Morelos penalty claim

I thought it was a pen - not surprised it wasn’t given though, would have to be a complete stonewalled before Morelos was getting one.
 
Was more of a penalty than the one given against Alfie as the same end v sheep few seasons back.



And if that had been at other end and sheep denied penalty would've been an uproar in press today.



How the %^*& Ferguson never got booked either is a mystery
 
Cheech said:
It would have been a soft pen, Wasnt a deft touch either. The ball went away from him before the foul came in.

It could have been given but no complaints it wasnt.
Click to expand...
there's no such thing as a soft penalty, it's either a penalty or it's not
 
JCDarcheville said:
fair enough. I’m not trying to be a dick, just very clear in the view that it wasn’t a foul. I think that when we moan about incidents that weren’t injustices it has a boy that cried wolf effect on the many genuine things we have to complain about.

Contact doesn’t equal foul, that’s all I’m saying. You therefore can’t take a still (of a completely different incident) to prove it was a foul.

Your answer to would it have been a foul in our box doesn’t make much sense. Ignoring the fact it wasn’t given, what’s the answer to that? The best way to have consistency I’m referring is for the referee to apply the laws of the game fairly, which Madden did in this situation.

We had a better claim for a penalty with the tug on Goldson, which would still have been soft in my view.
Click to expand...
I still think its a penalty.
If it happened in our box I think it would be a penalty.
I think football 2020 its a penalty.
So the man's game of the 80s I long for doesn't exist anymore. That's my point.

In today's game, it is deemed a penalty I feel.
And we see them given 90% of the time.

I completely agree with the boy who cried wolf and have admitted on another thread that had Arfield been half a second ahead and Consadine the same behind the red could well have gone the other way. So I don't believe I'm your worst culprit where blue tinted specs are concerned.

There were 4 or 5 small subtle decisions that we just didn't get yesterday. If 1 in 20 of them lead to a goal. That's 10 goals over a season.
If celtic are getting them. That's 20 goals between a negative effect on us and a positive effect on them.

We can't win the league with a 20 goal disadvantage.
A 30 million wage bill deficit.
4 or 5 Red card déficit based on interpretation of decisions.
A squad of 25 v 40.
And 1 usable sub v 8 on their bench who can come on and make a difference.

We are up against it.
Win at Pittodrie or not.
Make no mistake.
 
JCDarcheville said:
fair enough. I’m not trying to be a dick, just very clear in the view that it wasn’t a foul. I think that when we moan about incidents that weren’t injustices it has a boy that cried wolf effect on the many genuine things we have to complain about.

Contact doesn’t equal foul, that’s all I’m saying. You therefore can’t take a still (of a completely different incident) to prove it was a foul.

Your answer to would it have been a foul in our box doesn’t make much sense. Ignoring the fact it wasn’t given, what’s the answer to that? The best way to have consistency I’m referring is for the referee to apply the laws of the game fairly, which Madden did in this situation.

We had a better claim for a penalty with the tug on Goldson, which would still have been soft in my view.
Click to expand...
You don't need to try mate.:)) Just kidding.
 
We have two of our players in close proximity to the tackle on Alfie so they must be cheatin bastards then claiming a foul.

And madman is a competent ref.

Aye ok.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Latest posts

Back
Top