Phil Dowd

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Thanks Nin - I did say "4 out of 5". <whistle>

In fairness my stats were compiled before that game so it's 4 out of 6. He's still an officious, over bearing little t**t. Just like his father before him.
 
marcusblackcat said:
Had he not pulled him he was running at your goalkeeper with a clear goalscoring opportunity - so red card yes. Only Cardiff fans appear to think otherwise. i.e. there WOULD HAVE BEEN a clear goalscoring opportunity if he wasn't FOULED - therefore Cala stopped a clear goalscoring opportunity
Click to expand...

If Wickham hadn't been impeded he was clean through against the keeper. If that isn't a clear goalscoring opportunity then such a thing doesn't exist.
What seems to confuse people is the difference between a 'clear goalscoring opportunity' and a 'sitter' with the keeper out of the area and the ball 2 yards out.

The offence for which Cala was penalised was at the point of the pull back and not at any time afterwards.
Therefore it has to be both a red card and a penalty, the referee has no option. The only option he has is whether,and how long, to allow an advantage.

Besides, it's just as valid to ask why Fabio wasn't sent off for raising both hands and pushing over Larsson when the game had been stopped.

The penalty is being used as a smokescreen for the defeat.

Without the red card it was still 1-0 and Cardiff didn't manage a single shot on target with 11 men ... doubt it really mattered tbh.
 
Smug, get real fella, every Cardiff fan knows we deserved to lose and lost to the better team on the day. This debate is about the merits of the penalty decision nothing more.
 
Smug in Excelsis said:
If Wickham hadn't been impeded he was clean through against the keeper. If that isn't a clear goalscoring opportunity then such a thing doesn't exist.
What seems to confuse people is the difference between a 'clear goalscoring opportunity' and a 'sitter' with the keeper out of the area and the ball 2 yards out.

The offence for which Cala was penalised was at the point of the pull back and not at any time afterwards.
Therefore it has to be both a red card and a penalty, the referee has no option. The only option he has is whether,and how long, to allow an advantage.

Besides, it's just as valid to ask why Fabio wasn't sent off for raising both hands and pushing over Larsson when the game had been stopped.

The penalty is being used as a smokescreen for the defeat.

Without the red card it was still 1-0 and Cardiff didn't manage a single shot on target with 11 men ... doubt it really mattered tbh.
Click to expand...

Smug - I havent read a single comment since the dust has settled that hasnt acknowledged that we were stuffed on the day. We know we lost to a far better team and we deserve to be relegated on that shambles of a performance.

The debate really is about the merits of the decision.

I stand by my earlier point - such a decision has not been made for as long as I can remember in the PL. The only comparable incident was the arsenal keeper in the 2006 (i think?) champions league final - but for as long as I can recall in the English league, if a man doesnt go down and keeps trying to play, he loses the freekick/penalty. Not necessarily right, but it is how the law has been implemented in every other incident of it's sort (including AGAINST us a few weeks ago when Zaha lost his penalty against Southampton by trying to score). What I find impossible not to be frustrated about, is the fact that, having been denied about 12-15 penalties (and some of them were laughably stone wall) an example has been made of us by a referee in regard to this law.

While we are at it, would the rule book brigade like to find the page that refers to players entering the area before a penalty kick is struck? I know, he probably would have scored the retake anyway, but just another example how every single aspect of that incident was going one way...
 
taffthefish said:
Smug, get real fella, every Cardiff fan knows we deserved to lose and lost to the better team on the day. This debate is about the merits of the penalty decision nothing more.
Click to expand...

I was talking about the merits of the penalty decision .......... or does that bit only appear on my screen.

If you agree you deserved to lose why concentrate so much on the penalty>
 
Popbank1987 said:
Smug - I havent read a single comment since the dust has settled that hasnt acknowledged that we were stuffed on the day. We know we lost to a far better team and we deserve to be relegated on that shambles of a performance.

The debate really is about the merits of the decision.

I stand by my earlier point - such a decision has not been made for as long as I can remember in the PL. The only comparable incident was the arsenal keeper in the 2006 (i think?) champions league final - but for as long as I can recall in the English league, if a man doesnt go down and keeps trying to play, he loses the freekick/penalty. Not necessarily right, but it is how the law has been implemented in every other incident of it's sort (including AGAINST us a few weeks ago when Zaha lost his penalty against Southampton by trying to score). What I find impossible not to be frustrated about, is the fact that, having been denied about 12-15 penalties (and some of them were laughably stone wall) an example has been made of us by a referee in regard to this law.

While we are at it, would the rule book brigade like to find the page that refers to players entering the area before a penalty kick is struck? I know, he probably would have scored the retake anyway, but just another example how every single aspect of that incident was going one way...
Click to expand...

So what you're saying is that the referee actually applied the rule correctly whereas others get it wrong ............
 
Smug in Excelsis said:
So what you're saying is that the referee actually applied the rule correctly whereas others get it wrong ............
Click to expand...

Indeed - However I dont think it is that simple:

Rules are precident as much as, if more than, writing. If a law is continuously applied in a certain way, that law, in practice, becomes pretty much accepted.

Take the 'no pushing at a corner' rule.

Lets say your team conceded a penalty because somebody was pushing and shoving at a corner, and everybody got the rule book out to say how amazing a decision it was? My argument is, the fact that it happens regularly and is never punished, renders the rule effectively meaningless.

I am simply saying that it is wrong that a rule which is almost never applied, is suddenly applied in the most important game of the season. I have said, and will continue to say, it had little or no bearing on the result as you were clearly the better team. I just get frustrated by the blatant inconsistency.

Sorry to repeat myself but - in the liverpool chelsea game. Chelsea players both go off at the same time. Ref allows them back on immediately. Carbon copy incident in the liverpool cardiff game, our players are off the pitch while liverpool score a goal from a corner...
 
Popbank1987 said:
Indeed - However I dont think it is that simple:

Rules are precident as much as, if more than, writing. If a law is continuously applied in a certain way, that law, in practice, becomes pretty much accepted.

Take the 'no pushing at a corner' rule.

Lets say your team conceded a penalty because somebody was pushing and shoving at a corner, and everybody got the rule book out to say how amazing a decision it was? My argument is, the fact that it happens regularly and is never punished, renders the rule effectively meaningless.

I am simply saying that it is wrong that a rule which is almost never applied, is suddenly applied in the most important game of the season. I have said, and will continue to say, it had little or no bearing on the result as you were clearly the better team. I just get frustrated by the blatant inconsistency.
it
Sorry to repeat myself but - in the liverpool chelsea game. Chelsea players both go off at the same time. Ref allows them back on immediately. Carbon copy incident in the liverpool cardiff game, our players are off the pitch while liverpool score a goal from a corner...
Click to expand...

That's really beside the point, the rule still stands and it's up to the referee to apply it ..... advantage is being played more often these days. Which backs up your point that attitudes to certain offences changes over time.
There is always referee's discretion but Dowd was well within his rights.
Talking specifically about the penalty, Cala pulled Wickham back in the area which is always a penalty.

What clouds the issue, if you want to take it to extremes, is the referee playing advantage.
If he'd just blown up and sent Cala off this thread wouldn't exist.

Wickham deserves praise for staying on his feet rather than going all theatrical.
 
Smug in Excelsis said:
That's really beside the point, the rule still stands and it's up to the referee to apply it ..... advantage is being played more often these days. Which backs up your point that attitudes to certain offences changes over time.
There is always referee's discretion but Dowd was well within his rights.
Talking specifically about the penalty, Cala pulled Wickham back in the area which is always a penalty.

What clouds the issue, if you want to take it to extremes, is the referee playing advantage.
If he'd just blown up and sent Cala off this thread wouldn't exist.

Wickham deserves praise for staying on his feet rather than going all theatrical.
Click to expand...

No I know, rationally I know you are right. I will have a darn sight more respect for the refereeing community when I see decisions like that one being applied fairly and consistently to all teams throughout a season though. We both know that if it had been a premier league title decider rather than a relegation decider, the ref would have taken the safe option and either awarded a yellow card or given a free kick and sent him off, and that I guess is the bit that bothers me.
 
Popbank1987 said:
No I know, rationally I know you are right. I will have a darn sight more respect for the refereeing community when I see decisions like that one being applied fairly and consistently to all teams throughout a season though. We both know that if it had been a premier league title decider rather than a relegation decider, the ref would have taken the safe option and either awarded a yellow card or given a free kick and sent him off, and that I guess is the bit that bothers me.
Click to expand...

Welcome to our world mate <ok>
 
williams yes, because no-one will come in for him&#8230;.. bony, depends on the money, he's a mercenary so you're probably best off letting him go&#8230;&#8230;.. michu, would you sell for around £10m? thats probably his value as a 28 year old one season wonder.
 
I expect the "bigger" clubs to be taking a keen interest in Bony after a very good first Prem season. I'm sure you will make a good profit on what you paid for him but then he has to be replaced and does Monk (if he stays as seems likely) have the contacts Laudrup enjoyed?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back