Never a penalty


Status
Not open for further replies.
The only argument in this case is whether Denayer was protecting himself . If you were making this argument then it has some discussion merit.
This is my argument. I'm certain the flight path of the ball is going to his face. Need to see it again really but people are going on like he was square on with his arms out pretending to be a plane. He definitely came in sideways with his leading arm vertical covering his face. It's in where it hit his arm for me. I'm sure it was just above the armpit and no penalty. if it's getting close to his elbow it wouldn't be hitting his face but probably going to row z. The shot to contact was only about a meter and a half, so the angle of trajectory matters.

Also the ref didn't give it. The linesman gave it. So need to see what view he had.

Important thing to remember is the linesman doesn't get to analyse, he has a second to make the decision, so if it shouldn't have been a pen, it's just bad luck, not the injustice some will look for. The other two goals were gifted and renders this argument a matter of curiosity and no more.

Didn't fancy it then? Fair enough :lol:
 
Not been battered at all. The rules are clearly on my side. The analogy is perfectly fair given that you seem to be saying that we just ignore the rules and let refs interpret them whichever way they choose.
You can talk about directives till you are blue in the face the written rule which says handball has to deliberate has never been altered.

What astonishes me most about it all is this is that about 95% of people across the country will have accepted that as a penalty without a seconds thought. A small percentage of people would have queried it feeling that Denayer was protecting his face and had no option but to raise his hands.

Then there's you - the only person in the United Kingdom clutching your rule book and claiming it wasn't a penalty because it doesn't specifically say in the rules that 'making yourself bigger' is deemed deliberate by referees. I cant believe there's any match goer above the age of 6 years old that doesn't believe this to be the case. I've quoted David Ellary and Graham Poll saying so and could quote another dozen refs if you wish. Why would they say that? why does everyone else know that apart from you? Would you have actually known that if SAFC had been the beneficiaries of the decision? I suspect you would have done.
 
What astonishes me most about it all is this is that about 95% of people across the country will have accepted that as a penalty without a seconds thought. A small percentage of people would have queried it feeling that Denayer was protecting his face and had no option but to raise his hands.

Then there's you - the only person in the United Kingdom clutching your rule book and claiming it wasn't a penalty because it doesn't specifically say in the rules that 'making yourself bigger' is deemed deliberate by referees. I cant believe there's any match goer above the age of 6 years old that doesn't believe this to be the case. I've quoted David Ellary and Graham Poll saying so and could quote another dozen refs if you wish. Why would they say that? why does everyone else know that apart from you? Would you have actually known that if SAFC had been the beneficiaries of the decision? I suspect you would have done.

I've moved on, the bloke is clearly a dribbling nutjob.
 
What astonishes me most about it all is this is that about 95% of people across the country will have accepted that as a penalty without a seconds thought. A small percentage of people would have queried it feeling that Denayer was protecting his face and had no option but to raise his hands.

Then there's you - the only person in the United Kingdom clutching your rule book and claiming it wasn't a penalty because it doesn't specifically say in the rules that 'making yourself bigger' is deemed deliberate by referees. I cant believe there's any match goer above the age of 6 years old that doesn't believe this to be the case. I've quoted David Ellary and Graham Poll saying so and could quote another dozen refs if you wish. Why would they say that? why does everyone else know that apart from you? Would you have actually known that if SAFC had been the beneficiaries of the decision? I suspect you would have done.


That's easy to answer. It is because everyone watches sky and this interpretation of the law is widely discussed. But it doesn't change the fact that it is an interpretation and not the actual rule.

As I said before I have shown you the rule and there is nothing written down to back your view.

I've moved on, the bloke is clearly a dribbling nutjob.


Its not me who doesn't know the rules.
 
Last edited:
Tbf to @wicketkeeper he probably has a point about the rules, however the rules are outdated and most people on here know that and agree it was a pen and would be given 90% of times in this day and age,so the common sense approach is that a pen should have been given.

Wicketkeeper's interpretation of the rules would mean that a handball is rarely, if ever, given. Nobody deliberately intends to handball it but for extreme circumstances. You'd think this would set alarm bells ringing for him, but apparently not.

What astonishes me most about it all is this is that about 95% of people across the country will have accepted that as a penalty without a seconds thought. A small percentage of people would have queried it feeling that Denayer was protecting his face and had no option but to raise his hands.

Then there's you - the only person in the United Kingdom clutching your rule book and claiming it wasn't a penalty because it doesn't specifically say in the rules that 'making yourself bigger' is deemed deliberate by referees. I cant believe there's any match goer above the age of 6 years old that doesn't believe this to be the case. I've quoted David Ellary and Graham Poll saying so and could quote another dozen refs if you wish. Why would they say that? why does everyone else know that apart from you? Would you have actually known that if SAFC had been the beneficiaries of the decision? I suspect you would have done.

Find me a rule which specifically states that drop kicking an opposition fan is a red card offence.

Cantona was robbed.
 
Last edited:
Did it hit him in the armpit?
Yeah I thought it did.

Either way, he gave the ref/the linesman a decision to make though so can't really complain that one of them thought it was a pen as it could have easily been avoided by just keeping his arms down.

And to the OP, it WAS a penalty as the ref gave it, end of.
 
Yeah I thought it did.

Either way, he gave the ref/the linesman a decision to make though so can't really complain that one of them thought it was a pen as it could have easily been avoided by just keeping his arms down.

And to the OP, it WAS a penalty as the ref gave it, end of.


I think the OP was meaning did you think it was a penalty, it was a penalty because it was given. Doesnt mean it was the correct deciscon

Amazing how our players got booked, and not awarded fouls with the lack of interaction from the linesman, we were still shit
 
Was a deliberate handball and therefore a penalty no matter how you look at it. If he's putting his hands up to make himself bigger then he's intending to block it with his hand. If he's putting his hand up to protect his face then he's intending to handle it. Claiming it is accidental would be possible in any situation and a referee could never prove that it was intentional, so they use rules of thumb such as 'unnatural position' to encourage consistency.

Obviously they don't always (and often don't) get it right but Denayer's was one of the most obvious I've seen, even in real time. Notice that when Kone looks to block a cross, he has his hands touching behind his back - that's pretty much standard practice now for defenders. By setting precedents regarding 'unnatural positions' the referees have placed the onus on players to keep their arms from interfering - which makes things clearer and thus fairer.
 
Did it hit him in the armpit?

It wasn't quite that low but I think it would be into his face had he not defended himself. Defo hit his arm though. Looked like it was defence to me, looked like he was skying it anyway. I wouldn't have given it personally.
 
Wicketkeeper's interpretation of the rules would mean that a handball is rarely, if ever, given. Nobody deliberately intends to handball it but for extreme circumstances. You'd think this would set alarm bells ringing for him, but apparently not.



Find me a rule which specifically states that drop kicking an opposition fan is a red card offence.

Cantona was robbed.

Yes exactly!!!
 
I think the OP was meaning did you think it was a penalty, it was a penalty because it was given. Doesnt mean it was the correct deciscon

Amazing how our players got booked, and not awarded fouls with the lack of interaction from the linesman, we were still shit

Yeah I got that, I just meant regardless of what we think, it was given so it doesn't really matter. Rules are rules but it's down to someone's interpretation of them as to whether they are applied or not and in this case it was deemed to be a penalty.

I can see why it was given and unfortunately for us I think they are correct from what they saw. The rest of the game was more disappointing for me as we could have done something about it but just caved in.
 
This is my argument. I'm certain the flight path of the ball is going to his face. Need to see it again really but people are going on like he was square on with his arms out pretending to be a plane. He definitely came in sideways with his leading arm vertical covering his face. It's in where it hit his arm for me. I'm sure it was just above the armpit and no penalty. if it's getting close to his elbow it wouldn't be hitting his face but probably going to row z. The shot to contact was only about a meter and a half, so the angle of trajectory matters.

Also the ref didn't give it. The linesman gave it. So need to see what view he had.

Important thing to remember is the linesman doesn't get to analyse, he has a second to make the decision, so if it shouldn't have been a pen, it's just bad luck, not the injustice some will look for. The other two goals were gifted and renders this argument a matter of curiosity and no more.
Logon or register to see this image

If you have a VPN http://www.nbcsports.com/video/sport/soccer

All those saying upper arm and hand need their eyes checking. Harsh decicion imo.

Upper arm, actually.

Not even close to upper arm. ^^
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Always a advantage when you freeze frame it,not sure when refs and linesman get to see them like,think fair to say when you stick your arm up like that and the ball goes onto that part a pen will be given majority of times.

Aye, I acknowledged in the quotes the officials only have a second to make a decision(mind you i managed fine on a poor stream). Not remotely stonewall though, open to interpretation leaning towards no penalty imo.
 
I think it's all down to interpretation by the official. We are told that if it's not intentional then, it's not a pelanty and, so we accept this in good faith. Then a referee gives a penalty in a situation like today ( which, im pretty sure Denayer never meant to block with the underside of his arm) and all of a sudden fans are up in arms. There is just no consistency and, as alluded to earlier, It's down to interpretation.
I wasn't up in arms, that was Deneyar
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top