.. arguably the same could be said for Spuds last minute pen in our cup game or indeed the one at the Etihaad ... 95% of refs wouldn't have given a pen for either (you'd hope) ... sometimes you get the rub ... sometimes you don't
Oh, ok, let's bring up the old comparison argument. That's a new one. The one in our cup game was certainly more of a 50-50. Vardy's blatant dive wasn't anywhere near that. As you say, some go for you, some don't.
^ This Claiming an arm on the shoulder is a penalty is plain daft, as it isn't. Vardy felt the touch and initiated the coming together, the touch itself didn't impede him and wasn't a foul. It's a contact sport ffs.
Clearly it is ... A direct free kick is also awarded to the opposing team if a player commits any of the following four offences: tackles an opponent to gain possession of the ball, making contact with the opponent before touching the ball holds an opponent spits at an opponent handles the ball deliberately (except for the goalkeeper within his own penalty area) ... not my rules ...
He wasn't holding him ffs. He had a hand on his shoulder. If you're seriously suggesting that a hand across an opponent or a hand on the shoulder is a foul under the rules of the game, then you're having a meltdown.
Yeah mate, a 15st CB supposedly grabs and pulls a 10st striker running at full tilt, and he doesn't bring him down? **** off will ya
This is just getting ridiculous. That was never a penalty in any way, shape, or form. As Tobes said, it's s contact sport ffs! If the defender had made any pulling back motion on Vardy, he would have chucked himself backwards instead!
... I am merely demonstrating that any hand on an opponent that is interpreted by a referee as a 'hold' on that opponent is technically a foul ... obviously in this case the hand on the shoulder wasn't an attempt to hinder Vardy's momentum in any way ... more of a "Hi Jamie, I've always liked you and I just want you to know I'm always there for you" gesture ... ... as I said ... I didn't write the laws ... but if the ref had given a penalty and reported that he gave it for the player's hand contact on the shoulder which he deemed to be holding... then, strictly in accordance with the rules, it would be in point ... whether the hand constituted 'holding' is, of course, open to interpretation ... ... now try not to get so touchy about a mere (if undeniably factual) outlining of the rules of football ... such a reaction might be interpreted as a meltdown ...
... see post above about the actual rules ... yes it is a contact sport ... but you are not allowed to hold ... because that is a foul ... write to FIFA if you don't like the rules ...they are not my fault ...
... before you and Now Spluttering lose your tampons in indignation, I would reiterate that I have consistently said that I didn't think it was a penalty ...
... on the one point you have made ... Vardy gets clattered all the time by much bigger opponents ... he punches well above his weight physically .. ... but on that point ... did you see poor old Winston Reid launched into space by the super human strength of Wes Morgan, son of Zeus? ... pretty amazing that he propelled a man of similar size and body weight that distance wouldn't you say? ... ... I accepted both decisions because I though both our lads made poor, and unecessary, judgement calls ... but I also beleive that Jon Moss had started to have some severe doubts about the decisions he had made or perhaps the consitency (lack of) of them ... hence when the opportunity came to give us a soft penalty he leapt at it ... said everything for me.
Clutching at non existent straws will not change the fact that it was never a penalty! The only one losing a tampon here, Flossie, is you!...
Come the end of the day as things stand the only relevant decision is the referees. Disagreeing is irrelevant because like it or not it changes nothing.Of course mistakes are made as with everything else in life human error will always play its part.
Clutching I would say is very similar to holding ... against the rules ... I don't make the rules ... but I would like to see them interpreted with some consistency ... obviously if the clutching is on a non-existant shoulder then it shouldn't be a penalty ... (suggest you use the ones with wings in future)
Pedantics so won't change anything either. The word existent tends to be used more in the negative, so it's appropriate in this case. As in non existent penalty.,
I edited to avoid controversy ... ... pedantry isn't against the rules unless accompanied by holding or clutching ... which clearly are ... in which case a penalty may result.
