Plymouth Argyle (H) League One, Sept 2nd 3pm

[SaigonSaddler]

:D :D :D

There's literally no pressure applied, one of the countless player interactions that would happen during the match that could only be stamped out by the removal of everyone's arms.
There's no possible way for the player to be left sprawled on the deck from that touch.

Might as well put everyone in Zorbs if that's the way to go ... :mrgreen:

[scott_powell]

Having slowed it down and gone frame by frame it's even clearer that it was a "he felt contact so went down" situation. He wasn't going to win the ball so tried to gain an advantage with simulation. NO PENALTY but silly from Leahy to have his arms up.

[SaigonSaddler]

Having slowed it down and gone frame by frame it's even clearer that it was a "he felt contact so went down" situation. He wasn't going to win the ball so tried to gain an advantage with simulation. NO PENALTY but silly from Leahy to have his arms up.

This.

I think Leahy put out his hands as a natural reaction and definitely no 'push'.

[aaaae]

Having slowed it down and gone frame by frame it's even clearer that it was a "he felt contact so went down" situation. He wasn't going to win the ball so tried to gain an advantage with simulation. NO PENALTY but silly from Leahy to have his arms up.

This.

I think Leahy put out his hands as a natural reaction and definitely no 'push'.

Sadly it's a "skill" in the modern game.

For me Matěj Vydra stands out as an absolute master of the art. Most of the time it involves the striker suddenly changing direction or suddenly slowing to draw a slight (and unavoidable) contact from the defender then going down like a ton of bricks.

[DonningtonSaddler]

One big factor, from the refs point of view, is that he has to make a split second decision on the spot. From my throne in the TC my immediate thought that it was a penalty. As the ref did. The video evidence backs that up for me because I can put the two together. If I was going by the video alone I wouldnt be so sure.

[SaigonSaddler]

One big factor, from the refs point of view, is that he has to make a split second decision on the spot. From my throne in the TC my immediate thought that it was a penalty. As the ref did. The video evidence backs that up for me because I can put the two together. If I was going by the video alone I wouldnt be so sure.

I don't think the argument has been that it's tricky for the ref, or it wasn't an exquisite piece of theatrics.

Nice chair by the way! :D

[tinned]

Last night's England match was a case in point. Hoddle discussing whether Kane had felt enough contact to justify hitting the deck. It's so wrong!

As Scott said earlier, perhaps the refs should give a penalty if a player is clipped but still stays on his feet. It's the foul that should decide if it's a penalty, not the resulting action of the fouled player.

[Ancient Moaner]

Noting the above comments, I have to say, that on my introduction to becoming a ref, the first words the instructor said to us was "All footballers are cheats"....enough said methinks.

What's with all this crosses from the wing nonsense I espied on that short film? A team in Red/White at the Bank's's crossing from the wings? I'm gonna have to come down myself to confirm this anomaly.....can't be right...with Whitney in charge? We'll be scoring goals if this continues, that will never do. :wink:

[Walsallone]

Well AM your eyes are not deceiving you ....the two wing backs in particular are delivering some good balls and with the forward power we now have we should score lots of goals.

[scott_powell]

Well AM your eyes are not deceiving you ....the two wing backs in particular are delivering some good balls and with the forward power we now have we should score lots of goals.

Leahy's balls are sublime. It's like watching Ben Purkiss on acid. Heavenly.

[Sadsfan]

Having watched the penalty from on the video that the Plymouth fan shot, it's a clear push from Leahy and therefore a penalty.

[scott_powell]

Having watched the penalty from on the video that the Plymouth fan shot, it's a clear push from Leahy and therefore a penalty.

No, it's not.

[SaigonSaddler]

Having watched the penalty from on the video that the Plymouth fan shot, there's the slight hint of a featherlite touch from 'electric hands' Leahy and therefore the ref was conned into a penalty.

Changed that for you. :D :wink:

[scott_powell]

Right ... Those of you who think it's a penalty ...

Yes we have established that there is contact as Leahy's arms are on his back but as you all know this is a contact sport ... Do you think there is enough force there to push a professional athlete to the ground?

[NEWPORT SADDLERS DAD]

Right ... Those of you who think it's a penalty ...

Yes we have established that there is contact as Leahy's arms are on his back but as you all know this is a contact sport ... Do you think there is enough force there to push a professional athlete to the ground?

I wouldn't think that when at the top of his game Mike Tyson would have been decked by a push of that calibre.

[DonningtonSaddler]

Right ... Those of you who think it's a penalty ...

Yes we have established that there is contact as Leahy's arms are on his back but as you all know this is a contact sport ... Do you think there is enough force there to push a professional athlete to the ground?

To answer that we need to consider Mechanical energy. This the sum of kinetic and potential energy in an object that is used to do work. In other words, it was the energy in Leahy due to his motion or position, or both. In 'pushing' over the attacker he possessed potential chemical energy (energy stored in him), and by lifting his hands to push the attacker his action also had kinetic energy (energy -but not electrical! - in the motion of his hands). By pushing the attacker, Leahy's potential and kinetic energy was transferred into mechanical energy, which caused work to be done (ie attacker fell over). Here, the attacker gained mechanical energy, which caused him to be displaced/fall over.

I hope this clears up the matter once and for all.

[scott_powell]

Your daft answer is enough for me. I'm glad you agree it wasn't a penalty

[DonningtonSaddler]

Your daft answer is enough for me. I'm glad you agree it wasn't a penalty

A daft question requires a daft answer.

[scott_powell]

Your daft answer is enough for me. I'm glad you agree it wasn't a penalty

A daft question requires a daft answer.

It wasn't daft. It is a simple yes or no. So what is it?

[SaigonSaddler]

It's bollocks. Everyone can see there wasn't enough force to result in a fall of any kind, let alone one of such drama.

Every had said this, even if they can't remember their original posts. The debate appears to centre around if Leahy was at fault for the physical act of touching in the box. Of course he's not.

[moaning saddler]

Have to give a big thanks to the usual suspects.

Had trouble getting to sleep last night so read through the last few pages of this thread. Worked a treat - best kip I've had in a long while.

BTW - it was a penalty - the ref gave it.

Whitney In.

[sid swifty]

Well AM your eyes are not deceiving you ....the two wing backs in particular are delivering some good balls and with the forward power we now have we should score lots of goals.

Leahy's balls are sublime. It's like watching Ben Purkiss on acid. Heavenly.

How do you know what Leahy's balls are like Scott?..... :? :shock:

[scott_powell]

Well AM your eyes are not deceiving you ....the two wing backs in particular are delivering some good balls and with the forward power we now have we should score lots of goals.

Leahy's balls are sublime. It's like watching Ben Purkiss on acid. Heavenly.

How do you know what Leahy's balls are like Scott?..... :? :shock:

That's a secret between me and Leahy.

:twisted:

[Mike Vale]

It was a penalty because the referee gave it. But he should not have done. He did not have a clear view and he guessed wrongly. The Plymouth player should have been booked for simulation. It was a blatant dive. I don't agree with the assertion that there should be no contact "in play " - we wouldn't have a game if that was the position. No way was the Leahy contact sufficient to fell their striker or put him off in the slightest.. I do agree with the praise for Roberts. His last home game was against MK Dons when he suffered along with everybody else. KR proved both his footballing and temperament qualities on Saturday.

[aaaae]

There is a difference between a touch and a push. If touching a player is a foul, if the touched throws himself to the ground, then we might as well give up and go and watch flower arranging...

[aaaae]

As Scott said earlier, perhaps the refs should give a penalty if a player is clipped but still stays on his feet. It's the foul that should decide if it's a penalty, not the resulting action of the fouled player.

I was reffing an under 16s game last week where this happened, the striker was clipped but stayed on his feet. He had a shot from 6 yards. So at that point you think clear advantage, play on, because it's easier to score from there than a penalty and then you guessed it he missed!

[Exile]

Not the worst penalty ever conned out if a ref, but up there. Their snowflake clearly takes a dive of Olympian proportions after the application of slightly less pressure than that of the atmosphere on the surface of ocean water at sea level.

Disclaimer: I wasn't in the penalty viewing seat in the ground. Apparently that was occupied by a blind person.