The Luton penalty

[RedinSweden]

I haven't seen much said about the fact that Carson didn't even touch him. I am disappointed that Carson didn't get more angry about it, but that shouldn't have been a penno. The Swedish commentator noticed, but the BBC highlights say Carson was lucky to avoid a harsher punishment.

 

BBC

 

Oh, and when Gerrard slipped why did the cock of an interviewer say "I didn't touch him Sven"? Makes me puke.

[t1971]

i was surprised Carson didnt argue about it. He could really have been sent off for that. Though you can never change a refs decision, Carson must have known it wasnt a pen but just accepted it.

[Captain]

I think it's debatable whether it's a free kick or not. I'm not sure Carson can stick his leg out to the side and get away with it even if the other player just stepped on him.

 

Even if the Luton player made the most of it, that doesn't necessarily mean it's not a free kick.

 

I just don't know. :dunno:

 

EDIT: We could have had no complaints had Carson been sent off.

[chrisbonnie]

at first glance i must admit i thought he should have been off

 

it was only after the game that you actually see the luton player stood on him, shouldnt have been anything, but who cares, we won :yes:

[drewy]

If Carson had of been sent off I'd of been livid. It was not a foul end of story. Anyone who says it was, is a numpty.

[Captain]

Perhaps I need to clarify myself. If the ref deems it an offence worthy of a free kick, he should send Carson off. If Carson hadn't made contact with the Luton player, he would have been clean through on goal, in the middle of goal, running straight at the goal.

 

If that isn't a clear goalscoring opportunity, nothing is.

[Dirk]

Perhaps I need to clarify myself. If the ref deems it an offence worthy of a free kick, he should send Carson off. If Carson hadn't made contact with the Luton player, he would have been clean through on goal, in the middle of goal, running straight at the goal.

 

If that isn't a clear goalscoring opportunity, nothing is.

 

You need to watch the replay, the offence happened out of the box. What happens though is the player begins to lose his footing, jumps on Carson's foot and throws himself to the floor. It shouldn't have been a penalty.

[Captain]

You need to watch the replay, the offence happened out of the box. What happens though is the player begins to lose his footing, jumps on Carson's foot and throws himself to the floor. It shouldn't have been a penalty.

Who's talking about a penalty?

[Dirk]

Who's talking about a penalty?

 

It wasn't even a foul. There, is that ok, Hermes?

[Dirk]

Oops, my bad, apologies. I see the point you are making.

[Captain]

It wasn't even a foul. There, is that ok, Hermes?

YKI, you told me: You need to watch the replay, the offence happened out of the box.

 

I have never claimed it took place inside the box. I'm sorry if I come across as Hermes for pointing that out.

[drewy]

Perhaps I need to clarify myself. If the ref deems it an offence worthy of a free kick, he should send Carson off. If Carson hadn't made contact with the Luton player, he would have been clean through on goal, in the middle of goal, running straight at the goal.

 

If that isn't a clear goalscoring opportunity, nothing is.

 

I see what you're saying but had he sent Carson off (which he should of) when it blatantly wasn't a foul, I would of been pissed off to say the least.

[bri]

under the letter of the law and the decisions the ref made both players should of walked. However although hed of needed terminator vision not to give the luton pen i thought in the spirit of the game he got it right. Two pens and no sendings off, amazing game and we won. that'll do for me

[Stu Monty]

under the letter of the law and the decisions the ref made both players should of walked. However although hed of needed terminator vision not to give the luton pen i thought in the spirit of the game he got it right. Two pens and no sendings off, amazing game and we won. that'll do for me

 

That's not right Joey. Ours wasn't a goalscoring opportunity as the best Gerrard could have possibly done was keep the ball in play; not score.

[bri]

im not arguing over that the ref gave it and didnt send the player off same with carson. im right and thats that ;)

[Redexile]

under the letter of the law and the decisions the ref made both players should of walked. However although hed of needed terminator vision not to give the luton pen i thought in the spirit of the game he got it right. Two pens and no sendings off, amazing game and we won. that'll do for me

agree with that, it was good to see a ref using his head instead of the rule book, as for their pern if you looked at it first time then surely you would agree it looked like a pen, so agian I think the ref couldn't be at fault there

[Anubis]

That's not right Joey. Ours wasn't a goalscoring opportunity as the best Gerrard could have possibly done was keep the ball in play; not score.

 

If he gives the foul, it had to be red. But to be perfectly honest, I thought Gerrard was ahead of Kewell and the last defender when Kewell played it, and he was actually offside.

[Scouse_Datcha]

If he gives the foul, it had to be red. But to be perfectly honest, I thought Gerrard was ahead of Kewell and the last defender when Kewell played it, and he was actually offside.

 

Gerrard’s pen was OMI, and the way I believe the rules are, not a red card. It must be a gaol scoring opportunity and it wasn’t. I also thought it was offside, but that is close.

[Stu Monty]

If he gives the foul, it had to be red. But to be perfectly honest, I thought Gerrard was ahead of Kewell and the last defender when Kewell played it, and he was actually offside.

 

Wrong.

 

It wasn't a clear goalscoring opportunity. The best Gerrard could have done was to keep the ball in play; hence a penalty and no red.

[kop]

Wrong.

 

It wasn't a clear goalscoring opportunity. The best Gerrard could have done was to keep the ball in play; hence a penalty and no red.

 

You are right. Someone is mixing the ruels of penalty and red card. You can get a penalty without even being close to a goalscoring position (f.ex. on the edge of the box, on your way out) but to get a red, you have to be robbed of a clear goal scoring opportunity. It's not even a red card if it's the 'last' man who brings you down, unless he at the same time takes a clear goals scoring opportunity away from you.

[cochcaer]

Was outside the box and imho the Luton player dived once he'd trod on Carson's foot. To be fair to the ref it looked a lot worse in real time.

[Hoddy]

Was outside the box and imho the Luton player dived once he'd trod on Carson's foot. To be fair to the ref it looked a lot worse in real time.

 

That's correct. Can't blame the ref for that one, as I thought it was a stonewall penalty on first viewing.

 

Stu's right though (and Rafa was wrong at the time), the defender who pushed Gerrard shouldn't have gone. If Gerrard had have kept the ball in, he'd have had to turn, and by that time there'd have been a few defenders back. It's just a shame that the commentary team couldn't distinguish between the two (need for a penalty and need for a red card). As the ball wasn't going anywhere near goal, they just assumed it wasn't a penalty. Like a lot of things those dickheads said and did on Saturday night, they were wrong.

[Barrington Womble]

Wrong.

 

It wasn't a clear goalscoring opportunity. The best Gerrard could have done was to keep the ball in play; hence a penalty and no red.

 

i agree. i watched a fifa video for refs on the web a couple of years back and it defined what should and shouldn't be a red and that deffo wouldn't.

 

also the one for carson, even saying it was a foul, it could not be a sending off as the player has to be running directly at the goal. the attacker took a touch and went wide round carson - it makes no odds it's a simple chance to convert, he wasn't heading directly at goal. so this too is just a yellow.

 

to be honest, i would have had little sympathy for carson had he gone off - he went to ground and didn't get the ball. at that point you're open for anything.

[Bob]

If Carson had of been sent off I'd of been livid. It was not a foul end of story. Anyone who says it was, is a numpty.

 

Absolulte bullshit. It was a foul and whatever a slow motion reply shown after the even shows it was a penalty and a sending off. The ref's dont get these replays and nor should they, if it was a quater of an inch outside the box or not, and whether he stood on carson or the other way around, THAT was defo a penalty and Carson was lucky to stay on the field.

[RedinSweden]

i agree. i watched a fifa video for refs on the web a couple of years back and it defined what should and shouldn't be a red and that deffo wouldn't.

 

 

A couple of years is a long time in FIFA terms. They always manage to introduce at least one rule change per year that introduces an element of doubt