THAT Penalty

[Tony Meolas Loan Spell]

The fact that Eddie Howe said it was a mistake and the fact that the Bmuff players looked set to take a corner to me means its a mistake.

 

[drew]

I understand the rule, I'm just saying that if I were the Bournemouth player and I was on the right hand side of the 6 yard box, to me as a player, that's a clear goal-scoring-opportunity.
Nevertheless, as stated before, the tackle was fine, I just find the Ref's rules a bit odd. It's either a Pen and Red or now't.

Nice attempt!!! Fact is he was not about to shoot with his left foot at the point you have drawn a nice red line. He was planting his foot to take another stride which would in effect be two because he wouldn't be able to shoot with his right foot next so would actually be closer to the goal line before he could cross the ball with his left. That aside, I don't think anyone would say that was an obvious goal scoring opportunity. It could have been a chance and resulted in a shot at goal but that doesn't automatically make it fall within the criteria virtually everyone accepts as a clear goalscoring opportunity. He was clear on goal and Calde was goal side of him.

 

[Fungus]

In 2005 FIFA changed the rules removing the words "tackle from behind" to "A tackle, which endangers the safety of an opponent, must be sanctioned as serious foul play".

Whether or not the ball is touched is irrelevant - if the referee considers the manner of the tackle or the position from which it was made endangered the safety of the Bournemouth player then he was quite entitled to award a penalty.

The argument therefore is not whether or not the ball was touched but should be as to whether or not the manner of the tackle endangered the opponent - there is no doubt that contact between the players was inevitable once the tackle was made but was that contact likely to endanger the Bournemouth player? - I don't think so but the referee may well have had a different opinion.

Agreed. I've watched the video several times, and have therefore only seen it from the one TV angle, but on that basis I have to agree. I know people are upset, but I can't see that the referee has done anything controversial. It doesn't matter that Calde "got the ball" - it looked like a reckless tackle, and inevitable that he would take the player out. The only defence would be that the Bmuff player was looking for it / diving, but it's not clear from the video.

 

[sydney]

er....did he consult the lino...? he dropped a bollock , if kaz's effort goesin it's a goal of the season contender...same old story , we need to get the ball in the back of the effing net.

 

[Seagull on the wing]

Ridiculous decision. It's either a corner to Bournemouth OR a penalty to Bournemouth with a red card for Calderon.

'A player who commits a foul or handling offence that denies an obvious goal-scoring opportunity should be sent off for serious foul play. These decisions were incorporated in the laws in 1997.'

It was quite clearly a fair tackle, however from the Ref's point of view at that moment,it was a foul, so why didn't he show Calderon a red card based on the above rule.

Summed up nicely...it was either a foul...in which a card should've been given...or not a foul and no pen...it seems that Bournemouth and dodgy p0ens is a cross we have to bear...

 

[brightonrock]

Agreed. I've watched the video several times, and have therefore only seen it from the one TV angle, but on that basis I have to agree. I know people are upset, but I can't see that the referee has done anything controversial. It doesn't matter that Calde "got the ball" - it looked like a reckless tackle, and inevitable that he would take the player out. The only defence would be that the Bmuff player was looking for it / diving, but it's not clear from the video.

Woah, woah. It's not a non-contact sport ffs. The definition of reckless is not "the attacker might fall over a bit and get a wet knee". Reckless is about endangering a player's safety. He came in from the side (not from behind). He did not tackle with excessive force. He didn't leave the ground, go in over the ball or lunge two-footed. He cleanly won the ball, and the player tripped over Calde's legs in the follow through. The decision was a joke. There is no definition (unless by the laws of netball) by which that tackle can be considered 'reckless'. It was PERFECTLY timed.

 

[Buffalo Seagull]

The fact that Eddie Howe said it was a mistake and the fact that the Bmuff players looked set to take a corner to me means its a mistake.

Although Howe also said that he had the same angle as the ref, and when he saw it live he initially thought it was a penalty.

 

[um bongo molongo]

That there's anyone defending that decision proves you can find someone on NSC to argue anything! Even their bench shook their heads in disbelief and their manager has since said he didn't think it was a pen! What's next? "yes, it was raining heavily but it wasn't wet...", "Billy Davies isn't an obnoxious ****", "Gus is a humble man without a trace of ego"