How many of these were penalties?

by fatman123 Mon 27 Aug - 15:24:02

for me 3/4 should have been given

First appeal: This its not a penalty for me is because the foul shouldve been given before Malouda and Alves get into the box

Second appeal: Abidals legs come across the front of Drogba two or three times plus he has a big handfull of Drogbas shirt, penalty

Third appeal: Penality, no explination

Fourth appeal: If youre going to put your arm up in the box then any contact between the ball and your arm, accidental or not, is a penalty

anyway thats my view on it, thoughts from the rest of you?

by harhar11 Mon 27 Aug - 15:56:22

1st, as you said, the foul was outside. So not a penalty..

2nd, minimal contact, but there was contact so hence a penalty.

3rd, rule book states "the movement of the hand towards the ball (not the ball towards the hand)" and "the position of the hand does not necessarily mean that there is an infringement". Meaning that you can have you hand pointing towards the sky but as long as its not hand to ball movement, its not a penalty. Going by the rulebook, NOT a penalty..

4th, some have said that it hit eto'os armpit, but for me it looked like it hit his arm and seeing as he moved his arm to protect his face its penalty for me..

So for me 2/4 are penalties..

--
Mind if I ask something else about that game?

If you dont then, what do you think about this 2?

How many of these were penalties? 558813_382801068409253_220506964638665_1208951_379270843_n

How many of these were penalties? 558813_382801068409253_220506964638665_1208951_379270843_n

by billy_gr Mon 27 Aug - 15:59:43

i'm with harhar. 2/4 penalties.
but we should have gotten one in camp nou and we received an unjustified red.

anyway this has been discussed to death

by Ion Creanga Mon 27 Aug - 16:02:35

Number 3 or 4 were penalties in my opinion... Number 1 and 2 are not fouls, maybe in pansies league (la liga) not premier league. Chelsea deserved to qualify in that game for sure and they deserved it this year to.

by harhar11 Mon 27 Aug - 16:06:06

tuddor wrote:Number 3 or 4 were penalties in my opinion... Number 1 and 2 are not fouls, maybe in pansies league (la liga) not premier league. Chelsea deserved to qualify in that game for sure and they deserved it this year to.

Funny that the pansies in this game where the team from EPL rofl

by zizzle Mon 27 Aug - 17:26:06

only the 3rd is a clear pentalty. On the first and the 3rd incident there was only minimal contact, and eventhough some refs would count those as fouls i wouldnt do that personally. The forth chance looked more like shoulder to me, and thats after watching the replays so the ref might be excused not to count it.

All and all there should have been at least 1 penalty, but the other 3 were 50 50 decisions and the ref wasnt doing chelsea any favours

by harhar11 Mon 27 Aug - 17:30:30

zizzle wrote:only the 3rd is a clear pentalty. On the first and the 3rd incident there was only minimal contact, and eventhough some refs would count those as fouls i wouldnt do that personally. The forth chance looked more like shoulder to me, and thats after watching the replays so the ref might be excused not to count it.

All and all there should have been at least 1 penalty, but the other 3 were 50 50 decisions and the ref wasnt doing chelsea any favours

I would call sending off Abidal because Anelka tripped himself/dived doing them a favour :coffee:

by zizzle Mon 27 Aug - 17:34:59

harhar11 wrote:
zizzle wrote:only the 3rd is a clear pentalty. On the first and the 3rd incident there was only minimal contact, and eventhough some refs would count those as fouls i wouldnt do that personally. The forth chance looked more like shoulder to me, and thats after watching the replays so the ref might be excused not to count it.

All and all there should have been at least 1 penalty, but the other 3 were 50 50 decisions and the ref wasnt doing chelsea any favours

I would call sending off Abidal because Anelka tripped himself/dived doing them a favour

lol cant deny that but when it comes to those pentalties in a different story

by harhar11 Mon 27 Aug - 21:24:55

Not just against Chelsea, though. I mean ballack handled the ball inside chelsea's penalty area...

by Harmonica Mon 27 Aug - 22:26:00

2/4, which tells refs were actually evenly horrible

How many of these were penalties? Di-BSZ1

Should have been penalty

How many of these were penalties? Di-9FFO

Should have been penalty

How many of these were penalties? Di-DMLS

Shouldn't been red

by The Sanchez Mon 27 Aug - 23:36:46

First one could have been a penalty. When a defender drags an attacker from outside the penalty box into the penalty box it is a penalty. However as the referee has seen it clearly he thought otherwise.
Second one could have been a penalty. In the laws of the game, when someone holds an attacker. Its a foul and a direct freekick is awarded. When it is inside the penalty area, its a penalty. However, almost every Fifa referee does not give fouls for holding or pushing, which is not right as it is in the Laws of the Game!
Third was a penalty. The player's hand was not down but up in the air therefore a penalty should have been awarded.
Fourth one wasn't. The clearest out of them all. The player was protecting his face and was not at all looking at the ball (unlike Pique in the third one) therefore it was not a penalty.

by DuringTheWar Tue 28 Aug - 0:00:13

Ok having seen some nonsensical intepretations in this thread, this is what i would say using common sense:

1. Starts as a free kick outside the box, however the play goes on and then a worse foul occours in the box. Should have first played an advantage, and then penalised the final foul
2. Soft foul but a foul nontheless. Shirt pulling is a foul, it is just that simple
3. I was exasperated to read a barca fan here defending that one, harhar11s interpretation of the interpretation on handballs by fifa and selectively presenting certain guidelines was absolutely ridiculous. The rule actually states deliberate handball is a foul, the movement of the arm towards the ball is just a sign that it is probably deliberate so the rule mentions referees should look for that, it doesnt however mean you can leave your arm still and wait deliberately for the ball to hit it. Secondly the position of the arm may not nessessarilly mean it is a foul because it does not nessessarilly mean it is deliberate, that doesnt mean you can deliberately position your arm any which way, such as towards the sky, to touch the ball and its not a foul :facepalm:

, its just about interpreting if its deliberate, if you have your arm stuck out it doesnt nessessarilly mean its deliberate, however if it looks deliberate than it is a foul. Why didnt you mention the rule also says distance between ball and hand is important? a handball that occurred from a ball played close is unexpected and most likely unintentional. But if the ball is played from a far distance, the player has time to anticipate it and avoid handling it with their arm or hand. Why didnt you mention that? because it shows beyond doubt pique did it intentionally. Its easy to see that pique was in control of what he did, it was intentional, it was a penalty offence
4. That one is difficult to say, as anyone who has read the rules properly knows, its gotta be intentional. Putting your hand up like that, might be to try and block the ball, or it might be just a reflex to protect himself. Its down the refs interpretation and that one was difficult to interpret correctly, it was one where only the player knows, i think refs use guesswork a lot of the time. They also get swayed by the home crowd often, so it is really odd that he didnt give any of them.
Regarding the first two fouls, its understandable that some say they are too soft to be fouls, but it is what it is....
so for me chelsea should have had 3 penalties, maybe 4 but only one person would know that

So now some barca fans responded with ballacks handball, we got to decide if he intentionally blocked his own clearance with his arm? hmm

rather doubtful i would say

by fatman123 Tue 28 Aug - 13:48:03

jiopsi wrote:2/4, which tells refs were actually evenly horrible

Should have been penalty
I agree, also shows how useless Bossingwa was, Henry was never going to get to that pass

Should have been penalty

Ballack kicks the ball into his hand their, its unitentional, not sure what Ashley Cole is doing there though......

Shouldn't been red

Again i agree, Anelka trips over himself here

by Freeza Tue 28 Aug - 14:21:04

the last three are penalties imo, the first is not even close

by harhar11 Fri 7 Sep - 16:57:58

Diego Armando Maradona wrote:Ok having seen some nonsensical intepretations in this thread, this is what i would say using common sense:

1. Starts as a free kick outside the box, however the play goes on and then a worse foul occours in the box. Should have first played an advantage, and then penalised the final foul
2. Soft foul but a foul nontheless. Shirt pulling is a foul, it is just that simple
3. I was exasperated to read a barca fan here defending that one, harhar11s interpretation of the interpretation on handballs by fifa and selectively presenting certain guidelines was absolutely ridiculous. The rule actually states deliberate handball is a foul, the movement of the arm towards the ball is just a sign that it is probably deliberate so the rule mentions referees should look for that, it doesnt however mean you can leave your arm still and wait deliberately for the ball to hit it. Secondly the position of the arm may not nessessarilly mean it is a foul because it does not nessessarilly mean it is deliberate, that doesnt mean you can deliberately position your arm any which way, such as towards the sky, to touch the ball and its not a foul , its just about interpreting if its deliberate, if you have your arm stuck out it doesnt nessessarilly mean its deliberate, however if it looks deliberate than it is a foul. Why didnt you mention the rule also says distance between ball and hand is important? a handball that occurred from a ball played close is unexpected and most likely unintentional. But if the ball is played from a far distance, the player has time to anticipate it and avoid handling it with their arm or hand. Why didnt you mention that? because it shows beyond doubt pique did it intentionally. Its easy to see that pique was in control of what he did, it was intentional, it was a penalty offence
4. That one is difficult to say, as anyone who has read the rules properly knows, its gotta be intentional. Putting your hand up like that, might be to try and block the ball, or it might be just a reflex to protect himself. Its down the refs interpretation and that one was difficult to interpret correctly, it was one where only the player knows, i think refs use guesswork a lot of the time. They also get swayed by the home crowd often, so it is really odd that he didnt give any of them.
Regarding the first two fouls, its understandable that some say they are too soft to be fouls, but it is what it is....
so for me chelsea should have had 3 penalties, maybe 4 but only one person would know that

So now some barca fans responded with ballacks handball, we got to decide if he intentionally blocked his own clearance with his arm? rather doubtful i would say

The rules is there for everyone to see. You can have your arm pointing towards the sky, but as long as the hand doesnt move towards the ball... ITS NOT A PENALTY. In the video you can clearly see that Pique had his hand already in that position before Anelka even kicked the ball.. And how do you know that he intentionally left his arm there? The time when the ball left Anelkas foot and hit Piques hand must have been less than 1 sec. There is a big chance that he didnt have time to react

And you top it all off with saying that Ballack's is not a penalty when he DOES actually move his hand towards the ball saying that its not intentionlly. How do you even know that Piques was intentionally, when he didnt move his hand toward the ball and had less than a sec to react, while ballack, who did move his hand toward the ball, didnt do it on purpose? Are you a mind reader now? :facepalm:

Even Ashley Cole thinks its a penalty hence why he raised his hand..

You are such a biased poster... :facepalm:

by Abramovich Sat 8 Sep - 23:28:59

harhar11 wrote:

The rules is there for everyone to see. You can have your arm pointing towards the sky, but as long as the hand doesnt move towards the ball... ITS NOT A PENALTY. In the video you can clearly see that Pique had his hand already in that position before Anelka even kicked the ball.. And how do you know that he intentionally left his arm there? The time when the ball left Anelkas foot and hit Piques hand must have been less than 1 sec. There is a big chance that he didnt have time to react

And you top it all off with saying that Ballack's is not a penalty when he DOES actually move his hand towards the ball saying that its not intentionlly. How do you even know that Piques was intentionally, when he didnt move his hand toward the ball and had less than a sec to react, while ballack, who did move his hand toward the ball, didnt do it on purpose? Are you a mind reader now? Even Ashley Cole thinks its a penalty hence why he raised his hand..

You are such a biased poster...

Wow really? So if I deliberately make myself a bigger target by stretching my arms out as a defender, like a goal keeper does for a PK & the ball strikes me in the arm it is not a penalty?

by fatman123 Sun 9 Sep - 1:50:43

can someone explain to me why Ballack would want to handball his own clerance out for a corner?

by DuringTheWar Sun 9 Sep - 1:57:41

harhar11 wrote:

The rules is there for everyone to see. You can have your arm pointing towards the sky, but as long as the hand doesnt move towards the ball... ITS NOT A PENALTY. In the video you can clearly see that Pique had his hand already in that position before Anelka even kicked the ball.. And how do you know that he intentionally left his arm there? The time when the ball left Anelkas foot and hit Piques hand must have been less than 1 sec. There is a big chance that he didnt have time to react

And you top it all off with saying that Ballack's is not a penalty when he DOES actually move his hand towards the ball saying that its not intentionlly. How do you even know that Piques was intentionally, when he didnt move his hand toward the ball and had less than a sec to react, while ballack, who did move his hand toward the ball, didnt do it on purpose? Are you a mind reader now? Even Ashley Cole thinks its a penalty hence why he raised his hand..

You are such a biased poster...

Are you being serious? it has nothing to do with moving your arm towards the ball, its about hitting the ball intentionally. How do i know it was intentional? a little friend called common sense told me. Let me tell you something about playing football, when you deliberately handball in the way pique did, you guide it into your stride so that you dont lose control of it, when its untintentional it will bounce anywhere, if the ball just happens to bounce perfectly off your arm and into your stride as it did with pique, there is about 95% chance it was intentional, 5% chance it was just "coincidence"

u question ballack did it intentonally? lolololololololololololololololololol deliberatey booting your own clearance onto your arm, ashly cole appealing to the ref to give his opponent a pen lolololololololololol, if you say so mate Thumbs up

fyi im never biased when talking serious football, yes i dislike both barcelona and chelsea and occassionally joke about them and critisise them, but when its serious im only interested in talking truth

by Zealous Sun 9 Sep - 19:07:00

Maradona pretty much cleaned up this thread. Good job bro.

by Abramovich Sun 9 Sep - 19:30:38

Diego Armando Maradona wrote:
u question ballack did it intentonally? lolololololololololololololololololol deliberatey booting your own clearance onto your arm, ashly cole appealing to the ref to give his opponent a pen lolololololololololol, if you say so mate

Ok this thread is over now, case closed. That quote in particular is pretty hilarious.

by Sponsored content

How many of these were penalties?

How many were penalties

How many of these were penalties?

Re: How many of these were penalties?

Re: How many of these were penalties?

Re: How many of these were penalties?

Re: How many of these were penalties?

Re: How many of these were penalties?

Re: How many of these were penalties?

Re: How many of these were penalties?

Re: How many of these were penalties?

Re: How many of these were penalties?

Re: How many of these were penalties?

Re: How many of these were penalties?

Re: How many of these were penalties?

Re: How many of these were penalties?

Re: How many of these were penalties?

Re: How many of these were penalties?

Re: How many of these were penalties?

Re: How many of these were penalties?

Re: How many of these were penalties?

Re: How many of these were penalties?

Re: How many of these were penalties?