Referee yesterday.

[One Teddy Maybank]

Without a doubt. The defender only touched Kaz because Texeira flattened him. It would have been the worst penalty ever had it been awarded.

Hardly because as BG pointed out, no foul had been given.

KLL was definitely impeded, whether it was caused as a result of somebody being pushed is completely irrelevant, as no foul had been given.

 

[Jim_AFCB]

So if every player screams penalty you give one.

I'm talking instinctive body language here, not vocal appeals for decisions.

 

[One Teddy Maybank]

So how would you justify a sending-off in law? Denying an obvious goalscoring opportunity? No. Serious foul play or violent conduct? No.
Not condoning what Cook did as it was utterly cynical, but I probably would have done the same had I been in his shoes. But a yellow was as far as the ref could go.

Agree with those saying that Richie should have been booked for that early tackle. Got away with that one.
We have been on the rough end of a number of major decisions earlier in the season, guess these things even out in the end...

Watched the game back on Sky, thought the ref had a reasonable game, thought he perhaps let some fouls go at the time, didnt get the benefit of replays for those incidents though. Pugh (IIRC) possibly fouled in the lead up to your second before Baldock was put through.

Thought he got both the major talking points on this thread right (corner and penalty).

Agree with you re Cook.

Corner was correct (as TV replays showed), as was your penalty.

However, the KLL was completely wrong, as the pundits said at the time, he was basically too honest. As Francis went down he grabbed for him, that put him off-balance, he still got the cross in, but if we'd been the home team we'd have got it. A little like some of the 50/50 decisions and bookings (but at the end of the day, as an away team its to be expected).

 

[BensGrandad]

However you look at it the ref made a mistake in not giving it. I am the only one who thinks he also possibly made a mistake with the one he did give and was conned by Wilson.

 

[One Teddy Maybank]

However you look at it the ref made a mistake in not giving it. I am the only one who thinks he also possibly made a mistake with the one he did give and was conned by Wilson.

The Wilson one, Dunk touched him albeit fairly lightly. If Dunk stays on his feet, there is no decision to make - incredibly rash. Spot on re KLL though.

 

[BensGrandad]

I dont think Dunk did to my mind he pulled out and as a result Wilson threw himself over him. At least the opinion and discussion helps kill a boring TV night on a Sunday.

 

[One Teddy Maybank]

I dont think Dunk did to my mind he pulled out and as a result Wilson threw himself over him. At least the opinion and discussion helps kill a boring TV night on a Sunday.

Spot on - awful tonight.

But why go down, he just needed to stand up, the player was going away from goal. Poyet would have gone bananas......

 

[Reagulls]

Err yes.

Just read your original post, it was the post you responded to, I should have also replied to. Apologies

No worries, I read it back a few times my self...

 

[BensGrandad]

I think it was because he was going to make a tackle and thought better of it and consequently was grounded

 

[ATFC Seagull]

I dont think Dunk did to my mind he pulled out and as a result Wilson threw himself over him. At least the opinion and discussion helps kill a boring TV night on a Sunday.

Not sure this is the done thing on here, but I am inclined to agree with you, to a certain extent.

I think by the letter of the law it probably was a penalty as Dunk does touch him and he is between Dunk and the ball. However Dunk's slide was never going to make contact with him and was quite a logical thing to do as it looked like he was about to shoot with his left. He then completely unnaturally drops his right foot onto Dunk's leg, a fraction later and the foul would probably be ON Dunk for stamping on him.

 

[LamieRobertson]

Just had a quick look at the replay.

The ball makes a rather notable change of direction, from going almost along the line to suddenly out of play. It definitely[/i] went out off of Bennett.

I also looked at the 'penalty' claim. I'm now coming down on the side that it wasn't a foul, more a coming together of bodies. Also, the ball doesn't bounce around, Lualua steadies himself, plays a dangerous ball across the goal that Baldock and Forster-Caskey both should have put away, before it lands at Gardner's feet. He should have at least got the shot on target, but he didn't he skied it. None of the players called for a penalty.

If you're not sure it's a foul, and the attacking team get three or four goal scoring opportunities, and none of the players are claiming a foul, you can't really give a penalty.

Mr Acker ...you are just so sensible

 

[Pantani]

He was a little 'card' happy but the same for both sides so no apparent bias. Does make you wonder who makes these appointments though doesn't it. If he had given a penalty against like that incompetent Hooper against Calde, this would be a raging thread.

We had four yellows before Bournemouth even got one, Bournemouth's first coming in the 83rd minute. I think that makes quite a difference. The two fouls that should have resulted in yellows for Bournemouth earlier than that, were Ritchie on Bennett, right on the edge of the area early on. Slide tackle from behind with no attempt to play the ball. The second is Pugh on Teixeira, same thing really, player coming off his feet for a tackle from behind with no hope of getting the ball.

Oh, and not a penalty. We had the chances once play was allowed to continue, we just did not take them, I'm with Acker 79 on this one.

 

[JCL - the new kid in town]

Not sure this is the done thing on here, but I am inclined to agree with you, to a certain extent.

I think by the letter of the law it probably was a penalty as Dunk does touch him and he is between Dunk and the ball. However Dunk's slide was never going to make contact with him and was quite a logical thing to do as it looked like he was about to shoot with his left. He then completely unnaturally drops his right foot onto Dunk's leg, a fraction later and the foul would probably be ON Dunk for stamping on him.

I thought it was a penalty however wilson did put his foot where dunk was sliding knowing the challenge was coming (or perhaps to defend the ball a bit) and got taken out knowing that he was going away from goal and didn't have the best angle

 

[hans kraay fan club]

I thought it was a penalty however wilson did put his foot where dunk was sliding knowing the challenge was coming (or perhaps to defend the ball a bit) and got taken out knowing that he was going away from goal and didn't have the best angle

I can't believe people are actually humouring the frankly MENTAL suggestion that it was anything other than a clear penalty. It was the penaltiest penalty in the history of penalties.

As you rightly say, Wilson was going away from goal (because of his own poor first touch) so he planted his leg to protect the ball - as any striker should. This meant that the defender could not get to it, and allowed him to turn away and keep the attack alive. Only Dunk, in a crazy decision, felt he still COULD get there. Which was physically impossible. Which was gutting - for us, and for Dunk himself, who has obviously been terrific lately.

 

[JCL - the new kid in town]

So how would you justify a sending-off in law? Denying an obvious goalscoring opportunity? No. Serious foul play or violent conduct? No.
Not condoning what Cook did as it was utterly cynical, but I probably would have done the same had I been in his shoes. But a yellow was as far as the ref could go.

Whilst i agree that a yellow was all the ref could realistically give (assuming CMS wasn't clear to run at goal if he hadn't been taken out - i didn't see it from a different angle) i really hate those sort of absolutely cynical actions as it is total cheating as there is no attempt to play fair.

 

[El Turi]

I am usually quite blinkered when it comes to referees but it was a blatant penalty and Dunk's reaction confirmed this.

Bournemouth could have picked up some more yellows for their typical Eddie Howe rough house tactics but overall I thought the ref wasn't that bad.

 

[JCL - the new kid in town]

I didn't see the push, maybe it was a combination of not being sure it was a severe enough foul, Kaz being able to put in a dangerous cross, and us squandering a couple of chances the ensuing scramble created.



If he blew for a penalty and Kaz had taken a shot and scored, people would be going mad, he had to wait to see an advantage. Good cross came in, danger was still there, eventually Gardner squandered the chance. I think that was decent refereeing, while acknowledging he could have instead given a penalty before waiting to see if Kaz could do anything and it would still be decent refereeing,.

The refs can't win whatever they do sometimes. I remember in the arsenal vs Barcelona champions league final where Barca scored but it was pulled back for the penalty which they missed and if they hadn't gone onto win with late goal (two?) then i imagine the fallout would have been awful. Also there was the Chelsea vs liverpool champions league semi-final (i think) with the contentious goal given but penalty not.

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

I can't believe people are actually humouring the frankly MENTAL suggestion that it was anything other than a clear penalty. It was the penaltiest penalty in the history of penalties.

As you rightly say, Wilson was going away from goal (because of his own poor first touch) so he planted his leg to protect the ball - as any striker should. This meant that the defender could not get to it, and allowed him to turn away and keep the attack alive. Only Dunk, in a crazy decision, felt he still COULD get there. Which was physically impossible. Which was gutting - for us, and for Dunk himself, who has obviously been terrific lately.

If Wilson was going to turn away he is more likely to plant his other (inside) foot. He planted his (outside) foot there anticipating contact. Dunk obliged - but knew he had been done. It was clever play by Wilson - but he knew what he was doing. He played for the penalty - and why not ?

I would have given the Albion a free kick for obstruction. Except that does not seem to be an offence any longer.

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

Slightly blinkered view above ............

 

[kjgood]

When I saw the Lua Lua incident on a replay it looked as though the Bournemouth player had been pushed on to him. It looked like the correct judgement call.

Have to agree with this, if the Referee had stopped the game it would have been for a foul to Bournemouth.