| Phil - Town in 5 confirms it was a penalty.... 19:54 - Apr 23 with 771 views | unstableblue |
.. as per McKenna's contention.. Posh player definitely takes out Hirst ankles and no contact with ball
So not the press box view you shared that it wasn't a penalty
Having said that it would have been very hard for the ref to call, given speed and distance away
But of course you must now ATONE! shame shame shame shame [Post edited 23 Apr 2023 20:10]
|  |
| |  |
| Phil - Town in 5 confirms it was a penalty.... on 20:28 - Apr 23 with 620 views | HighgateBlue |
Town in 5 indeed confirms that the Posh player takes out at least one of Hirst's ankles, and makes no contact with the ball. Most of us would certainly view that as a penalty.
But criticising Phil is much graver than criticising the ref, so you're going to need to work for this one. Was it a direct free kick offence under Law 12, and if so, why? :) |  | | |
| Phil - Town in 5 confirms it was a penalty.... on 20:31 - Apr 23 with 567 views | DJR |
| Phil - Town in 5 confirms it was a penalty.... on 20:28 - Apr 23 by HighgateBlue |
Town in 5 indeed confirms that the Posh player takes out at least one of Hirst's ankles, and makes no contact with the ball. Most of us would certainly view that as a penalty.
But criticising Phil is much graver than criticising the ref, so you're going to need to work for this one. Was it a direct free kick offence under Law 12, and if so, why? :) |
Phil is never wrong. |  | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
