Talksport

Prestwich_Blue said:
But that's the point. If the contact was 100% responsible for bringing him down then it's 100% a penalty. If there was contact and Benteke could have stayed on his feet but chose to go down, then there's contact but it shouldn't be a penalty. What none of us know is how much part the contact played in bringing him down. You simply can't tell that from the replays.
Click to expand...
Is this "responsible for bringing him down" a factor - is it in the rules that the contact has to be enough to bring him down?
I'm no fan of the dippers, but in ignorance of the wording of the rules, I do think there was enough contact to throw a big unit like Benteke at speed off balance. If he had just gone onto his knees it would have been more honest looking granted.
 
See this is exactly why video replay technology is a waste of time.. we are still debating whether it was a penalty 24 hours after the damn game !

Football was born to be subjective.
 
Malty said:
See this is exactly why video replay technology is a waste of time.. we are still debating whether it was a penalty 24 hours after the damn game !

Football was born to be subjective.
Click to expand...
The ref would either ask the question is there a reason not to give the pen, in this case I would think the answer would be no and it would be given, or he'd ask the question was there sufficient contact to bring the player down, your guess is as good as mine as to what that answer would be.
 
andyhinch said:
The ref would either ask the question is there a reason not to give the pen, in this case I would think the answer would be no and it would be given, or he'd ask the question was there sufficient contact to bring the player down, your guess is as good as mine as to what that answer would be.
Click to expand...

I think they will end up with a system that is like cricket, where by they will try everything possible to stick by the ref's decision, like umpire's call in cricket. The one thing the review system has done is mute celebrations of wickets, by players and by supporters, the spontaneity that comes from a collective cheer is tempered when the batsmen start to have their little chat after a wicket. Also there are 2 or 3 mins of standing around waiting for the decision, this takes time out of an already inherently slow game that by its nature is stop start, which is very frustrating. Watching the rugby world cup, the video ref and the over use of it caused large breaks to many games, which totally ruined the flow, also the refs were scared not to get anything wrong so over used it, again effecting the flow of the game further. Other sports like tennis (they are line calls only so in or out and take seconds) and American football is another sport which has breaks as part of its nature, the impact of the video ref is minimal.

I am not so sure video reviews are the way to go with football. I am all for the goal line technology, where it is a black or white decision, not shades of grey, like this thread is proving with the Benteke dive.
 
Malty said:
See this is exactly why video replay technology is a waste of time.. we are still debating whether it was a penalty 24 hours after the damn game !

Football was born to be subjective.
Click to expand...
If he knew he could be done for diving with video reffing he may not have gone down,it'll cut out a lot of diving imo
 
Most interesting thing about the incident is no one ripped into carragher saying Liverpool players don't dive! Piss funny considering coutinho's antics everyone he steps on the pitch.
 
BlueHammer85 said:
are these people getting on and off the tube running at full speed ? it only takes the slightest clip of the ankle to send someone flying.

i totally agree Benteke made the most of it and dived... But Delaney unfortunately made a costly mistake clipping someones foot in the box, if he was near the ball then perhaps benefit of doubt could be given but he was miles away, It was a very rash challenge and he knew had committed a foul
Click to expand...
That's all that needs to be said. Stop digging in that hole!

So, on Saturday, if Tony Whatsisname or the new Messi went down in exactly the same circumstances following a "challenge" by one of your own defenders at the end of the match, would hold your hands up and say that the officials got it right and correctly awarded a penalty? Genuine question, by the way.
 
crazyg said:
That's all that needs to be said. Stop digging in that hole!

So, on Saturday, if Tony Whatsisname or the new Messi went down in exactly the same circumstances following a "challenge" by one of your own defenders at the end of the match, would hold your hands up and say that the officials got it right and correctly awarded a penalty? Genuine question, by the way.
Click to expand...

He'll say the opposite of what everyone else is..............
 
PistonBlue said:
Wasn't what? contact or 'enough' contact? Either way I disagree.
The defender was unlucky in that he pulled out of the challenge and yet his knee still caught Benteke. Definitely tripped him though for me.
Click to expand...
Not enough contact to cause Benteke to fall & stop him shooting.
 
Getting back to the thread title - what have gough and Durham had to say? I'm gonna guess one says yes and the other no? Although with it being Liverpool they may go with station policy and be in agreement that it's nailed on.
 
crazyg said:
That's all that needs to be said. Stop digging in that hole!

So, on Saturday, if Tony Whatsisname or the new Messi went down in exactly the same circumstances following a "challenge" by one of your own defenders at the end of the match, would hold your hands up and say that the officials got it right and correctly awarded a penalty? Genuine question, by the way.
Click to expand...

yes, if that was against my team or whoever. its a daylight penalty.

the blokes knee has caught the players foot at full speed and tripped him over.


benteke.png
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top