It was Aguero wasn't it? He doesn't tend to miss nowadays ! But if you just give the pen (or free kick outside the box) then it will just encourage defenders to foul players in goal scoring opportunities, which surely needs to be discouraged rather than encouraged?
I think what annoys some people, is that on tight calls it seems there is often no middle ground a ref can take. He either gives a pen AND a red, or must wave away the penalty. Sometimes perhaps just the pen would suffice and keep it 11 v 11 but would be difficult to draw the lines and interpret.
Any foul you commit, anywhere on the pitch, may prevent a goal scoring opportunity eventually. Dont get me wrong, if a players is going through on goal and a defender cynically clips the strikers heel with no attempt to win the ball, then fair does, send the c**t off. But a legitimate tackle attempt, mis timed, he misses the ball or just brushes it and takes out a player, its a foul, award the penalty and move on. Otherwise you end up in a situation where, effectively in 99% of cases (though oddly not last nights match), the competition has ended because a team is now a goal up and a man up. That gives the other team a HUGE ****ing mountain to climb and it just ****s the whole match up.
Again, thats bullshit. A foul is a foul, if a red isnt awarded for the same foul if it occurs in the centre circle then that is absolute garbage. For me there are 3 types of tackles: 1) Legitimate tackles, the defender wants to or is trying to win the ball from the opposition 2) Cynical tackles, the defenders primary intent is to halt the player in his tracks and stop play 3) Reckless tackles, the defenders primary intent is to hurt the player, whether its premeditated or in a moment of madness and/or stupidity A straight red card should always be awarded for 3) BUT ONLY EVER BE AWARDED FOR 2) IF ITS A GOAL SCORING OPPORTUNITY AND NEVER FOR A 1) TACKLE.
I've done that in games and started walking off as soon as I've done it, no doubts it's a red card but in certain circumstances you take the card.
Not really as the professional foul/red card still applies. It's up to the referee to make a call on the malice of the foul, at the moment they just give a red regardless and that is my point. I'm pretty sure if Aguero was guaranteed to score then he was also guaranteed to not miss the pen!
In general what you say sounds sensible but there are situations where it wouldn't work fairly. For instance, a player goes round the keeper and about to roll it into an empty net (lets pretend this isn't Torres who'd still miss 50% of the time ). Defender then puts in a 'legitimate tackle', is genuinely trying to win the ball but mistimes and fouls the player - ergo stopping a certain goal. Giving the attacking team a pen and a booking at most for the defending team is not a fair redress. The attacking team is worse off having been fouled. As I say, perhaps the threshold for clear goal scoring opportunity needs to be higher but I think the straight red is appropriate (though I agree it can ruin games). The other option is the forced substitution thing where rather than go down to 10 men, the fouling players HAS to be subbed. That's a whole other debate though
Thats a very specific example, but still even then, the defender is entitled to make the challenge to stop the goal, if the tackle looked like a legitimate attempt to win the ball, then a penalty is good enough punishment in my eyes, as the striker clearly wasn't through on goal. Its not a certain goal because he still had a defender to beat, the fact that the defender ****ed up his challenge is neither here nor there, if the defender had got it right, then he has defended his goal. If the tackle is blatanly cynical, then red card him and award the penalty, if it was a genuinely mistimed attempt, then the penalty alone is good enough for me, as the defender hasn't conceded a professional foul.
Yeah of course the defender is entitled to make the challenge but must understand the risk he runs if he mistimes the challenge. In my (specific ) example I'm imagining a scenario where the player simply wont miss and doesn't have anyone between him and pocking into an empty net. I'm imagining the defender coming from the side and mistiming the tackle, therefore denying a certain goal by committing a foul - regardless of intent. To give the attacker a penalty rather than a certain goal seems unfair as the penalty could be missed where as the open goal was very unlikely to have been. Obviously most genuine attempts to win the ball aren't going to be like this but is to show how difficult it is to implement general rules. It's also arguably more relevant outside the box where you don't at least get the benefit of a penalty.
See that's the thing with me.....its ALL about the intent!! It's not really cheating in my eyes if you didn't intend to cheat. Like in all jobs, there will be human error. You are attempting to win a ball from someone who is running at you/alongside you, at top speed, sometimes you will time it right, sometimes you will get it wrong. I still think a penalty is a good enough punishment. Lets take the Suarez handball incident at the 2010 world cup for example. Suarez deliberately handballs on the goal line to stop a certain goal. Red card, no complaints. A penalty is awarded and Uruguay are down to ten men. Thats AMPLE punishment for Uruguay.....not their fault the opposition missed the ensuing penalty. (My beef with that incident was the classless behaviour of Suarez, cheering on the touchline when he had been ejected from the stadium).
See I disagree on that, with the Suarez incident, I'd have given the goal and booked the player if it was down to me. The penalty in that specific scenario is not sufficient because what was unquestionably 100% going to be a goal save for the blatant handball has now been turned into a penalty where the player has to now beat a keeper from 12 yards. Why should Ghana have to now score a penalty when the shot in the original incident was clearly going in? That way justice prevails for the attacking team and the game remains 11 v 11 for the spectators. It would have been OK if it happened in the first minute but Ghana got no benefit of playing against 10 men cos it was at the death (no doubt why Suarez did it as well). Intent plays a part and I don't class all fouls as 'cheating' but I think sometime intent is irrelevant and is also often hard to distinguish.
Dont think you can change the punishment based on what minute of the game the foul is performed on either! In this situation, the opposition lose a player and you get the chance to score a penalty......which more often than not, goes in. Its not perfect...but screws fall off, the world is an imperfect place Also, awarding a goal in that case would break rule no. 1 of football, in that the entire ball needs to cross the line for a goal to be awarded. It doesnt cross the line, for whatever reason, it cannot be a goal......we cant start debating that rule, otherwise it will be anarchy.
No I agree you can see a punishment based on when it happens but was pointing out that Ghana received no benefit of Uruguay going down to 10 men - so the rule doesn't always work. Just makes a lot more sense to me in that situation to just allow the goal - and if that means changing rule number 1 then so be it. And if that rule is written in stone by the gods, then it should be a pen with no keeper!!
He hasn't even been the best player at Liverpool during that time. It was Torres and then Suarez. Gerrard is a poor man's Lampard. Even in semi retirement Frank's out performing him
Aye, but full retirement Scholesy is outdoing them both [video=youtube;hOP4svX_7Es]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOP4svX_7Es[/video]
