Match-Day Moments - Stevenage | PASOTI
  • Welcome to PASOTI. Sponsored by Lang & Potter

Match-Day Moments - Stevenage

Aug 11, 2013
2,281
741
ealinggreen":1fryva51 said:
I did not realize on the day,but that looks a nailed on penalty involving Ladapo.

Not to mention the one where Carey's leg is taken. The one where Sarcevic goes down is a foul anywhere else on the pitch and I think Joel was fouled just after.

I said at the time that Ladapo does not go down with a dive in that position - ref bottled it knowing it was a sending off too.
 

Cobi Budge

Auction Winner 👨‍⚖️
Apr 8, 2011
13,427
12,030
27
Plymouth
We were denied 2 clear penalties on Saturday, and one maybe two against Sunderland as well, worrying officiating.
 
Nov 2, 2004
3,069
315
I wonder if word gets around and we are paying the penalty for opposition managers suggesting Carey goes down easily.
 
Sep 6, 2006
16,426
3,963
arrythewurzel":380hdcnr said:
ealinggreen":380hdcnr said:
I did not realize on the day,but that looks a nailed on penalty involving Ladapo.

Not to mention the one where Carey's leg is taken. The one where Sarcevic goes down is a foul anywhere else on the pitch and I think Joel was fouled just after.

I said at the time that Ladapo does not go down with a dive in that position - ref bottled it knowing it was a sending off too.

It's not a dive but the defender almost certainly plays the ball, to me. Look at it again! The Sarcevic incident looks more like a pen.
 
Sep 6, 2006
16,426
3,963
ealinggreen":31jr9sfd said:
Sorry Balham he is behind him and goes through his leg to get to the ball.Penalty.


Not for me. He is behind then gets the ball first. Look where the ball goes. Good tackle. Shows how difficult it is for referees though.
 

Pogleswoody

R.I.P
Jul 3, 2006
20,748
4,410
72
Location Location
arrythewurzel":m2elxpyr said:
ealinggreen":m2elxpyr said:
I did not realize on the day,but that looks a nailed on penalty involving Ladapo.

Not to mention the one where Carey's leg is taken. The one where Sarcevic goes down is a foul anywhere else on the pitch and I think Joel was fouled just after.

The guy 'tackling' Sarcevic just turns his back on him and throws himself to the ground (clutching his face as per 'training') and Sarco goes over him. Sarco about to get a shot away? How is that not a pen?
Then Joel (cleverly) flicks the ball up and over, takes a touch and, again, their guy goes to the ground and slides right through him, taking his legs. It's not a 'tackle' so it must be a foul? = a pen? :think:

Clever by that defender, far too clever for that ref! :facepalm:
 
Oct 31, 2015
5,151
2,441
As I sit in the Demport I couldn't see either incident now looking at Charlie's angles the first one is a foul that really winds me up with refs. If tackling from behind is against the rules then it's a pen but refs are so inconsistent with this rule.

The assault on Sarcs is a pen all day long. That looks like 2 stone wall shouts in two home games. Their defender didn't even attempt to get the ball but just panicked when Sarcs nicked it off him
 
Sep 6, 2006
16,426
3,963
rsp4":2g5t11ou said:
As I sit in the Demport I couldn't see either incident now looking at Charlie's angles the first one is a foul that really winds me up with refs. If tackling from behind is against the rules then it's a pen but refs are so inconsistent with this rule.

The assault on Sarcs is a pen all day long. That looks like 2 stone wall shouts in two home games. Their defender didn't even attempt to get the ball but just panicked when Sarcs nicked it off him


Tackling from behind is NOT against the rules if you get the ball, only if you take a players' legs first. Perfectly legal challenge.
 
Balham_Green":2wpct42t said:
rsp4":2wpct42t said:
As I sit in the Demport I couldn't see either incident now looking at Charlie's angles the first one is a foul that really winds me up with refs. If tackling from behind is against the rules then it's a pen but refs are so inconsistent with this rule.

The assault on Sarcs is a pen all day long. That looks like 2 stone wall shouts in two home games. Their defender didn't even attempt to get the ball but just panicked when Sarcs nicked it off him


Tackling from behind is NOT against the rules if you get the ball, only if you take a players' legs first. Perfectly legal challenge.

That's not strictly true. The laws make no mention of whether the ball was touched or not, it's still a tackle from behind. The ref has to decide whether the challenge was reckless, careless or with excessive force. If he got the ball from behind but with excessive force, it's a foul.
 
Sep 6, 2006
16,426
3,963
Bermudian Green":1otb1jvo said:
Balham_Green":1otb1jvo said:
rsp4":1otb1jvo said:
As I sit in the Demport I couldn't see either incident now looking at Charlie's angles the first one is a foul that really winds me up with refs. If tackling from behind is against the rules then it's a pen but refs are so inconsistent with this rule.

The assault on Sarcs is a pen all day long. That looks like 2 stone wall shouts in two home games. Their defender didn't even attempt to get the ball but just panicked when Sarcs nicked it off him


Tackling from behind is NOT against the rules if you get the ball, only if you take a players' legs first. Perfectly legal challenge.

That's not strictly true. The laws make no mention of whether the ball was touched or not, it's still a tackle from behind. The ref has to decide whether the challenge was reckless, careless or with excessive force. If he got the ball from behind but with excessive force, it's a foul.


Not strictly true. It's if you endanger the safety of an opponent. So that could be quite subjective. But if the tackle succeeds in winning the ball rather than going through a players' legs it is much less likely to endanger somebody. The tackle on Ladapo did not do so.