Sorry, didn't know where to put this so I started a knew thread. Just watched the penalty incident several times, both last night and this morning. I have constantly rewinded and looked at several aspects. I have concluded that probably wasn't a foul and it is open to some interpretation. Walters stepped in front of Barnett as he tried to get the ball, resulting in him falling over. It was like any old tussle for the ball which Walters lost. There have been plenty of situations like that where a foul has not been given. There is also no question that it was outside the area. IF it was a foul Barnett HAS to be sent off as he was the last man. There is no question that he was the last man, had Barnett not been there Walters would have had a decent chance on goal. It is a red card whether it is outside the penalty area or not. The referee was in a very bad place to make a decision. Whereas the linesman was right in line with the incident. Given the positioning of the referee he was very brave to make that decision and not to consult with his linesman. That's just my interpretation of the incident and sorry if there's been too much on this topic already!
If it wasn't a foul and Leon wasn't sent off, would we have gone on to win the game, who knows i hope we hold back that bit of luck now for later in the season
Nice to see a Stoke fan agree. But that's life and that's football. Considering the number of decisions that went for us last season it's about we had some against us! Obviously not too fussed that it was a penalty as it was saved and will do no harm to ruddy's confidence. Just annoyed about the red card as it changed the game, but if the ref saw a foul he had no choice. Had Walters converted the penalty I'm sure Stoke would have won. Also heard, according to radio Norfolk Barnett got quite upset about the red card.
.......agree with the last man scenario but disagree that the ref was brave to make the decision without consulting his assistant. what's he there for? if he was closer and in a better position the ref should consult him without hesitation. very arrogant, not brave, to ignore himm altogether.
Afraid I disagree with the last man bit as well and this assumption that he HAS to be be sent off. Ruddy was quick off his line and might have actually got to the ball first and if not it was far, far from certain Walters would have scored - in fact he would have done very well to have put it away with the way super JR performed yesterday. My understanding of the rule is that a professional foul is committed when a deliberate attempt is made by a defender to impede the opponent in a way that it would stop him form scoring a certain goal. I might be a bit wrong with the actual wording there but I'm 100% sure that wasn't a certain goalscoring opportunity for the reasons I stated. Anyhow, as has been stated perhaps this was a taste of our own medicine after the amount of good fortune he had the past couple of seasons. That's two dodgy ones we've had already, let's hope we get some payback on Saturday
Brave/arrogant, both work I think. Completely agree about the arrogant comment. He was brave to make the decision without the linesman's help because he was in a bad decision and there was a chance of getting it wrong, as he did, and arrogant in thinking that the decision could be made without the linesman's help. When the goal scoring opportunity is defined, it ignores the keeper. He has an opportunity to score without a defender in his way - essentially a chance to shoot, with the likelihood that he would score. Walters would have had a chance to score had Barnett not impeded him, this also down to the fact that he was the last man. Whether he would not have scored does not matter, it's the opportunity that matters. Also decisions can't be based on how well a player is performing, this would result in a disaster when applying the rules.
I personally have a slightly different interpretation. They seemed to come together outside the box and there was contact although I do not think there was a foul. Walters seemed to take another stride and then went down inside the box. Whilst they were close together there was no contact inside the box but I think the ref made a right pigs ear of it and thought there was further contact inside the box and gave his decision accordingly. I did look across and did not see the assistant with his flag across his chest - sorry if I'm wrong on that - so it was the ref who is fully responsible. They often see what they want to see and the only certainty is that he will be given another game to mess up next week!!
I don't think it was a foul either. Just the referee saw it was a foul and if he does he has to send the player off. Not saying it was a foul, but if the referee thought it was a foul. It certainly didn't help that it started outside the area and if your that close to the penalty area and there is a tangle of legs, you are going to take advantage of it as an attacker.
Just rewatched the Walters penalty incident again several times. It's clear 1) the incident was outside the box, 2) Walters sticks his leg in front of Barnett to try to pinch the ball and loses his balance and goes down. The only thing I can see that Barnett did was to try to step in front of Walters to shield the ball, this is where Walters then sticks out a leg, across Barnett, and loses his balance. Penalty and red car - my arse! 2 points taken away. What's with Premier League refs, was at Wigan and the penalty there was a farce too.
