Crystal Palace (a)

[Anubis]

I signed the original one and this one

 

https://www.change.org/p/football-coat-association-ban-alan-pardew-and-fine-crystal-palace-fc-6-jackets?recruiter=28751761&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=copylink

Love some of the comments.

 

I can honestly say Pardew didn't make contact with his coat today and IF there was slight contact he didnt impede his coat.

 

Damien Delaney, seoul, South Korea

 

 

 

I was watching this game with my impressionable little sister. When I saw Mr. Pardew react this towards his coat I found it deplorable especially with young fans such as my sister watching. I hope CPFC take appropriate action, if not I can only see this happening more and more often if we do not nip it in the bud now.

Nathan Johnson, Preston, United Kingdom

[Iceman]

Sherwood is suing Pardew for copyright now. You couldn't make this shit up. 

[VladimirIlyich]

The law is;whatever the appointed officials interpret it to be when any event occurs during the game they officiate.

In this case it was a penalty. End of story.

PS 2-1. Haha! Fuck you Pardew. Your castle was well and truly stormed,sweetcheeks!

[Dr Nowt]

I thought Pards was just trying to show he can fill The Owl's boots with that coat throwing.

 

Expect him to be having a whiff of his dirty sanchezing finger and doing a Wayne's World in the dugout any day now.

[Anubis]

He's no Timmy Sherwood when it comes to coat hurling.

[Stu Monty]

There was enough contact to knock him off balance. They film football matches these days, so the very clear evidence is there. It was a foul. There really is nothing to argue about.

You have no idea if it was enough contact to knock him off balance or not.

 

Footballers quite often fall over from the slightest contact.

 

So there very much is a debate to be had, and all this "end of" and "it's fucking simple" stuff just makes the people saying it look to be unable to comprehend the grey area.

[Stu Monty]

Yes, only Benteke "knows" if the contact brought him down, but since we're not dealing with the certainty of knowledge, only reasonable belief, we don't need to have that level of confidence. In the reasonable belief of the officials, the contact was sufficient to bring the player down.

 

I always feel that in situations where (i) the defender has made contact with the attacker and (ii) the defender has failed to win the ball, the benefit of the doubt should be given to the attacker.

 

Given that we all acknowledge that a defender doesn't even need to make contact with the attacker for it to be deemed a foul (see: Steven Gerrard at Bramall Lane, August 2006), I would suggest that it's not especially controversial to interpret the rule this way.

Nobody said it was controversial, just that there is very much a debate to be had. The tiresome faux disbelief that anyone could think a player might go down at very little contact, and that even having the conversation is crazy, is just deeply irritating.

 

That benefit of the doubt you are giving is a key factor in diving being so widespread. We are far too keen to push contact out of the game.

[moof]

Tripped or attempted to trip. Kicked or attempted to kick. If he'd stayed on his feet, by the letter of the law it would've still been a foul.

 

The fact that he went down merely brought attention to the obvious and clear foul.

 

If you want to have a debate about changing the rules then that is something else entirely.

[Stu Monty]

Nothing is clear and obvious. It's all about a judgement and an interpretation.

 

Trying to make out it is black and white just makes you look daft.

[moof]

Haha

[Stu Monty]

Stu, the law states if you make contact with the player before the ball then the referee can give a foul. That's what the law is. Never mind being tripped or anything like that. Please, ask a referee.

Probably stop laughing at other people, and telling them what is clear and obvious, yeah?

[moof]

It was laughter of derision

[Stu Monty]

I know.

 

Self-awareness not a strong point with you, is it?

[moof]

Says the man accusing others of looking daft...

[G Richards]

I can't believe we're still arguing about this? So what the heck, I'll give my opinion! 

 

It was a soft penalty. If we had conceded it, I'd be fuming. But since we won it, I'm made up. I've seen penalties given for less, as in this instance there was actual contact with the defender's knee and Benteke's ankle. Most strikers in the modern game have the instinct to go down when there is contact in the box. That's what he did and he won the penalty and scored it. 

 

Arguably, he could have stayed on his feet as the contact wasn't exactly strong. I suspect if he was central to the goal and had a good chance to get a shot away, he'd have stayed up to try to shoot. But since it was wide of the frame of the goal and the ball was going towards the byline, his best chance of a goal was to go over upon contact to try to win a penalty. 

 

When the referee is certain, they blow the whistle and point to the spot right away. When all the players know it's a fair and square penalty there's barely a peep of protest. In this instance the ref conferred with the assistant, a penalty was given, Benteke tucked it away with aplomb, the players protested, Pardew spat the dummy out and we got the three points. 

 

It's football. It's why it is the beautiful game. The penalty was very much debatable. It was a bit of a soft one, but as a one-eyed fan, since we were on the right side of it, I'm happy enough!

[magicrat]

The only surprising thing about the whole incident was that Benteke converted the pen.

He is not exactly shit hot in one on one situations and I feared the worst when he lolloped up to take it, Fortunately the keeper was as generous at the lino.