Penalties!!!!

Whose arm is that on the keepers shoulder ? Foul on the keeper - no denying it.

 

yeah he looks like he's pushing the keeper, just like the ref said.... :|

 

1. The referee should in all cases where there is any doubt (which there was here as he he apologised to Sven after the match) consult the linesman. The linesman saw no infringement at all. Nuff said.

2. Ricardo ran into Terry AFTER Terry had started to rise for the ball.

3. Terry at no point had any intention of inmpeding the keeper. For it to be a foul he has to be clearly preventing the keeper from movement.

How is he doing this when he never looks at anything but the ball ?

It was a poor decision, no argument.

He wasnt in a position to see the incident clearly and made an ill informed and rash judgement.

Referee School 101. ALWAYS PUT YOURSELF IN A POSITION TO SEE THE FLOW OF PLAY CLEARLY.
Edited by: superden

 

His arm isn't holding the keeper down tho, the keeper is jumping up into his arm which was already there. And since shen has obstruction ever eben awarded anyway, the ref never gives fouls for it, despite some blatant cases of it. And as b'locks said, ref said it was for a push not obstruction.

 

1) Is the linesman supposed to have x-ray vision ? - he is on the same side as the photo has been taken from - is he supposed to have a better view through 2 English players ? NO

2/3) Terry's feet are on the ground, he is obstructing the keeper.

When did the ref apologise to Ericcson ? Not what he said on the R5live interview I heard tonight. Sven said that he had gone to speak with the ref to let him know how he felt. He would not divulge what the ref said in reply.

The Keepers feet never left the ground - because he was being held down.
Edited by: mincecfc2

 

nuff said.

 

B*llocks.

I`ve heard at least 5 independent referees today say unequivocably that it was a poor and, more importantly, WRONG decision.

I think referees are more qualified to comment than you or I.

 

nuff said f**k all. Going to start the anti-Scotland stuff again ?

Who were these five referees ? Got a link ?

 

Ffs, are you lot still going on

I'll ask again; if the goal was disallowed because of obstruction, why didn't Beckham get a free kick shortly after when the defender physically kept him off the ball yet made no effort to play it? The referee was inconsistent. I put it to you that the Scots are displaying more bias here than the English.

 

youll find that the free kick was given before the Campbell incident so no more can be said. watch it closely. Apparently the whistle went before Campbell went up for the header. (It took me 30min to type that as I am f**ked listening to Grooverider!!)

 

The free kick was given before the Campbell incident?

 

Oh for f*cks sake. Did I say anything anti Scottish ?

No.

Believe it or not, this actually has nothing to do with Scotland

I cant provide a link to the referees. As I said, quite clearly, I HEARD them. On the radio and on television.

I`m not in the habit of lying, so I suggest you give up inferring that I am.

Cheers
Edited by: superden

 

it bobbled

 

The referee had to make a decision on the spot and it does look if he was wrong but after two days everyone else is still arguing over it.
A refs job is a thankless one and as said before if the decision was in Englands favour then there would be no complaints.
To err is to be human and it is part of the game.
But as for Beckhams penalty that was incompetence and considering the money he gets you would think he would have done better.

 

I agree in part.

However they showed a replay on TV and you can clearly see that when he places his body weight on his left foot to swing for the ball, the ground moves away from him on the spot and the ball is already moving to the right before he strikes it.

This made the ball catch the outside edge of his boot and consequently it went high and right. Had the ground not been such a f*cking embarrasment and had UEFA done something about it earlier (meaning actually remedied the problem, not just fill the void with sand) the ball would have gone into the top right corner as Beckham intended.

It was a p*ss poor patch of earth that had been pointed out a day previously and nothing satisfactory was done about it.

However, the other players had no problems really. Its just the way Beckham takes penalties means that his full weight was pressed down in such a way that the poor ground was disturbed.

Such is life.

 

tbh, considering his supposed level of professionalism, Beckham should have checked the spot and stamped it flat before he took the penalty...imo

 

The other players had no problems because they saw what happened to Beckham, who you'll remember, went first. You can't honestly be complaining about Beckham's dead ball technique - he is one of the best in the world from a dead ball. And that's admitted by a Scotsman too !

 

I wasnt complaining about his dead ball technique !

I couldnt agree more, hes one of the best

I was just saying that his poor penalty kick was due to the ground, not him

 

Stopped the dope in Oct 2003

I know the ball moved, you could tell instantly by Beckham's reaction that there was a problem. You're bound to have seen the spot when Christiano Ronaldo did his "pogo" on it. Bonkers, never seen the likes.