Referees/Officials

[Blue Mooner]

Absolute bollocks, how on earth can you say honestly that Sane wouldn't have got to that ball? The keepers touch didn't alter the speed of the ball and only changed the direction less than a few centimetres at most. To say Sane wouldn't reach that without the trip is just absolute bullshit and you know it.

If the ball had gone backwards or sideways BlueAnorak might have a point under the rules the reality is but for Forster bringing Sane down he would have got to the ball. That aside I still maintain that Forster didn't even touch the ball..

We all know any other team would have been awarded a penalty.

 

[BlueAnorak]

Absolute bollocks, how on earth can you say honestly that Sane wouldn't have got to that ball? The keepers touch didn't alter the speed of the ball and only changed the direction less than a few centimetres at most. To say Sane wouldn't reach that without the trip is just absolute bullshit and you know it.

With no intent, being able to get to the ball is irrelevant - Sané would have to have gone 2 or 3 steps out of his way to regain full control first.

 

[BlueAnorak]

He didn't lose control of the ball tho, so your wrong. Graham Poll explained why it was a penalty at half time, which it clearly was.

This is the only point of contention.
The ref and I believe the ball moved sufficiently for the ball to be no longer under full control as Sané would have to make 2 or 3 steps to the right.
You and Poll don't so clearly not a guaranteed penalty by most peoples evaluation.
I should point out that Poll clearly hasn't been to referee rule implementation/guidence conferences for about 3 years either.

 

[Rammy Blue]

Bottom line for me is that because it's so ambiguous then I understand the ref not giving the penalty. It looked at normal speed as if Forster got a decent hand to it which took it off course and consequently I think the ref went with the safest call.

Has to be said though, I guarantee the scum would have got the penalty and the argument would have raged in reverse about how it was a definite penalty and the ambiguity would be twisted in their favour.

 

[Blue Mooner]

With no intent, being able to get to the ball is irrelevant - Sané would have to have gone 2 or 3 steps out of his way to regain full control first.

Whenever a keeper goes to block the ball in those situations there never is intent it's simply that the attacker is quicker to the ball. You see penalties given in those situations every single time. Under your interpretation a penalty would rarely if ever be given. Stop digging.

 

[BlueAnorak]

You can go on about rules/lost control etc...If Sane plays for Utd or Lfc he gets a penalty...one rule for City another rule for our top 4 rivals

Bottom line for me is that because it's so ambiguous then I understand the ref not giving the penalty. It looked at normal speed as if Forster got a decent hand to it which took it off course and consequently I think the ref went with the safest call.

Has to be said though, I guarantee the scum would have got the penalty and the argument would have raged in reverse about how it was a definite penalty and the ambiguity would be twisted in their favour.

No disagreement from me on this point. Non at all!

 

[Kinkladze 1]

Forster got the ball, didn't touch the Sane. Excellent save. End of. Good refereeing for once.

 

[paulchapo]

We have seen these incidents given as penalties probably eight out of ten times. When they involve us, particularly this season, you can reverse those percentages.

 

[franksinatra]

Forster got the ball, didn't touch the Sane. Excellent save. End of. Good refereeing for once.

Well Sane thought so.

 

[Ric]

Must admit, I was furious at the time and was convinced it was a penalty. Having seen it from another angle, and read what Sane has said, that I accept that it was the right call. Still not convinced that the ref saw Forster's touch though.