| What was Goodman on? 13:45 - Apr 19 with 1753 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
How is a foul in the area not a penalty just because he doesn't think he would have got to the ball? |  |
| |  |
| What was Goodman on? on 14:47 - Apr 19 with 315 views | Len_Brennan |
| What was Goodman on? on 14:31 - Apr 19 by Sarge |
Because it was the lightest of contact and contact isn’t always a foul. Hirst did well to buy it, he was never getting anywhere near the cross and managed to make a slight touch look more significant. Probably slightly more of a penalty than the one vs Norwich but that’s not saying much. |
It wasn't "the lightest of contact", although at least you are accepting that there was contact on the forward in the box.
The argument from Goodman & co. is that Hirst wasn't getting there and that should rule it out of being a penalty, which of course is nonsense.
Hirst was fouled, therefore it is a penalty, even though he did make the most of it with how he went down. |  |
| |
| What was Goodman on? on 14:52 - Apr 19 with 299 views | Chrisd |
I love these type of threads because if we have a decision go against us like that imagine the amount of moaning on here? It would be ridiculous. We can be philosophical and rational about it as it’s gone in our favour, I’ll just wait until one of our defenders does something similar and bring this post back up when people are saying it’s a clear penalty. Don’t get me wrong, I’m so grateful he gave it, but that contact happens all the time and nothing is given. It was soft, but I’ll take it! | |
| |
| What was Goodman on? on 14:59 - Apr 19 with 285 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
| What was Goodman on? on 14:52 - Apr 19 by Chrisd |
I love these type of threads because if we have a decision go against us like that imagine the amount of moaning on here? It would be ridiculous. We can be philosophical and rational about it as it’s gone in our favour, I’ll just wait until one of our defenders does something similar and bring this post back up when people are saying it’s a clear penalty. Don’t get me wrong, I’m so grateful he gave it, but that contact happens all the time and nothing is given. It was soft, but I’ll take it! |
As already stated, I would be furious with the defender. Why would the defender be holding the striker back in that position? There is clear footage of the defender doing so. | |
| |
| What was Goodman on? on 15:03 - Apr 19 with 267 views | Chrisd |
| What was Goodman on? on 14:59 - Apr 19 by Nthsuffolkblue |
As already stated, I would be furious with the defender. Why would the defender be holding the striker back in that position? There is clear footage of the defender doing so. |
There is but it happens all the time. I’ve watched it back and it’s still soft for me, you think differently and that’s fine, it’s all about opinions. One thing we can both agree on was we are both thankful it was given. | |
| |
| What was Goodman on? on 15:06 - Apr 19 with 259 views | bournemouthblue |
Goodman talks so much nonsense, he gave no credit to Azon for the smart backheel which sets up the goal |  |
| |
| What was Goodman on? on 15:10 - Apr 19 with 237 views | StNeotsBlue |
I was in a busy pub full of neutrals, other than me and one other Town fan, and the general consensus was it was soft but would probably get given in the Prem. |  | | |
| What was Goodman on? on 15:15 - Apr 19 with 211 views | monty_radio |
| What was Goodman on? on 14:31 - Apr 19 by Sarge |
Because it was the lightest of contact and contact isn’t always a foul. Hirst did well to buy it, he was never getting anywhere near the cross and managed to make a slight touch look more significant. Probably slightly more of a penalty than the one vs Norwich but that’s not saying much. |
As Hirst himself said when asked about it afterwards - "we'll never know whether I would have reached it since I was pulled back".
These rugged ex-defender pundits, even such as our own beloved Chambo, often take the view that it's the degree of holding etc that is significant whereas the rules are silent about that. Meanwhile, because referees often let fouls go while their VAR colleagues also buy into this "matter of degree" interpretation (length of time of the hold etc) these incidents automatically become a matter of personal preference, or in the case of fans, personal stake rather than the application of a rule. Hirst was fouled and the ref chose not to pretend he hadn't seen it. | |
| |
| What was Goodman on? on 15:18 - Apr 19 with 204 views | Radlett_blue |
| What was Goodman on? on 15:15 - Apr 19 by monty_radio |
As Hirst himself said when asked about it afterwards - "we'll never know whether I would have reached it since I was pulled back".
These rugged ex-defender pundits, even such as our own beloved Chambo, often take the view that it's the degree of holding etc that is significant whereas the rules are silent about that. Meanwhile, because referees often let fouls go while their VAR colleagues also buy into this "matter of degree" interpretation (length of time of the hold etc) these incidents automatically become a matter of personal preference, or in the case of fans, personal stake rather than the application of a rule. Hirst was fouled and the ref chose not to pretend he hadn't seen it. |
absolutely, most ex-players know that refs usually don't give penalty kicks for offences like that, hence you are "entitled" to do a bit of holding. He was pointing out the way things usually are, not the laws. |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| What was Goodman on? on 15:19 - Apr 19 with 197 views | GeoffSentence |
Clear penalty for me. He was prevented from getting to the ball by the wrestling.
As for 'boros fans singing 'you're not fit to referee' they'd sht the bed if they had some of the refs we've had. |  |
| |
| What was Goodman on? on 15:20 - Apr 19 with 191 views | Blue_In_Boston |
| What was Goodman on? on 14:20 - Apr 19 by farkenhell |
For me, the acid test is whether that would have been given as a foul outside the penalty area. I think it would and the defending side would have had little cause for complaint. On that basis, as the foul was inside the area, it was clearly a penalty. |
These days they do talk about a higher bar, or threshold for contact in the area. Basically who knows on holding these days, the referees have created a holy mess when you look what happens on every corner. | | | |
| What was Goodman on? on 15:23 - Apr 19 with 176 views | Blue_In_Boston |
| What was Goodman on? on 14:34 - Apr 19 by Ryorry |
Not just that, the way he banged on about “the 3 soft/non penalties that ITFC have been given in the last few games” without ever mentioning the stonewall ones we were denied, or the soft ones awarded to our opponents, shows his clear bias and lack of professionalism. |
Begrudgingly, and to be fair to him, he did mention those decisions about a minute after saying that. | | | |
| What was Goodman on? on 15:31 - Apr 19 with 155 views | armchaircritic59 |
Very interesting divide here. The great majority of the posters on the actual site think it wasn't a penalty ( including me ), the great majority in here, think it was! Whatever, the officials thought it was, and I guess that's the only thing that matters. JC now has a record of 14/14 converted penalties. |  | | |
| What was Goodman on? on 16:26 - Apr 19 with 91 views | Len_Brennan |
| What was Goodman on? on 15:31 - Apr 19 by armchaircritic59 |
Very interesting divide here. The great majority of the posters on the actual site think it wasn't a penalty ( including me ), the great majority in here, think it was! Whatever, the officials thought it was, and I guess that's the only thing that matters. JC now has a record of 14/14 converted penalties. |
If we had VAR in the Championship, do you think they would have contacted the referee about a clear & obvious error on that call? | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
