Only person who thinks the ref did well on the pen?

[JH]

Again, not quite true, if it's a continuous foul into the box, you still give the penalty. It's in the laws somewhere.

 

Really? I was always under the impression that it was where the foul originally took place. Mind you, it's been a few years since I went through the laws of the game...

[Slim]

Again, not quite true, if it's a continuous foul into the box, you still give the penalty.  It's in the laws somewhere.

 

Really? I was always under the impression that it was where the foul originally took place. Mind you, it's been a few years since I went through the laws of the game...

 

Be pointless becasue if they play advantage just wipe him out in the box

[Thomson Mouse]

We shouldn't be surprised, Mike Dean is always like this, he's one of those refs who thinks he's bigger than the game.

 

Heskey was offside.

 

Bassong committed one foul - tugging at his shirt way outside the box.

 

Heskey then fouled Bassong.

 

Heskey then fell over in the box.

 

There was another player covering, so Bassong wan't the last man, nor was the original foul or the 'foul' in the box a " clear goalscoring opportunity".

 

Kirkland's fouls on Carroll was worse and WAS a foul.

 

Why no red card?

 

Why was Carroll booked for diving in the 83rd minute, when he was clearly fouled? Clear penalty.

 

So yes, you're the only person who thought the ref did well for the penalty.

 

Also, why was Cattermole not sent off for the fould on Beye?

 

Not that any of this hides what was an incredibly poor and disappointing performance by us.

 

Oh and watch the football first highlights, if it's the same ones I watched the commentators were shocking, can anyone tell me who Dean the co-commentator was?

 

[PM]

Again, not quite true, if it's a continuous foul into the box, you still give the penalty.  It's in the laws somewhere.

 

Really? I was always under the impression that it was where the foul originally took place. Mind you, it's been a few years since I went through the laws of the game...

 

Aye it's in the 'advice on application' bit at the back.

 

"If a defender starts holding an attacker outside the penalty area and continues holding him inside the penalty area, the referee must award a penalty kick."

 

Although that does seem to encourage players to just dive when they get into the area.

[bulivye]

Again, not quite true, if it's a continuous foul into the box, you still give the penalty.  It's in the laws somewhere.

 

Really? I was always under the impression that it was where the foul originally took place. Mind you, it's been a few years since I went through the laws of the game...

 

Aye it's in the 'advice on application' bit at the back.

 

"If a defender starts holding an attacker outside the penalty area and continues holding him inside the penalty area, the referee must award a penalty kick."

 

Although that does seem to encourage players to just dive when they get into the area.

 

does it specify how far out?  b/c there was certainly some back & forth ( grabbing/holding by bassong & pushing off by heskey)  that should mean that the continuity of the hold was broken...

[Guest firetotheworks]

Again, not quite true, if it's a continuous foul into the box, you still give the penalty.  It's in the laws somewhere.

 

Really? I was always under the impression that it was where the foul originally took place. Mind you, it's been a few years since I went through the laws of the game...

 

Aye it's in the 'advice on application' bit at the back.

 

"If a defender starts holding an attacker outside the penalty area and continues holding him inside the penalty area, the referee must award a penalty kick."

 

Although that does seem to encourage players to just dive when they get into the area.

 

That rule baffles me. Seems like the type of non-footballing rule that Platini would bring in and Brooking would shake his head at.

[fredbob]

Shouldnt an advantage be played for all shirt tugs, providing the player doesnt go down? Wouldnt that be the consistent thing to do?

[JH]

Again, not quite true, if it's a continuous foul into the box, you still give the penalty.  It's in the laws somewhere.

 

Really? I was always under the impression that it was where the foul originally took place. Mind you, it's been a few years since I went through the laws of the game...

 

Aye it's in the 'advice on application' bit at the back.

 

"If a defender starts holding an attacker outside the penalty area and continues holding him inside the penalty area, the referee must award a penalty kick."

 

Although that does seem to encourage players to just dive when they get into the area.

 

does it specify how far out?  b/c there was certainly some back & forth ( grabbing/holding by bassong & pushing off by heskey)  that should mean that the continuity of the hold was broken...

 

Nah. Only stipulations are it starts outside the penalty area, and finishes inside.

[Guest neesy111]

the only foul happended outside the box anycase, as heskey just fell in the box tbh

[PM]

Are you on another fuckin planet?

 

Yes, play the advantage. But you still pull the play back to where the foul was. So a free kick 30 yards from goal and a booking would have been the correct decision.

 

No you play the advantage, then if they are fouled again give the foul...whats the point of the advantage if the only way you can get that advantage is by scoring?

 

Because it's the law of the game. The original foul is that which counts. Fair enough to Dean, it was probably a red card, but should have been pulled back for a free kick, as it wasn't advantage.

 

Not actually true Jonny, if the advantage gets played and there's another foul in the box you give a penalty.  I haven't seen this one yet though.

 

It wasnt like it was a clip of the heels - advantage - foul - penalty, it was one long hustle and bustle between 2 players in which one went down only when he was in the area.

 

Aye, you're right actually. It could have been construed as one long foul, meaning it was a free kick.

 

Again, not quite true, if it's a continuous foul into the box, you still give the penalty.  It's in the laws somewhere.

 

Still haven't seen this one to comment but by the sound of it he's waited til he's got into the box then thrown himself over in hope.

 

That is exactly what's happened. Was offside to begin with

 

Yep, having just seen it, that's exactly what happened.  If Heskey had actually been fouled in the box the ref would've been well within his rights to give the pen.

 

Having given the pen I think he has to send him off which just adds insult to injury as it's never a red if the original free kick is given.

[M4]

Fucking hell there are some terrible opinions on here today, but this one

 

The whole point is that Heskey DIDN'T BENEFIT FROM THE ADVANTAGE THEN WIN A PENALTY. The last foul made by Bassong was a good ten yards outside the box. I'll just re post what I said on TT:

 

It really wasn't a complicated incident, which is why it was so insane.

 

Linesman was right to flag when he did, and the ref was also correct to let play go on at first. Bassong fouled Heskey once or twice but never even touched him in less than 20 yards from our goal (not in a fouling manner anyway).

 

When play is halted or when Heskey falls, Easy decision for the ref is to bring it back to where the last "foul" was committed (not the first foul) and maybe give a card. NOT wait and see how long Heskey can stay up and then give a foul wherever he gives up and tumbles. Red card was just icing on the shitcake.

[M4]

Again, not quite true, if it's a continuous foul into the box, you still give the penalty.  It's in the laws somewhere.

 

Really? I was always under the impression that it was where the foul originally took place. Mind you, it's been a few years since I went through the laws of the game...

 

Aye it's in the 'advice on application' bit at the back.

 

"If a defender starts holding an attacker outside the penalty area and continues holding him inside the penalty area, the referee must award a penalty kick."

 

Although that does seem to encourage players to just dive when they get into the area.

 

does it specify how far out?  b/c there was certainly some back & forth ( grabbing/holding by bassong & pushing off by heskey)  that should mean that the continuity of the hold was broken...

 

Nah. Only stipulations are it starts outside the penalty area, and finishes inside.

 

Exactly, when it "continues inside" the area. Therefore if a play is brought back after a fruitless advantage, the last place where a "foul" was committed was inside the box, hence pen.

 

Basically the complete opposite from what happened today.

[Cronky]

Are you on another fuckin planet?

 

Yes, play the advantage. But you still pull the play back to where the foul was. So a free kick 30 yards from goal and a booking would have been the correct decision.

 

No you play the advantage, then if they are fouled again give the foul...whats the point of the advantage if the only way you can get that advantage is by scoring?

 

Correct. The ref isn't obliged to return to the original foul.

 

[samag]

Heskey was offside should have been a freekick to us.

[Mowen]

So to ask a ref, I assume that it should have been brought back for a yellow card to Bassong and a free kick approx 10 yards outside the area. Should Heskey also have been booked for 'simulation'?

[Fatwax]

I'd have to see it again but to my memory even though it wasn't in the box it was still last man so Bassong would have got the red card.

 

Heskey was fouled outside of the box in the lead up as flagged by the assistant referee, but the play was allowed to continue due to the advantage. When Heskey fell the advantage was lost so play should have been brought back to the original foul. The reason this didn't happen was because the ref saw the fall from Heskey as a continuation of the original foul and not a loss of advantage, therefore a penalty was given.

 

There you go Mowen.

[madras]

I'd have to see it again but to my memory even though it wasn't in the box it was still last man so Bassong would have got the red card.

 

Heskey was fouled outside of the box in the lead up as flagged by the assistant referee, but the play was allowed to continue due to the advantage. When Heskey fell the advantage was lost so play should have been brought back to the original foul. The reason this didn't happen was because the ref saw the fall from Heskey as a continuation of the original foul and not a loss of advantage, therefore a penalty was given.

 

There you go Mowen.

to be fair heskey was pulled back constantly for about 20yds so the ref could have pulled it up at any point. at no point after entering the box did bassong do anything likely to stop heskey proceding.

[Cronky]

I'd have to see it again but to my memory even though it wasn't in the box it was still last man so Bassong would have got the red card.

 

Heskey was fouled outside of the box in the lead up as flagged by the assistant referee, but the play was allowed to continue due to the advantage. When Heskey fell the advantage was lost so play should have been brought back to the original foul. The reason this didn't happen was because the ref saw the fall from Heskey as a continuation of the original foul and not a loss of advantage, therefore a penalty was given.

 

There you go Mowen.

 

This came up in one of those 'You Are the Ref' features in a paper only last week. Keith Hackett was quite definite. If you play advantage after a foul, and then a second foul is committed, the ref doesn't have to go back to the first foul.

[Fatwax]

I'd have to see it again but to my memory even though it wasn't in the box it was still last man so Bassong would have got the red card.

 

Heskey was fouled outside of the box in the lead up as flagged by the assistant referee, but the play was allowed to continue due to the advantage. When Heskey fell the advantage was lost so play should have been brought back to the original foul. The reason this didn't happen was because the ref saw the fall from Heskey as a continuation of the original foul and not a loss of advantage, therefore a penalty was given.

 

There you go Mowen.

 

This came up in one of those 'You Are the Ref' features in a paper only last week. Keith Hackett was quite definite. If you play advantage after a foul, and then a second foul is committed, the ref doesn't have to go back to the first foul.

 

Yes I know. There's a difference between losing advantage and being fouled. From what I saw, I didn't see the fall in the box as a foul more Heskey falling over far too easily. I saw that as a loss of advantage, not a foul.

[Fatwax]

I'd have to see it again but to my memory even though it wasn't in the box it was still last man so Bassong would have got the red card.

 

Heskey was fouled outside of the box in the lead up as flagged by the assistant referee, but the play was allowed to continue due to the advantage. When Heskey fell the advantage was lost so play should have been brought back to the original foul. The reason this didn't happen was because the ref saw the fall from Heskey as a continuation of the original foul and not a loss of advantage, therefore a penalty was given.

 

There you go Mowen.

to be fair heskey was pulled back constantly for about 20yds so the ref could have pulled it up at any point. at no point after entering the box did bassong do anything likely to stop heskey proceding.

 

Exactly, it was the wrong decision. Play should have been brought back to the original impedance.

 

Whether it was a red or not is another matter but as I remember it he was the last defender so it was in all probability a red card. I'd have to see it again though.

[M4]

Not the original foul, the last foul. It's an important difference.

[madras]

I'd have to see it again but to my memory even though it wasn't in the box it was still last man so Bassong would have got the red card.

 

Heskey was fouled outside of the box in the lead up as flagged by the assistant referee, but the play was allowed to continue due to the advantage. When Heskey fell the advantage was lost so play should have been brought back to the original foul. The reason this didn't happen was because the ref saw the fall from Heskey as a continuation of the original foul and not a loss of advantage, therefore a penalty was given.

 

There you go Mowen.

to be fair heskey was pulled back constantly for about 20yds so the ref could have pulled it up at any point. at no point after entering the box did bassong do anything likely to stop heskey proceding.

 

Exactly, it was the wrong decision. Play should have been brought back to the original impedance.

 

Whether it was a red or not is another matter but as I remember it he was the last defender so it was in all probability a red card. I'd have to see it again though.

there was defo a pull just outside the box aswell. the ref coyuld have done it then had he wanted. the ref can pull it back to whichever foul he sees fit.whichever one he thinks will give most advantage to the team fouled against.

[Tsunami]

Heskey was fouled outside of the box, managed to stay on his feet and then took a dive in the box. Play should have been taken back for the freekick and Heskey warned about diving.

 

Speaking of diving, surely Carroll was fouled?

[Fatwax]

I'd have to see it again but to my memory even though it wasn't in the box it was still last man so Bassong would have got the red card.

 

Heskey was fouled outside of the box in the lead up as flagged by the assistant referee, but the play was allowed to continue due to the advantage. When Heskey fell the advantage was lost so play should have been brought back to the original foul. The reason this didn't happen was because the ref saw the fall from Heskey as a continuation of the original foul and not a loss of advantage, therefore a penalty was given.

 

There you go Mowen.

to be fair heskey was pulled back constantly for about 20yds so the ref could have pulled it up at any point. at no point after entering the box did bassong do anything likely to stop heskey proceding.

 

Exactly, it was the wrong decision. Play should have been brought back to the original impedance.

 

Whether it was a red or not is another matter but as I remember it he was the last defender so it was in all probability a red card. I'd have to see it again though.

there was defo a pull just outside the box aswell. the ref coyuld have done it then had he wanted. the ref can pull it back to whichever foul he sees fit.whichever one he thinks will give most advantage to the team fouled against.

 

No, it's the original offense that gets penalised. As as referee you can allow play to continue if it will benefit the infringed team and pull back play to the original offense if the advantage doesn't ensue at the time.

 

Unless they've changed the rules in the last 2 years that is.

[M4]

Of course it's not the "first" foul man, it's just logical interpretation of the advantage.

 

For instance if you get: Foul outside the box - advantage played - foul again inside the box... then that would be a penalty.