| I thought RoI were a bit hard done by yesterday. 09:39 - Nov 18 with 2597 views | GeoffSentence |
I think that should have been a penalty when Sam was brought down by Walker, regardless of Lee Dixon(?) saying Walker tripped and it was an accident, SS was in with a chance when he was taken down. International refs must be under the same instruction not to give Town players penalties.
The second yellow card was pretty harsh too, yes it was a penalty, but Scales made a genuine challenge for the ball, seems tough for him to go under those circumstances.
|  |
| |  |
| I thought RoI were a bit hard done by yesterday. on 09:50 - Nov 18 with 2534 views | Sharkey |
I think calling Szmodics Sam is a bit like calling Greaves Jim, or Moore Bob. [Post edited 18 Nov 2024 9:52]
|  | | |
| I thought RoI were a bit hard done by yesterday. on 10:04 - Nov 18 with 2458 views | LeoMuff |
I also thought it was a pen and a harsh yellow. |  |
| |
| I thought RoI were a bit hard done by yesterday. on 10:09 - Nov 18 with 2443 views | jayessess |
I agree. Thought England were fortunate to get away with Walker falling on Szmodics and Guehi got away with an obvious shirt pull before that.
The yellow card was unnecessary in the same way Kalvin Phillips' second yellow against Leicester was. I think it's increasingly unclear what yellow cards are actually for, to be honest.
For me, the purpose of a yellow card should be to discourage actions that aren't adequately punished by a foul. If you cynically stop a team from counter-attacking or prevent a player from running into a good attacking position, basically where the fouling team is in a better situation after giving away the free kick than they were in open play, that's worth a yellow. It requires additional punishment.
If you hit someone hard or late then and you've potentially inflicted some modest harm on the other player, again, additional punishment required so players aren't constantly looking to hurt each other.
What about the Scales' penalty last night required further punishment? It's accidental, it wasn't in any way dangerous and the penalty is a better situation than the open play shooting chance.
Similarly Phillips' foul is in the opposition penalty box, there's no counter-attack on and it's not heavy or dangerous. Winning the free kick was beneficial for Leicester. What about it required further punishment? [Post edited 18 Nov 2024 10:11]
|  |
| |
| I thought RoI were a bit hard done by yesterday. on 10:12 - Nov 18 with 2407 views | Marshalls_Mullet |
I agreed with the ref on both.
Wouldnt have been too fussed if the yellow wasnt given, but can equally understand why it was. |  |
| |
| I thought RoI were a bit hard done by yesterday. on 11:34 - Nov 18 with 2278 views | DanTheMan |
I thought he got the penalty decision right. Walker dives to head the ball back to the keeper successfully, and then Szmodics gets tripped. I don't see that as much different to a tackle getting the ball and then taking the man afterwards. |  |
| |
| I thought RoI were a bit hard done by yesterday. on 11:44 - Nov 18 with 2215 views | jayessess |
| I thought RoI were a bit hard done by yesterday. on 11:34 - Nov 18 by DanTheMan |
I thought he got the penalty decision right. Walker dives to head the ball back to the keeper successfully, and then Szmodics gets tripped. I don't see that as much different to a tackle getting the ball and then taking the man afterwards. |
Not sure it was successful, Szmodics was going to catch up to the ball wasn't he? | |
| |
| I thought RoI were a bit hard done by yesterday. on 11:53 - Nov 18 with 2183 views | DanTheMan |
| I thought RoI were a bit hard done by yesterday. on 11:44 - Nov 18 by jayessess |
Not sure it was successful, Szmodics was going to catch up to the ball wasn't he? |
Would that matter? I'm just thinking if this is a standard tackle where he gets the ball just about and pushes it further but then takes out the man who would have still been able to get the ball, would that be a foul? Or perhaps more simply, if it was his foot rather than his head, would it have been a foul? I'd have thought not but happy to be corrected. | |
| |
| I thought RoI were a bit hard done by yesterday. on 11:54 - Nov 18 with 2175 views | Kievthegreat |
The penalty on Sammie was an interesting one TBH. Can see arguments both ways.
As for the 2nd yellow, I think it's either a 2nd yellow or straight red. Bellingham is 10 yards out and gets taken out. While I think it's 100% unintentional, it denies a clear goalscoring opportunity so should be appropriately punished. I think it's right that he ends up sent off. |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| I thought RoI were a bit hard done by yesterday. on 12:21 - Nov 18 with 2082 views | SuperKieranMcKenna |
| I thought RoI were a bit hard done by yesterday. on 09:50 - Nov 18 by Sharkey |
I think calling Szmodics Sam is a bit like calling Greaves Jim, or Moore Bob. [Post edited 18 Nov 2024 9:52]
|
Sounds weird to me too! Maybe it’s his ‘grown up’ name - like how Andy Cole preferred Andrew as he got older (unless I’ve misremembered that!) |  | | |
| I thought RoI were a bit hard done by yesterday. on 13:30 - Nov 18 with 1949 views | jayessess |
| I thought RoI were a bit hard done by yesterday. on 11:54 - Nov 18 by Kievthegreat |
The penalty on Sammie was an interesting one TBH. Can see arguments both ways.
As for the 2nd yellow, I think it's either a 2nd yellow or straight red. Bellingham is 10 yards out and gets taken out. While I think it's 100% unintentional, it denies a clear goalscoring opportunity so should be appropriately punished. I think it's right that he ends up sent off. |
The punishment for the DOGSO is the penalty, isn't it?
If Scales doesn't catch him Bellingham has a good shooting opportunity, but in open play with his weaker foot plus defender and goalkeeper closing in. It's an excellent chance but it's not a better chance than a penalty is. | |
| |
| I thought RoI were a bit hard done by yesterday. on 13:54 - Nov 18 with 1898 views | ronnyd |
Caught his ankle so a foul inside the box so def. a pen,end of! | | | |
| I thought RoI were a bit hard done by yesterday. on 14:14 - Nov 18 with 1802 views | Kievthegreat |
| I thought RoI were a bit hard done by yesterday. on 13:30 - Nov 18 by jayessess |
The punishment for the DOGSO is the penalty, isn't it?
If Scales doesn't catch him Bellingham has a good shooting opportunity, but in open play with his weaker foot plus defender and goalkeeper closing in. It's an excellent chance but it's not a better chance than a penalty is. |
"The punishment for the DOGSO is the penalty, isn't it?"
No, it is not. The penalty is awarded for a foul in the box. If that foul was on the edge of the box with Bellingham's back to goal and defenders covering. It's still a penalty.
Cards are the only thing that can punish the DOGSO in this case. | | | |
| I thought RoI were a bit hard done by yesterday. on 14:16 - Nov 18 with 1786 views | BloomBlue |
Never a pen, Walker got the ball and Szmodics fell over him.
For the England pen thought Scales was lucky it wasn't a straight red, last man.
ROI we're no better than a pub team yesterday. Set out for a 0-0 and hopeful of getting a lucky deadball goal. But they don't have the qualities to play that game. Got everything they deserved. |  | | |
| I thought RoI were a bit hard done by yesterday. on 16:34 - Nov 18 with 1599 views | LeoMuff |
| I thought RoI were a bit hard done by yesterday. on 14:16 - Nov 18 by BloomBlue |
Never a pen, Walker got the ball and Szmodics fell over him.
For the England pen thought Scales was lucky it wasn't a straight red, last man.
ROI we're no better than a pub team yesterday. Set out for a 0-0 and hopeful of getting a lucky deadball goal. But they don't have the qualities to play that game. Got everything they deserved. |
How did you make out Sammy fell over him ? He was in front of Walker who tried and maybe failed to make contact to head the ball back to the keeper. In the process fell over onto Sammies leg tripping him when he would be in on goal.
Also the pen, Bellingham contact was minimal it wouldn’t have brought him down if he needed to stay on his feet, you can clearly see the split second process - yes contact, go down. A pen yes, but there was also a defender on the cover who may have got across, to me why ruin the game with a second yellow, it wasn’t deliberate just Bellingham too quick, not dangerous a pen should be enough. | |
| |
| I thought RoI were a bit hard done by yesterday. on 16:41 - Nov 18 with 1590 views | _clive_baker_ |
I don't think they were particularly hard done by on the Bellingham penalty, it looked stone wall and a certain yellow. Not sure if there was anything in the Szmodics incident with Walker as the replay wasn't great.
It was complete 1 way traffic pretty much from the 1st whistle to the last though. I thought ROI were properly sh1t tbh, even before the red. A complete mismatch by way of quality, which wasn't a great surprise. Can't say I've seen much of them for a few years, but that has to be one of the least inspiring ROI sides I've witnessed. |  | | |
| I thought RoI were a bit hard done by yesterday. on 16:50 - Nov 18 with 1572 views | GeoffSentence |
| I thought RoI were a bit hard done by yesterday. on 11:34 - Nov 18 by DanTheMan |
I thought he got the penalty decision right. Walker dives to head the ball back to the keeper successfully, and then Szmodics gets tripped. I don't see that as much different to a tackle getting the ball and then taking the man afterwards. |
Disagree on that. I thought it was a clear penalty. I don't think Walker got anything of the ball, if he did it was only the faintest touch and SS was still in with a chance, or would have been if he hadnt been brought down. | |
| |
| I thought RoI were a bit hard done by yesterday. on 19:16 - Nov 18 with 1451 views | jayessess |
| I thought RoI were a bit hard done by yesterday. on 14:14 - Nov 18 by Kievthegreat |
"The punishment for the DOGSO is the penalty, isn't it?"
No, it is not. The penalty is awarded for a foul in the box. If that foul was on the edge of the box with Bellingham's back to goal and defenders covering. It's still a penalty.
Cards are the only thing that can punish the DOGSO in this case. |
But that's why they changed the rule on DOGSOs in the penalty area - the open play chance has been substituted for a better chance from the penalty spot, so there's no need for additional punishment. Just because some pens are a disproportionate punishment doesn't change that. | |
| |
| I thought RoI were a bit hard done by yesterday. on 20:46 - Nov 18 with 1377 views | badadski |
| I thought RoI were a bit hard done by yesterday. on 19:16 - Nov 18 by jayessess |
But that's why they changed the rule on DOGSOs in the penalty area - the open play chance has been substituted for a better chance from the penalty spot, so there's no need for additional punishment. Just because some pens are a disproportionate punishment doesn't change that. |
Scales was a deffo yellow card, clear foul in the box denying chance to shoot so rightfully a pen and 2nd yellow
Sammy dived- little contact outside, walker got to the ball with his head and was on his way down - sammy had to literally stop in his stride, stick his trailing leg way back and even then barely got a scrape by which time he was on the floor - no pen. | | | |
| I thought RoI were a bit hard done by yesterday. on 01:46 - Nov 19 with 1281 views | Eireannach_gorm |
| I thought RoI were a bit hard done by yesterday. on 14:16 - Nov 18 by BloomBlue |
Never a pen, Walker got the ball and Szmodics fell over him.
For the England pen thought Scales was lucky it wasn't a straight red, last man.
ROI we're no better than a pub team yesterday. Set out for a 0-0 and hopeful of getting a lucky deadball goal. But they don't have the qualities to play that game. Got everything they deserved. |
The incident with Szmodics could gone either way but this one was a definite penalty.
From behind it looks innocuous but from goalside it is pretty obvious
https://www.reddit.com/r/soccer/comments/1gtix44/england_0_0_ireland_evan_fergus |  | | |
| I thought RoI were a bit hard done by yesterday. on 02:54 - Nov 19 with 1245 views | acj |
Thought the ref got the Scales second yellow absolutely correct. Denied a clear scoring opportunity but made an honest attempt to play the ball, so yellow rather than red as a penalty was given.
His first yellow was absolutely brainless kicking the ball away, would be livid with that if he was English. |  |
| |
| I thought RoI were a bit hard done by yesterday. on 07:57 - Nov 19 with 1131 views | DanTheMan |
Yeah, I'd be annoyed at that one as well.
On the Walker one I thought he clearly headed the ball on the replay so think it's the right decision. | |
| |
| I thought RoI were a bit hard done by yesterday. on 08:00 - Nov 19 with 1120 views | Kievthegreat |
| I thought RoI were a bit hard done by yesterday. on 19:16 - Nov 18 by jayessess |
But that's why they changed the rule on DOGSOs in the penalty area - the open play chance has been substituted for a better chance from the penalty spot, so there's no need for additional punishment. Just because some pens are a disproportionate punishment doesn't change that. |
The rule change makes it 100% clear that denying a goalscoring opportunity in the box is at minimum a booking. The Decision the ref made is 100% correct.
"Denying a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity (DOGSO)
Where a player commits an offence against an opponent within their own penalty area which denies an opponent an obvious goal-scoring opportunity and the referee awards a penalty kick, the offender is cautioned if the offence was an attempt to play the ball or a challenge for the ball; in all other circumstances (e.g. holding, pulling, pushing, no possibility to play the ball etc.), the offending player must be sent off."
https://www.theifab.com/laws/latest/fouls-and-misconduct/#disciplinary-action
This means I was incorrect in saying it could have been a red, because Scales is clearly making an attempt for the ball, i.e no basis for additional punishment. However the correct punishment for Scales is still to receive a booking. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
