
|
|
Post by Laughing Gravy on Dec 28, 2017 11:25:51 GMT
Not when you're talking to Bayern it isn't. A quick kick in the bollocks could end it But would that be a penalty if commited in the area?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 28, 2017 11:27:19 GMT
A quick kick in the bollocks could end it But would that be a penalty if commited in the area? Who knows, but there'd be a petition started for a knighthood for whoever did it
|
|
|
Post by thegift on Dec 28, 2017 13:49:27 GMT
Dave take those stoke blinkers off, the most blatant penalty you will see all season pal Clearly it wasnt because there were different views expressed by pundits over the course of boxing day fixtures. If it was as clear cut as you suggest there would be no debate or contrary opinions. The only debate about this tackle is how on earth do people think it wasn't a penalty
|
|
|
Post by JoeinOz on Dec 28, 2017 14:18:45 GMT
I thought they were both penalties. And I watched again this morning and thought the same. I'll watch yet again later on tell you if I have altered my viewpoint Joe, i think it would be best if you could also just confirm if your view is the same. By only telling us if your viewpoint has altered, i, along with many fellow oatcakers i imagine, are left in a situation where we dont actually know if you have stuck to your commitment to watch it again and kept to your original view. So, please just give us an update anyway so we can all move on. I'm consulting my lawyers.
|
|
|
Post by roylandstoke on Dec 28, 2017 15:05:26 GMT
Clearly it wasnt because there were different views expressed by pundits over the course of boxing day fixtures. If it was as clear cut as you suggest there would be no debate or contrary opinions. The only debate about this tackle is how on earth do people think it wasn't a penaltyHaving a knowledge and understanding of the laws of football, is the answer to your conundrum.
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Dec 28, 2017 15:13:17 GMT
Clearly it wasnt because there were different views expressed by pundits over the course of boxing day fixtures. If it was as clear cut as you suggest there would be no debate or contrary opinions. The only debate about this tackle is how on earth do people think it wasn't a penalty Probably better thoughts than those that think it was. Allen gets in between attacker and ball, attacker collides into Allen and expects a penalty
|
|
|
Post by parsonage1955 on Dec 28, 2017 15:43:30 GMT
Rather than expressing a view, could anyone on here quote the law on instruction (l freely admit l don't know what constitutes instruction and what is legitimemate shepherding).
|
|
|
Post by parsonage1955 on Dec 28, 2017 16:18:08 GMT
Oops, l meant 'obstruction' !
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 28, 2017 16:34:49 GMT
Oops, l meant 'obstruction' ! It's not like a nuanced obstruction where it could go either way, he's just taken the Huddersfield player out completely. He may have slipped but he's still thrown his entire body through their player, almost everyone on this board (and Mark Hughes) would be absolutely up in arms if their player had done it and we didn't get a pen.
|
|
|
Post by davejohnno1 on Dec 28, 2017 16:44:04 GMT
Oops, l meant 'obstruction' ! It's not like a nuanced obstruction where it could go either way, he's just taken the Huddersfield player out completely. He may have slipped but he's still thrown his entire body through their player, almost everyone on this board (and Mark Hughes) would be absolutely up in arms if their player had done it and we didn't get a pen. Absolutely everyone isnt up in arms about diouf not being given his blatant penalty so that isn't true either.
|
|