I’ve seen talk that they could have had 2.
I remember the one shout which seemed like a dive but can’t remember another one.
Didn’t see MOD, so have no idea.
Did we get lucky ?
Printable View
I’ve seen talk that they could have had 2.
I remember the one shout which seemed like a dive but can’t remember another one.
Didn’t see MOD, so have no idea.
Did we get lucky ?
2 clear pens TimQuote:
Originally Posted by Lawnmower
If the boot had been on the other foot we would definitely be claiming we were robbed of 2 penalties.
I thought if given they would have been very harsh , so thankfull we won ,we do we want to win today Wolves are 5 points above Newcastle 1 point below.
Yes two penalties they should’ve had.
Although the Redmond one makes me laugh and that’s similar to Chopra’s foul against the Jacks 10 years ago.
How can you give a penalty, a free shot at goal, when the person who was fouled is heading away from goal at the corner of the penalty box, posing no threat to the goal whatsoever?
Not much of an appeal for the second one which though on the very edge of the box looked like Manga's boot caught Redmond. The theatrical one got what it deserved.Quote:
Originally Posted by Maxim
Southampton seemed a lot less fired up than on their previous visit to Wales. It's amazing what checking into a nice hotel you booked and being allowed to park your team coach 5 yards from the players entrance can do to take the edge out of the opposition!
SaAs much as I hate the arrogant buggers, let Wolves go; we need the also-rans to falter.Quote:
Originally Posted by life on mars
Probably the best answer given above by Hamish, we'd have been pissed off if we'd not got them.
Having said that both Valery & Armstrong should have received reds for accumulated yellows and they didn't show the push in the back on Morrison or the shirt holding by Romeu both which could have pelanties on another day.
Cos it was inside the penalty boxQuote:
Originally Posted by The Bob Banker Spanker
Yes, thanks for that.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Bloop
Funny enough this was a debate I was having last week with a few friends.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Bloop
I remember playing and getting indirect free kicks for fouls on me rather than pens.
Just because a foul is committed in the box doesn't necessarily mean it should be a penalty, according the the laws of the game.However, indirect free kicks are rare as Refs tend to give a penalty for any infringement, which is actually not right.
Here are some examples and a description of when Refs should give indirect free kicks instead of penalties.
https://www.myactivesg.com/Sports/Fo...in-penalty-box
In terms of the Southampton incidents I feel it would have been harsh to give pens.. it would be interesting to see what VAR does next season with those incidents. It does make up for the lack of a pen against Everton.
On a related issue is anyone else bemused by the number of times Morrison is wrestled to the ground in opposition boxes?
Manga made contact with Redmond, so that one could have easily have been given. Camarasa, left his leg out for the other but no contact was made and that player dived and should have been booked.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lawnmower
Yes I remember screaming at the referee to book him for the dive , its madness, it's not a fould and he's fained an injury, they don't seem to want to eradicate this behaviour of diving .Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Shhh
Cheers All.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Shhh
Hopefully I’ll get to see the highlights later.
It was definitely the Manga one I missed.
The other at the time looked like a dive
Just watched them over and for me Armstrong has dived.
Redmond one though should have been given, definite trip, although he didn’t help himself with his exaggeration!
The Sky guys tended to agree. Although there wasn’t much of an appeal from Southampton
On the other hand there was 2 pushes on Morrison at one corner, both of which should really have led Ron a penalty to us.
We really should have scored 3/4 more and Southampton were poor.
Also the commentators loved our support, commenting a few times on the atmosphere and backing
One other thing. Patterson did well to stay on his feet for the goal, he could have gone down and got the defender sent off or got us a penalty but was strong and honest and got his reward
Contact so it should have been a penalty ?? I hate it when I hear that , contact happens all the time all over the pitch , if that was the case play would be stopped every 10 secs ,it is only a pen if the contact was deemed sufficient to cause a foul And in both cases especially the first when he just threw himself over the leg it wasn’t, so no pens
Anyway I’ve seen more clear cut pens that should have been awarded to us that weren’t given
Both shouts were in the corner of the box heading away from goal.
Any referee would have thought long and hard before giving the first one and his dramatic throwing himself to the floor decided J Moss against it.
Then the second one looked more innocuous but I think was a penalty but I think the referee just thought they are getting desperate throwing themselves on the ground all the time.
So all in all they brought the second decision against them on themselves.
Watch the Newcastle game today. If they give those incidents as penalties we will have at least 5.
The first was a dive. He was already on his way down before any possible contact with Camarasa's leg.
The second could have been given.
There were two or three debatable incidents at the other end where we could have got a decision too - and didn't.
Moss was favouring Southampton with most of his calls until Paterson's goal. Playing advantage as he did was excellent refereeing and sort of balanced out his previous bias.
Deserved win.
If Paterson had gone down then the advantage would have been over and the ref would have taken play back to the foul on Camarasa.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lawnmower
Surely not? I base this on i) refs in football have a strange idea of advantage where they very rarely pull play back even if no advantage has been gained and ii) the penalty decision would have trumped foul in midfield.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Bloop
I thought Armstrong was on his way down but reckless of Camarassa to leave leg trailing to be fallen over. Manga's was going away from the goal but far more significant contact made. I'd want them if it was my side attacking and suggest they were too soft if it was my side defending.
No. As the penalty would have been the advantageQuote:
Originally Posted by The Bloop
Armstrong dived, that was probably still on the ref's mind when Redmond went down theatrically
I thought they were both pens. If they’d happened to us and not given I’d be fuming.
Quote:
Originally Posted by surge
Fair enough both - I am mistaken.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lawnmower
both should've been given..if the first is given there wouldn't have been the second
First is not a penalty. Camarasa stupidly hung his leg out, but crucially pulled it away. As far too many players do these days, Armstrong has seen the leg and thrown himself to try and catch it - what the pundits like to call 'initiating contact'. He should have been booked for simulation.
Were you fuming about the one we didn’t get at Everton ? Or the one we didn’t get when Morrison was pushed by 2 players at one corner yesterday?Quote:
Originally Posted by Croesy Blue
No worries. 👍👍Quote:
Originally Posted by The Bloop
Yeah obviouslyQuote:
Originally Posted by Lawnmower
this - Redmond was fouled in the box as he was ankle tapped by Manga - it was a pen we got lucky.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomm
Camarasa one was simulation
Fair enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by Croesy Blue
Why wouldn’t I? Just because I’m not so biased that I can see when other teams have a decent penalty shout?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lawnmower
Nah, I might be having a memory lapse, but I thought you were saying it wasn’t a penalty at Everton when we were debating it a couple of weeks back and didn’t notice you making any comment about being livid about the Morrison one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Croesy Blue
What bias? As far as I can see, the majority here agree we were lucky with Mangas foul on Redmond. The first one however was a blatant dive, never a oenalty. Should have been booked.Quote:
Originally Posted by Croesy Blue
And that was pretty much the same opinion as the commentatorsQuote:
Originally Posted by Mr Shhh