Tierney Tyneside Torment
- Thread starter Big Cat
- Start date
If ever a game embodied the old tale of things evening themselves out this was it
Disputed penalty to Chelsea. Newcastle then equalise with a goal that shouldn’t have stood after a foul by an attacker who should have been sent off. Offending player then scores an own goal to hand victory to the opponents.
Justice served all round!
Disputed penalty to Chelsea. Newcastle then equalise with a goal that shouldn’t have stood after a foul by an attacker who should have been sent off. Offending player then scores an own goal to hand victory to the opponents.
Justice served all round!
Reckless use of the elbow for me. Maybe excessive force, but not brutality
If i'm not reasonably certain on these types of incident, I wouldn't send the player off and this one just wasn't clear enough
Law says that you award a direct free kick for a challenge/tackle which is committed in a careless manner. If you are focussing on the defender playing the ball before chopping down the attacker as your defence against this offence by the defender, then you need to have a re-read of the Laws. The challenge/tackle is made carelessly, there is sufficient contact with the attacker's legs to bring him to the ground. It's therefore a direct free kick offence and due to the location a kick from the penalty mark.
Padfoot
The Persecuted One
Except it wasn’t the challenge that caused the attacker to lose balance.....it was the attacker kicking the outstretched leg of the defender after they had cleanly won the ball......ergo the attacker was going down regardless of any follow through.......
It doesn't actually matter if the attacker is "already going down", he was kicked by the defender and therefore the decision to penalise the defender was correct.
Padfoot
The Persecuted One
Except that he wasn’t. He kicked the defender first.....therefore surely it’s a defensive free kick?
