Piemaster
Guru
- Location
- UK City of Culture
Arsenal, Villa, Chelsea, Everton, Liverpool, Man. Utd, Spurs. At the moment anyway, though Villa do seem to flirt with relegation often.
The Football.....
- Thread starter Spartak
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Smokin Joe
Squire
- Location
- Bare headed cyclist, Smoker
What a clever penalty. I know it's been done before, but if you want to bamboozle the keeper -
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s66iJf_d8i0
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s66iJf_d8i0
If they want to do it, then do it v RM not against a team who cannot compete with them.
Accy cyclist
Legendary Member
- Location
- The hills of Accrington
I wonder how many clubs have played in the Premier League for a short time? Oldham,Swindon,Burnley,Sheff Utd, Sheff Weds...
Accy cyclist
Legendary Member
- Location
- The hills of Accrington
Is that allowed? I don't think it was done in the spirit of the game!
Mind you Suarez scored it so anything goes with that fecker!
mark st1
Plastic Manc
- Location
- Leafy Berkshire
Is that allowed? I don't think it was done in the spirit of the game!
Perfectly legal has been done a few times going back to the 1950's (as they mentioned on talk sport today ) to cocky for me don't like it. As you say not in good spirit but then I suppose neither is all the diving and cheating that goes on.
mark st1
Plastic Manc
- Location
- Leafy Berkshire
Smokin Joe
Squire
- Location
- Bare headed cyclist, Smoker
Why is it not in good spirit? It's perfectly legal, the rules state only that the ball has to be played forward. As many penalties are missed or saved by the keeper it is a good way of wrong footing him to ensure a goal.
U
User482
Guest
I agree. All sorts of foul play is tolerated or excused, so why get exercised by a perfectly valid way of scoring a goal?
mark st1
Plastic Manc
- Location
- Leafy Berkshire
Like I said just a bit cocky didnt say there was anything wrong with it at all ? I also said perfectly legal.
- Location
- Somewhere wet & hilly in NW England.
I'm of the opinion that the whole penalty 'thing' needs a rethink.
My particular beef is where penalties are awarded for a low-level non-game changing misdemeanour eg player fouled as they are moving out of a packed opposition penalty area and away from the goal. A free kick imo but not a penalty. Too much reward for too little crime.
My particular beef is where penalties are awarded for a low-level non-game changing misdemeanour eg player fouled as they are moving out of a packed opposition penalty area and away from the goal. A free kick imo but not a penalty. Too much reward for too little crime.
Inertia
I feel like I could... TAKE ON THE WORLD!!
I get your point but its difficult to know what a game changing misdemeanor is. At that range a goal could come from a slip or a quick piece of skill. It could just encourage defenders to shove people around more at the edge of the box knowing that at the worst it could result in a free kick and allow them time to set up a defence.
It's not just the goal, or how it was scored, what about the opposition and the disparity in power/wealth? It was taking the piss, after all, miss and they were only going to get another 20 chances to score to win the game..................RM behaved similarly beating 9 man tiny Rayo 10-1, what was the point, who gained anything?
Do it to beat RM or to win a cup or title and it'd be wonderful moment, rubbing a face in it, isn't IMO. It'll soon be forgotten as it had no real meaning, The "Panenka" penalty won't be.
U
User482
Guest
A problem solved by not giving away a penalty.
U
User482
Guest
I tend to think we see the opposite problem more often: referees reluctant to give penalties that would be given as a foul if it was elsewhere on the pitch.
