*Official* English Football Season 2009-2010

[roseboy64]

FWIW the rules Pickup posted were far from conclusive. It gives a number of factors to consider, but whether to give a handball in such incidents is entirely at the discretion of the ref. Was Macheda's arm in an "unnatural" position? Is the fact that he gained a significant advantage from it enough to award it as a handball despite it not being deliberate? It's all open to interpretation. I'm not saying I wouldn't give it as a handball, I'm just saying not doing so isn't a terrible decision.

Actually, I thought the same about the penalty incidents too. None of the decisions Dean made in the game were particularly reprehensible IMO- they could all reasonably go either way- the only real shocker was the offside, and at that stage we were a long shot to win the game anyway.

This really. The only shocker was the offside. Not that that means Dean had a good game. All water under the bridge though and not worth talking about.

 

[Jarquis]

Considering how quickly everything happened and that it looks he puts his chest out a bit =with his arm already in motion it's hard to call it intentional.

Heh. Think you're completely and utterly wrong and I think you know that. So don't be surprrised when I say I think that's the reason why you're wanting to drop the topic. Quite frankly you made yourself look more of an arse than the linesman for Chelsea's goal.

 

[roseboy64]

Heh. Think you're completely and utterly wrong and I think you know that. So don't be surprrised when I say I think that's the reason why you're wanting to drop the topic. Quite frankly you made yourself look more of an arse than the linesman for Chelsea's goal.

If you think that's the case you missed the Giggs v Pires argument.

 

[Jarquis]

If you think that's the case you missed the Giggs v Pires argument.

You're right, I did.

 

[roseboy64]

You're right, I did.

That argument went on for much longer than this one.

The Park penalty is debatable, could possibly have been given. Berbatov's a no. Anelka a possible. The offside a bad call. The handball a no since it's difficult to apportion intent to Macheda's handling of the ball. Simple. On the balance of play a Chelsea win or draw the deserved result as they had a bit better of the game despite both sides not creating many chances or giving the keepers too much to do.

 

[sledger]

Xavier Rose in blindless support of Manchester Utd/Manchester Utd Player shocker.

And FTR the Anelka penalty was blatant.

 

[Jarquis]

I don't understand how from Macheda's action it could be deemed anything other than intentional.

 

[roseboy64]

Xavier Rose in blindless support of Manchester Utd/Manchester Utd Player shocker.

And FTR the Anelka penalty was blatant.

Nah he just did a John Terry impersonation.

 

[roseboy64]

I don't understand how from Macheda's action it could be deemed anything other than intentional.

Because it hits his stomach/chest and upper arm/elbow at the same time then bounces off and hits his arm slightly in front of his body. That's a stupid thing to do if intentional as it possibly directs the ball away from goal whereas it was already goalward. It's just too much for it to say it's intentional or not. If there's doubt there then goal stands. Probably why the penalty decisions weren't given.

 

[Jarquis]

We're not going anywhere here. I don't see how it's unitentional. He clearly pumps out his arm in an attempt to make contact with the ball IMHO.

 

[sledger]

lol?

Yes, but not in a good way.

 

[Matteh]

Have you watched a .gif of the incident or something?

Regardless of where it hits initially, it definitely hits the arm as the arm moves towards the ball and makes contact with it with the ball ending up in the back of the net.

 

[Jarquis]

AWTMatteh

 

[cpr]

Right, hmm.

1. The penalties. Either they both are, or neither are. Both of them technically could be given, but be a bit pissy and weak to give them IMO.

2. The goals. Offside, and handball. Pretty much it tbh.

 

[cpr]

Oh, and not a red card for Henry for me. Yes foul from behind, but i dont even think his foot touched him, pulled up but caught him with his knee, looked worse than it was, possibly thanks to Rosicky rolling about like hell. Booking yes, off no.

 

[sledger]

Pretty much agree about Henry, but can fully see why he was sent off, was a stupid and reckless lunge, even if it did look worse than it probably was.

 

[Neil Pickup]

I managed to not pay attention as this VM malarkey distratced me. I'll take your word on the Utd goals, as Rose is now the only person maintaining the halo around Macheda's head.

As for Wolves, however, the moment someone slides in from behind at that pace, from that distance, they're always likely to go for walkies.

 

[cpr]

Suppose the fact that he tried to pull out of it does count for little tbh, potential damage n all that. Still makes it feel a bit harsh for me though

 

[Uppercut]

1. The penalties. Either they both are, or neither are. Both of them technically could be given, but be a bit pissy and weak to give them IMO.

Agree with this.

Zhirkov touched the ball when Park went past him. It's a grey area, because he certainly didn't "win" the ball. His tackle completely missed and the ball bounced off his leg as Park kicked it past him. You always get a free outside the box, but inside the box, it seems a bit of a push to be giving a penalty for it.

I definitely wouldn't give a penalty for Neville's challenge on Anelka, I wouldn't give a free if it was outside the box. It's a bog-standard shoulder-to-shoulder challenge that's made to look like a foul because:

-another United player takes possession. If Neville had done that then retrieved the ball himself it would appear a perfectly fair challenge.
-Anelka momentarily assumes the strength of a ragdoll and flies halfway to the moon.

 

[Agent TBY]