Penalty law of the game

When I first watched this incident I thought Dowd got the penalty decision absolutely wrong because having played advantage thus allowing Wickham the chance of a goalscoring opportunity he decided that no advantage had resulted.

My first view was that Dowd should have stopped play and brought play back to the first offence but having watched it over and over I now think he got this absolutely right.

Although the first foul by Cala was outside the box Dowd allowed advantage but Cala again fouled Wickham this time inside the box, again Dowd played advantage because Wickham was through on goal but he had been slowed down by both fouls on him and this allowed Marshall time to close him down and forcing him wide and thats when advantage was lost.

Having played advantage for the first foul the ball was still in active play when Wickham was fouled a second time and when the advantage didn't happen that's when he gave the penalty. Time doesn't really come into this because I believe referees are advised to allow 3-4 seconds to see if advantage develops, so when advantage is played twice it's not unreasonable for 6-8 seconds to elapse.

I suppose if things had happened the other way around and it was sat Wes Brown doing the fouling would you have expected a penalty.

Answer that honestly and Phil Dowd made a great decision on that incident today.

Yep advantage over - penalty.

FIFA RULES . Penalise the original offence if the anticipated advantage does not develop or continue over the next SEVERAL SECONDS.

Notice how I typed several seconds in capitals. He took longer than several seconds to blow up. Do you get it yet?

Now show me where in the rules it says what your on about.

FIFA RULES.. The decision to penalise the offence must be taken within the next few seconds.

So you have changed it from several to few.... Yet im still not seeing any numbers.

Whats several? Whats a few?

Yep advantage over - penalty.

FIFA RULES . Penalise the original offence if the anticipated advantage does not develop or continue over the next SEVERAL SECONDS.

Notice how I typed several seconds in capitals. He took longer than several seconds to blow up. Do you get it yet?

Now show me where in the rules it says what your on about.

FIFA RULES.. The decision to penalise the offence must be taken within the next few seconds.

So you have changed it from several to few.... Yet im still not seeing any numbers.

My bad I posted the wrong line But still.. read the fifa rules.. not some american ones

Whats several? Whats a few?

When I first watched this incident I thought Dowd got the penalty decision absolutely wrong because having played advantage thus allowing Wickham the chance of a goalscoring opportunity he decided that no advantage had resulted.

My first view was that Dowd should have stopped play and brought play back to the first offence but having watched it over and over I now think he got this absolutely right.

Although the first foul by Cala was outside the box Dowd allowed advantage but Cala again fouled Wickham this time inside the box, again Dowd played advantage because Wickham was through on goal but he had been slowed down by both fouls on him and this allowed Marshall time to close him down and forcing him wide and thats when advantage was lost.

Having played advantage for the first foul the ball was still in active play when Wickham was fouled a second time and when the advantage didn't happen that's when he gave the penalty. Time doesn't really come into this because I believe referees are advised to allow 3-4 seconds to see if advantage develops, so when advantage is played twice it's not unreasonable for 6-8 seconds to elapse.

I suppose if things had happened the other way around and it was sat Wes Brown doing the fouling would you have expected a penalty.

Answer that honestly and Phil Dowd made a great decision on that incident today.

Is the correct answer.

Genuinely the most refreshing bit of common sense refereeing ive seen in years.

Hence why he is rightly getting the plaudits from everyone... Apart from a few on here

Yep advantage over - penalty.

FIFA RULES . Penalise the original offence if the anticipated advantage does not develop or continue over the next SEVERAL SECONDS.

Notice how I typed several seconds in capitals. He took longer than several seconds to blow up. Do you get it yet?

Now show me where in the rules it says what your on about.

FIFA RULES.. The decision to penalise the offence must be taken within the next few seconds.

So you have changed it from several to few.... Yet im still not seeing any numbers.

Its a few seconds

My bad I posted the wrong line But still.. read the fifa rules.. not some american ones

Whats several? Whats a few?

Yep advantage over - penalty.

FIFA RULES . Penalise the original offence if the anticipated advantage does not develop or continue over the next SEVERAL SECONDS.

Notice how I typed several seconds in capitals. He took longer than several seconds to blow up. Do you get it yet?

Now show me where in the rules it says what your on about.

FIFA RULES.. The decision to penalise the offence must be taken within the next few seconds.

So you have changed it from several to few.... Yet im still not seeing any numbers.

Hey lets just scrap the rules then and the ref can use his common sense I give up lol. Its a few seconds.. its in the rules. Goodnight

Its a few seconds

My bad I posted the wrong line But still.. read the fifa rules.. not some american ones

Whats several? Whats a few?

So now we are still at the question..... how many is a few?

The word "few" is entirely discretionary, it is different to everyone. It simply means not many. I dont think 7 or 8 seconds is many when making the correct decision.

You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

So now we are still at the question..... how many is a few?

The word "few" is entirely discretionary, it is different to everyone. It simply means not many. I dont think 7 or 8 seconds is many when making the correct decision.

www.fifa.com/mm/document/afdeveloping/r ... _47411.pdf


Read number nine.. then give it a rest lol

So now we are still at the question..... how many is a few?

The word "few" is entirely discretionary, it is different to everyone. It simply means not many. I dont think 7 or 8 seconds is many when making the correct decision.

http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/afdevel ... _47411.pdf


Read number nine.. then give it a rest lol

I read it, it says FEW.

As ive shown, few just means more than 1.

You are on to a lost cause here.

So now we are still at the question..... how many is a few?

The word "few" is entirely discretionary, it is different to everyone. It simply means not many. I dont think 7 or 8 seconds is many when making the correct decision.

http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/afdevel ... _47411.pdf


Read number nine.. then give it a rest lol

I read it, it says FEW.

As ive shown, few just means more than 1.

You are on to a lost cause here.

You're just being silly now.

So now we are still at the question..... how many is a few?

The word "few" is entirely discretionary, it is different to everyone. It simply means not many. I dont think 7 or 8 seconds is many when making the correct decision.

http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/afdevel ... _47411.pdf


Read number nine.. then give it a rest lol

I think number 27 is more fitting to this incident. Referees must punish the most serious offence when more than one foul is committed by one player in the same incident.

In this case the most serious offence is the foul in the penalty area.

Football would be a better game to watch if ALL referees made decisions like Phil Dowd did today. I can't remember the last time I've seen a referee make as good a decision as this.

So now we are still at the question..... how many is a few?

The word "few" is entirely discretionary, it is different to everyone. It simply means not many. I dont think 7 or 8 seconds is many when making the correct decision.

http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/afdevel ... _47411.pdf


Read number nine.. then give it a rest lol

I read it, it says FEW.

As ive shown, few just means more than 1.

You are on to a lost cause here.

You're just being silly now.

Which bit is silly?

You seem to know what the number "few" is as you have stated he took longer than a few seconds.

Well.... How many is a few?

So now we are still at the question..... how many is a few?

The word "few" is entirely discretionary, it is different to everyone. It simply means not many. I dont think 7 or 8 seconds is many when making the correct decision.

http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/afdevel ... _47411.pdf


Read number nine.. then give it a rest lol

I read it, it says FEW.

As ive shown, few just means more than 1.

You are on to a lost cause here.

You're just being silly now.

Which bit is silly?

You seem to know what the number "few" is as you have stated he took longer than a few seconds.

Well.... How many is a few?

You know youve just been stumped and now your trying to come up with anything. If it makes you feel better we'll just say you're right. Over and out..

So everyone in the world is wrong apart from you

If you dont know how many a few is then how can you say if he has taken longer than a few

Just quit while you are behind fella. You aint getting anywhere on this one.

Its a penalty/red card ref was right blame calas mistake
Championship here we come
Hopefully without tan so we can rebuild the club from top to bottom

GRAHAM POLL: Phil Dowd got the decision to send off Cardiff's Juan Cala spot on

Phil Dowd was correct to dismiss Cardiff defender Juan Cala. And replays also proved the penalty award was right too.
There is no hard and fast instruction on how long a referee has to wait when playing an advantage after a foul.
Cala’s initial tug was outside the area (1) but he still had hold of Connor Wickham in the box (2) so it was a penalty.

The fact is that had Wickham gone on to score for Sunderland, Dowd’s refereeing would have saved the Spanish defender his red card.
But what was clear was that Cala’s tug on Wickham put him off balance.
The striker still had a chance, but he never gained complete control after that contact as Cardiff goalkeeper David Marshall closed him down. Well done Dowd.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footba ... z3087DmrXq

GRAHAM POLL: Phil Dowd got the decision to send off Cardiff's Juan Cala spot on

Phil Dowd was correct to dismiss Cardiff defender Juan Cala. And replays also proved the penalty award was right too.
There is no hard and fast instruction on how long a referee has to wait when playing an advantage after a foul.
Cala’s initial tug was outside the area (1) but he still had hold of Connor Wickham in the box (2) so it was a penalty.

The fact is that had Wickham gone on to score for Sunderland, Dowd’s refereeing would have saved the Spanish defender his red card.
But what was clear was that Cala’s tug on Wickham put him off balance.
The striker still had a chance, but he never gained complete control after that contact as Cardiff goalkeeper David Marshall closed him down. Well done Dowd.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footba ... z3087DmrXq

Yes there is a hard and fast instruction. Its a few seconds! A former referee is obviously going to back another referee.

GRAHAM POLL: Phil Dowd got the decision to send off Cardiff's Juan Cala spot on

Phil Dowd was correct to dismiss Cardiff defender Juan Cala. And replays also proved the penalty award was right too.
There is no hard and fast instruction on how long a referee has to wait when playing an advantage after a foul.
Cala’s initial tug was outside the area (1) but he still had hold of Connor Wickham in the box (2) so it was a penalty.

The fact is that had Wickham gone on to score for Sunderland, Dowd’s refereeing would have saved the Spanish defender his red card.
But what was clear was that Cala’s tug on Wickham put him off balance.
The striker still had a chance, but he never gained complete control after that contact as Cardiff goalkeeper David Marshall closed him down. Well done Dowd.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footba ... z3087DmrXq

Yes there is a hard and fast instruction. Its a few seconds! A former referee is obviously going to back another referee.

Are the Fifa rules not hard instructions???? Might as well just scrap them then and let the referee's make up their own minds. I cannot believe most of you on here are determined to back up Dowd for that decision. He took TOO LONG!!! to bring it back for a penalty. But hey lets all listen to Graham Poll and the Daily Mail

GRAHAM POLL: Phil Dowd got the decision to send off Cardiff's Juan Cala spot on

Phil Dowd was correct to dismiss Cardiff defender Juan Cala. And replays also proved the penalty award was right too.
There is no hard and fast instruction on how long a referee has to wait when playing an advantage after a foul.
Cala’s initial tug was outside the area (1) but he still had hold of Connor Wickham in the box (2) so it was a penalty.

The fact is that had Wickham gone on to score for Sunderland, Dowd’s refereeing would have saved the Spanish defender his red card.
But what was clear was that Cala’s tug on Wickham put him off balance.
The striker still had a chance, but he never gained complete control after that contact as Cardiff goalkeeper David Marshall closed him down. Well done Dowd.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footba ... z3087DmrXq

Yes there is a hard and fast instruction. Its a few seconds! A former referee is obviously going to back another referee.

How many is a few?

"A few" is not a number is it.

The definition of a few is "not many, but more than one"... Which is what it was.

GRAHAM POLL: Phil Dowd got the decision to send off Cardiff's Juan Cala spot on

Phil Dowd was correct to dismiss Cardiff defender Juan Cala. And replays also proved the penalty award was right too.
There is no hard and fast instruction on how long a referee has to wait when playing an advantage after a foul.
Cala’s initial tug was outside the area (1) but he still had hold of Connor Wickham in the box (2) so it was a penalty.

The fact is that had Wickham gone on to score for Sunderland, Dowd’s refereeing would have saved the Spanish defender his red card.
But what was clear was that Cala’s tug on Wickham put him off balance.
The striker still had a chance, but he never gained complete control after that contact as Cardiff goalkeeper David Marshall closed him down. Well done Dowd.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footba ... z3087DmrXq

Yes there is a hard and fast instruction. Its a few seconds! A former referee is obviously going to back another referee.

How many is a few?

"A few" is not a number is it.

The definition of a few is "not many, but more than one"... Which is what it was.

A few is more than 2 (couple) and less than several (seven)

several does not mean seven

They sound the same ill give you that, but that is where the similarities end

A few just means not many. 7 seconds is not many.

:lol: several does not mean seven

They sound the same ill give you that, but that is where the similarities end

A few just means not many. 7 seconds is not many.

7 seconds would be classed as several.. not a few

:lol: several does not mean seven

They sound the same ill give you that, but that is where the similarities end

A few just means not many. 7 seconds is not many.

7 seconds would be classed as several.. not a few

As I said, that is why its the refs discretion.... Hence the vague term.

There is no set number of seconds in order for an advantage to last. Just common sense.

Which is why the ref is having rave reviews, he allowed the subsequent shot just incase he scored anyway.

:lol: several does not mean seven

They sound the same ill give you that, but that is where the similarities end

A few just means not many. 7 seconds is not many.

7 seconds would be classed as several.. not a few

As I said, that is why its the refs discretion.... Hence the vague term.

There is no set number of seconds in order for an advantage to last. Just common sense.

Which is why the ref is having rave reviews, he allowed the subsequent shot just incase he scored anyway.

Ive given you proof in black and white and you still say there is no set number of seconds in order for an advantage to last. Now you're just being daft.

:lol: several does not mean seven

They sound the same ill give you that, but that is where the similarities end

A few just means not many. 7 seconds is not many.

7 seconds would be classed as several.. not a few

As I said, that is why its the refs discretion.... Hence the vague term.

There is no set number of seconds in order for an advantage to last. Just common sense.

Which is why the ref is having rave reviews, he allowed the subsequent shot just incase he scored anyway.

Ive given you proof in black and white and you still say there is no set number of seconds in order for an advantage to last. Now you're just being daft.

Im not sure of you are just winding me up now, nobody can be this stupid.

In the rukes it says FEW - FEW is not a set number, FEW means "not many but more than one"

Which bit is confusing you?

:lol: several does not mean seven

They sound the same ill give you that, but that is where the similarities end

A few just means not many. 7 seconds is not many.

7 seconds would be classed as several.. not a few

As I said, that is why its the refs discretion.... Hence the vague term.

There is no set number of seconds in order for an advantage to last. Just common sense.

Which is why the ref is having rave reviews, he allowed the subsequent shot just incase he scored anyway.

Ive given you proof in black and white and you still say there is no set number of seconds in order for an advantage to last. Now you're just being daft.

Im not sure of you are just winding me up now, nobody can be this stupid.

In the rukes it says FEW - FEW is not a set number, FEW means "not many but more than one"

Which bit is confusing you?

Thankfully you arnet quoting soccer rules again. Im not winding you up. like I said you're just being stupid.

:lol: several does not mean seven

They sound the same ill give you that, but that is where the similarities end

A few just means not many. 7 seconds is not many.

7 seconds would be classed as several.. not a few

As I said, that is why its the refs discretion.... Hence the vague term.

There is no set number of seconds in order for an advantage to last. Just common sense.

Which is why the ref is having rave reviews, he allowed the subsequent shot just incase he scored anyway.

Ive given you proof in black and white and you still say there is no set number of seconds in order for an advantage to last. Now you're just being daft.

Im not sure of you are just winding me up now, nobody can be this stupid.

In the rukes it says FEW - FEW is not a set number, FEW means "not many but more than one"

Which bit is confusing you?

Thankfully you arnet quoting soccer rules again. Im not winding you up. like I said you're just being stupid.

Probably 99 percent of the population class a few as 3 or 4 but you're just being awkward cause you dont want to be wrong. Its ok to be wrong chill the fcuk out.

I dont care what people class "a few" as.

if fifa wanted it to say 4 seconds then they would say it.

Te fact they have said a few means the refs are allowed to decide what os the best amount of time in that particular situation.

Use your brain.

Do you think FIFA wrote "a few" to be lazy and save some ink?

I dont care what people class "a few" as.

if fifa wanted it to say 4 seconds then they would say it.

Te fact they have said a few means the refs are allowed to decide what os the best amount of time in that particular situation.

Use your brain.

Do you think FIFA wrote "a few" to be lazy and save some ink?

Let's face it, the ref used discretion within the rules, the only bone of contention from some being what constitutes a few.

This reminds me of lawyers trying to get an obviously guilty person off on a technicality.

Did an offence take place? Yes

Did it continue into the box? Yes

Did it prevent a goal scoring opportunity? Yes



Let's leave it at that fellas.. The ref got it right according to most pundits.

Let's win something at Newcastle.

A different view but the contact was near wickhams wrist which cala let go of before it entered the box. The fact his feet were inside the box is surely irrelevant as there was no contact with his feet. Also how was what cala more of a foul than what wes Brown did to Campbell when it was 0 0?