Just because there is contact and a player falls does not mean it is a foul. Just because a player does not go to ground it does not mean it is not a foul. In this case Ricketts(?) went down way too easy and was nearer 'simulation' (the guidance for referees now is that players who exagerate the contact/fall from minimal contact are just as culpable as those who clearly 'dive' and should be cautioned) than a genuine foul. Either way, and particularly in the penalty area, a referee needs to be absolutely sure that it is one way or the other otherwise play on. Still, we won....
I suggest that some of us on this thread are kidding ourselves when we say that it wasn't a penalty. From my angle it looked a stupid one to give away but a clear shove with Pudil's elbow on the player rather than a "shoulder charge". Whether Ricketts "went down easily" or not is irrelevant - contact was definitely made and Pudil should not have gone anywhere near him, having been done for pace. How many on here, if it had been a similar challenge by a Bolton player on Vydra, say, would have felt aggrieved not to have been awarded the penalty?
Vic... on this occasion, and I'll admit on TFLS it looked pretty clear cut for a penalty, but my view of that incident is down to my marvellous seat in the UR overlooking it. I maintain that just because a player is touched and goes down it is not necessarily a foul. Alas too many top referees have never played the game since U14 and as we all know too many fans (and players at all levels including pundits) are shamefully ignorant of the laws, what they mean and why they are written the way they are. That Pudil should not have made the tackle is open for debate as is Ricketts demonstration of the laws of gravity, but the referee should have made a better decision. A souffle would not have gone down under that pressure! Still, we won and the whole thing is a bit of a moot point.
