OK thanks I'll tell him
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Southampton (A) Post Match Thread
- Thread starter Stoned Rose
- Start date
simon23
Well-Known Member
It was a clear penalty
Any referee would agree
He fouled Sane on the 'second phase'
Yes he touched the ball but cleaned Sane out, PENALTY
any ref....... except the one on the pitch.... !!!!
thats all that maters....
People on here love to have the excuse of the ref...it happens even before a ball is kicked. its like a protection mechanism that kicks in even days before the game...people start "betting" on certain ref's giving dodgy decisions and saying its why we might lose/or not win. They do this cause its easier/nicer/safer to make an excuse and get that excuse in so they can then hark back to it and say "i told you so" instead of admitting at those times that the team just wasn't good enough on that one occasion (which some never can)....that is a hard thing to do for some and impossible for a few...
Of course wrong decisions can be made and are made but thats the beauty of the game....its still open to human error and its a small part of why its so exciting....
Like i also said in reply to someone else...the keeper gets a touch and because its a keeper it aint a foul (if an outfield player had done it it probably would have been a foul) but keepers get a different set of "rules" (unwritten) as well.
People just need to man up a bit on this subject and accept its part of the game.
simon23
Well-Known Member
The key point is that the referee cannot have spotted that in real time so he either chose to ignore what he thought was a foul and penalty or somebody watching the replay on screen told him via the comms it wasn't a pen.... I'll go with the former... he chose not to give it as he wasn't sure or because it's City
he may have chose not to give it cause he wasn't sure....and that is still the right decision.
he may have chosen not to give it cause Sane doesn't appeal......I like that a player of ours decided not to try and con the ref (as plenty of others do)
I wonder what people would have said if it was Ashley Young in the exact same position.....the outcry on here would have been defending (and he is someone who would have gone down there and appealed for it)
Rammy Blue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 23 May 2008
- Messages
- 29,855
Jesus wept man, you're incredible.so why doesn't sane appeal then and why does he say it wasn't a penalty?
i couldn't care less as in my view it aint a penalty and neither is it in sane's view or they refs at the time.......people need to get over the ref stuff on here...mistakes are made ( id not think this was one) and thats what makes the game exciting as there is sometimes human error.
You don't know Sane would have still got the ball either...you presume
I'll leave it there, there's no reasoning with some people.
Blueknows
Well-Known Member
And after seeing numerous replays (summat the ref hasnt got the luxury of) I still say he made the right decision , the keeper does get a slight touch on the ball and the combination of that and Sanes touch changes the direction of the ball , which no doubt made up the refs mindany ref....... except the one on the pitch.... !!!!
thats all that maters....
People on here love to have the excuse of the ref...it happens even before a ball is kicked. its like a protection mechanism that kicks in even days before the game...people start "betting" on certain ref's giving dodgy decisions and saying its why we might lose/or not win. They do this cause its easier/nicer/safer to make an excuse and get that excuse in so they can then hark back to it and say "i told you so" instead of admitting at those times that the team just wasn't good enough on that one occasion (which some never can)....that is a hard thing to do for some and impossible for a few...
Of course wrong decisions can be made and are made but thats the beauty of the game....its still open to human error and its a small part of why its so exciting....
Like i also said in reply to someone else...the keeper gets a touch and because its a keeper it aint a foul (if an outfield player had done it it probably would have been a foul) but keepers get a different set of "rules" (unwritten) as well.
People just need to man up a bit on this subject and accept its part of the game.
simon23
Well-Known Member
And after seeing numerous replays (summat the ref hasnt got the luxury of) I still say he made the right decision , the keeper does get a slight touch on the ball and the combination of that and Sanes touch changes the direction of the ball , which no doubt made up the refs mind
i think he made right decision as well but thats the beauty of football isn't it...its why its so exciting.
I do think there should be more physical contact allowed in the game however....i think its got a bit ridiculous as you can barely tackle any more
Blueknows
Well-Known Member
Agree on tackling , how many times recently have you seen someone make a great tackle winning the ball for the ref to blow for a foul ? and then for the pundits to say " he may have won the ball but he made contact on the follow through"i think he made right decision as well but thats the beauty of football isn't it...its why its so exciting.
I do think there should be more physical contact allowed in the game however....i think its got a bit ridiculous as you can barely tackle any more
simon23
Well-Known Member
Agree on tackling , how many times recently have you seen someone make a great tackle winning the ball for the ref to blow for a foul ? and then for the pundits to say " he may have won the ball but he made contact on the follow through"
every game you watch regardless of the team
Blueknows
Well-Known Member
Yep it is becoming a non contact sportevery game you watch regardless of the team
simon23
Well-Known Member
Yep it is becoming a non contact sport
i know...not right but I'm guessing the thinking is to try and make it more exciting and contentious?