why wasn't USA ...

[Ian Royal]

Gerroudavit.

If that had happened to Doyle if it were 0-0 with 30 to go against Charlton then I would expect the opposition goalie to be sent off and absolutely livid if he wasn't.

Never mind the consideration that the penalty could also be missed, of course.

Would you argue that a penalty "is almost certain" to be scored?

we clearly have very different views.

had the keeper clearly gone for the player then it would be no doubt a sending off. but Marcus didn't. IIRC correctly he didn't get sent off for the same offence v Johnson last year. I don't remember a big ho ha about that one.

[Platypuss]

Gerroudavit.

If that had happened to Doyle if it were 0-0 with 30 to go against Charlton then I would expect the opposition goalie to be sent off and absolutely livid if he wasn't.

Never mind the consideration that the penalty could also be missed, of course.

Would you argue that a penalty "is almost certain" to be scored?

we clearly have very different views.

had the keeper clearly gone for the player then it would be no doubt a sending off. but Marcus didn't. IIRC correctly he didn't get sent off for the same offence v Johnson last year. I don't remember a big ho ha about that one.

Johnson would hardly have had a goalscoring opportunity (let alone a clear one) what with the ball being in row G a millisecond after he was fouled.

Again: would you argue that a penalty "is almost certain" to be scored?

[ROWY]

i'll give my opinion ...

yes a penalty is almost certain to be scored

... but i am more certain that fabregas would have scored

[Ian Royal]

Gerroudavit.

If that had happened to Doyle if it were 0-0 with 30 to go against Charlton then I would expect the opposition goalie to be sent off and absolutely livid if he wasn't.

Never mind the consideration that the penalty could also be missed, of course.

Would you argue that a penalty "is almost certain" to be scored?

we clearly have very different views.

had the keeper clearly gone for the player then it would be no doubt a sending off. but Marcus didn't. IIRC correctly he didn't get sent off for the same offence v Johnson last year. I don't remember a big ho ha about that one.

Johnson would hardly have had a goalscoring opportunity (let alone a clear one) what with the ball being in row G a millisecond after he was fouled.

Again: would you argue that a penalty "is almost certain" to be scored?

well that all depends on the taker surely. But I would say that as a chance a penalty is more likely to be scored than not

[Platypuss]

But I would say that as a chance a penalty is more likely to be scored than not

Well duh. Why not actually answer the question I asked?

Yet again: would you argue that a penalty "is almost certain" to be scored?

Yes or no.

[Ian Royal]

But I would say that as a chance a penalty is more likely to be scored than not

Well duh. Why not actually answer the question I asked?

Yet again: would you argue that a penalty "is almost certain" to be scored?

Yes or no.

I would say that a penalty is not almost certain to be scored. it is a lot of pressure, a small ish target area and there is a keeper in the way.

I don't see the relevence.

There is nothing you can say to me to make me agree that Marcus should have seen red and I doubt there is anything I can say to you to see he shouldn't. Not really worth argueing back and forth endlessly.

[Platypuss]

Thank you.

So you believe that a penalty is not almost certain to be scored.
But, you interpret a "clear goal scoring opportunity" as being when a goal is almost certain to be scored.

Therefore in your opinion a penalty is not a clear goal scoring opportunity.

And you can't see the relevance?

I hope that this will show you that your working definiton of "clear goalscoring opportunity" needs revision.

[Ian Royal]

Thank you.

So you believe that a penalty is not almost certain to be scored.
But, you interpret a "clear goal scoring opportunity" as being when a goal is almost certain to be scored.

Therefore in your opinion a penalty is not a clear goal scoring opportunity.

And you can't see the relevance?

I hope that this will show you that your working definiton of "clear goalscoring opportunity" needs revision.

I believe I was talking about where a keeper was making the challenge. There are different circumstances there.

If a defender was involved then I would have a different view.

I know what your trying to argue. And I know your smart enough to tie me up in knots on this one, but it doesn't make a difference. Marcus should not have been sent off. The punishment would not have fit the crime.

Give it up Platy I'm not changing my mind

[KC Royal]

Under the rules, Hahnemann should have been sent off. Without argument. The fact that Wiley "applied common sense" makes us very lucky. To para phrase one very witty observer: "these things have a habit of evening themselves out over a season so let's hope that all our luck is not used up when we're 3-0 down!" Refs get critisicised for not applying the rules strictly and applying so-called common sense and get criticised for applying the rules strictly and not applying common sense. They can't win really in this regard. I believe he should have sent H off. These things are wider than just the match itself. It could be crucial to Arseneal's (and ours) goal difference and may affect the Pompey match. Don't get me wrong - I'm not complaining. I'm a Reading fan. I'm just stating what should have happened and why.

I think it has possibly evened itself out already. Sonko's red card against Villa was harsh, and there's several people on here who thought Hahnemann should have gone. Definitely unlucky with the first incident, possibly lucky with the 2nd one.

[bcubed]

Thank you.

So you believe that a penalty is not almost certain to be scored.
But, you interpret a "clear goal scoring opportunity" as being when a goal is almost certain to be scored.

Therefore in your opinion a penalty is not a clear goal scoring opportunity.

And you can't see the relevance?

I hope that this will show you that your working definiton of "clear goalscoring opportunity" needs revision.

I believe I was talking about where a keeper was making the challenge. There are different circumstances there.

If a defender was involved then I would have a different view.

I know what your trying to argue. And I know your smart enough to tie me up in knots on this one, but it doesn't make a difference. Marcus should not have been sent off. The punishment would not have fit the crime.

Give it up Platy I'm not changing my mind

The words (sort of) of Blackadder 4 come to mind


And if that doesn't work, a total pig-headed unwillingness to look facts in the face will see us through.

[bcubed]

Under the rules, Hahnemann should have been sent off. Without argument. The fact that Wiley "applied common sense" makes us very lucky. To para phrase one very witty observer: "these things have a habit of evening themselves out over a season so let's hope that all our luck is not used up when we're 3-0 down!" Refs get critisicised for not applying the rules strictly and applying so-called common sense and get criticised for applying the rules strictly and not applying common sense. They can't win really in this regard. I believe he should have sent H off. These things are wider than just the match itself. It could be crucial to Arseneal's (and ours) goal difference and may affect the Pompey match. Don't get me wrong - I'm not complaining. I'm a Reading fan. I'm just stating what should have happened and why.

I think it has possibly evened itself out already. Sonko's red card against Villa was harsh, and there's several people on here who thought Hahnemann should have gone. Definitely unlucky with the first incident, possibly lucky with the 2nd one.

The concept of "evening itself out over a season" is a complete nonsense.

Why should it? What's relevant about a season as far as statistics are concerned? Why shouldn't things be evened out over 2 seasons, or 10 seasons?

It's perfectly possible to go through a whole season with bad luck and a host of bad refereeing decisions

[Ian Royal]

Thank you.

So you believe that a penalty is not almost certain to be scored.
But, you interpret a "clear goal scoring opportunity" as being when a goal is almost certain to be scored.

Therefore in your opinion a penalty is not a clear goal scoring opportunity.

And you can't see the relevance?

I hope that this will show you that your working definiton of "clear goalscoring opportunity" needs revision.

I believe I was talking about where a keeper was making the challenge. There are different circumstances there.

If a defender was involved then I would have a different view.

I know what your trying to argue. And I know your smart enough to tie me up in knots on this one, but it doesn't make a difference. Marcus should not have been sent off. The punishment would not have fit the crime.

Give it up Platy I'm not changing my mind

The words (sort of) of Blackadder 4 come to mind


And if that doesn't work, a total pig-headed unwillingness to look facts in the face will see us through.

I don't see facts, I see opinions and interpretations of regulations that have holes in them and large grey areas. I also state what I think is the correct decision, not necessarily what the letter of the law says. Not that I think that is the case in this circumstance

I don't recall anyone other than us kicking up a stink about the decision in or out of the game. Surely someone would had it been a poor decision.

Get over it. I think one thing you think another. We're not going to convince each other so why waste your time and mine. There is no fact or clear cut right and wrong in these things, thats why interpretation is essential not just adhering to cold hard black and white laws.

[Platypuss]

I don't recall anyone other than us kicking up a stink about the decision in or out of the game. Surely someone would had it been a poor decision. .

The result had a very large part to play with that!

If it had been 0-0 and the penalty saved by Hahnemann then you could be sure the media would have been crawling all over that decision.

[Ian Royal]

I don't recall anyone other than us kicking up a stink about the decision in or out of the game. Surely someone would had it been a poor decision. .

The result had a very large part to play with that!

If it had been 0-0 and the penalty saved by Hahnemann then you could be sure the media would have been crawling all over that decision.

Now that I really can't argue with much. Though I suspect had the Arsenal players thought at the time a red should have been given they would have been demanding it if the score was 10-0.

I still can't see anything wrong with it myself. You see them given and you can't complain because it is down to interpretation, but I think the right choice is a either a yellow or nothing at all.