sky commentators today

Nope.

A foul committed outside the box that continues into the box is a penalty. I think you are the only one left saying it didnt

Penalty.

He was still touching him as the striker entered the box but let go completely. Foul itself happened outside the box, meaning free kick, no pen . Prynhawn da

Incorrect. He was holding not touching thus a penalty.

Penalty,

Incorrect. He was holding not touching thus a penalty.

Penalty,

Negative. Foul committed well outside the box, player released as he entered box, free kick no pen Cala was last man, but the sending off is not the point in question.

Incorrect. He was holding not touching thus a penalty.

Penalty,

Negative. Foul committed well outside the box, player released as he entered box, free kick no pen Cala was last man, but the sending off is not the point in question.

Im glad you winked, for a second i thought you actually believed that tripe

Incorrect. He was holding not touching thus a penalty.

Penalty,

Negative. Foul committed well outside the box, player released as he entered box, free kick no pen Cala was last man, but the sending off is not the point in question.

Im glad you winked, for a second i thought you actually believed that tripe

You're the 'philanthropist', yet you are letting your bias rule your better judgement when the people you are studying are representing your capital city

I dont think you know what that word means

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

I dont think you know what that word means

As you will see in the caption ( after taking your biased anti-capital goggles off) , these two primates are effectively holding each other. The foul was committed prior to the caption but had ceased to be a foul by the time the striped fella entered the box. Free kick no pen

best excuse yet.

Penalty, correct decision.

doesnt matter if it was a penalty or not, they still thrashed us, a very poor side destroyed us, and lets be honest, the only positive we can take is the fact we actually had a shot on goal !!!

:laughing6: best excuse yet.

Penalty, correct decision.

:no foul in box = no penalty

doesnt matter if it was a penalty or not, they still thrashed us, a very poor side destroyed us, and lets be honest, the only positive we can take is the fact we actually had a shot on goal !!!

I agree that we were second best up to the penalty, but the penalty had a huge effect on the game. Anyway, we deserve to go down because there are not 3 worse teams than us in this division

:laughing6: best excuse yet.

Penalty, correct decision.

:no foul in box = no penalty

Agreed.

Penalty then

It's funny because a year ago the same posters who are moaning that sky are anti-Welsh were saying that they arse licked the Jacks too much.

You couldn't make it up.

Who's the bloke in your atavar, Roathie?

Can't belive how biast these pricis are.... I think the English media want us down.....

that old chesnut gets rather boring

There's alway the league of WALES if you don't like it.

It's funny because a year ago the same posters who are moaning that sky are anti-Welsh were saying that they arse licked the Jacks too much.

You couldn't make it up.

Really?

That "still" proves f**k all. And since when do football refs play rugby style advantage laws??

Who's the bloke in your atavar, Roathie?

His boyfriend?

Really?

That "still" proves f**k all. And since when do football refs play rugby style advantage laws??

It proves that contact was continuing in the box.

And probably for a good decade now.

Who's the bloke in your atavar, Roathie?

His boyfriend?

Genius

Who's the bloke in your atavar, Roathie?

His boyfriend?

Genius

Thanks

No probs

Really?

That "still" proves f**k all. And since when do football refs play rugby style advantage laws??

It proves that contact was continuing in the box.

And probably for a good decade now.

It clearly doesn't. And Bollux to your second point. In rugby, "advantage" can be played for quite a long time, perhaps even 20-30 seconds or so by some refs. Never seen one in football for more than 3 or 4 seconds. Up until this game.

Really?

That "still" proves f**k all. And since when do football refs play rugby style advantage laws??

It proves that contact was continuing in the box.

And probably for a good decade now.

It clearly doesn't. And Bollux to your second point. In rugby, "advantage" can be played for quite a long time, perhaps even 20-30 seconds or so by some refs. Never seen one in football for more than 3 or 4 seconds. Up until this game.

It clearly does.

And Ive never seen someone score 5 own goals in a match either, but its perfectly fine if someone did.

Really?

That "still" proves f**k all. And since when do football refs play rugby style advantage laws??

It proves that contact was continuing in the box.

And probably for a good decade now.

It clearly doesn't. And Bollux to your second point. In rugby, "advantage" can be played for quite a long time, perhaps even 20-30 seconds or so by some refs. Never seen one in football for more than 3 or 4 seconds. Up until this game.

It clearly does.

And Ive never seen someone score 5 own goals in a match either, but its perfectly fine if someone did.

It clearly doesn't.

Stupid answer. We will have to agree to differ. But I'll let you have the last word because that is what you do.

Nope.

A foul committed outside the box that continues into the box is a penalty. I think you are the only one left saying it didnt

Penalty.

Inside or outside ........ that is debateable. I admit to being biased but my view is that Cala was removing his hand prior tp them going to the box. By the time they got inside the box there was no "pulling" or pushing pressure just very slight contact. The contact that unbalanced the forward was clearly outside, not once did he appear to take advice from the linesman.

However, it's the first time in 43 years following the City that I have seen a referee allowing 2 advantages before going back to the original foul He played on through the foul by Cala, that's fine, but the first advantage ended at the point he was confronted by Marshall, he then went wide had a swing and missedagain which is the second advantage and then the referree blows up.

That is simply something I have never seen before. The referees on here can tell me whether it's technically right or wrong but it's not something I've ever seen. I'm not saying I'm against it but it did seem that the ref was doing everything to make sure Sunderland scored and it ain't consistent with what I've seen all season with referees blowing up at the first possible opportunity We might well have lost anyway but I'm still not convinced about that decision.

Nope.

A foul committed outside the box that continues into the box is a penalty. I think you are the only one left saying it didnt

Penalty.

Inside or outside ........ that is debateable. I admit to being biased but my view is that Cala was removing his hand prior tp them going to the box. By the time they got inside the box there was no "pulling" or pushing pressure just very slight contact. The contact that unbalanced the forward was clearly outside, not once did he appear to take advice from the linesman.

However, it's the first time in 43 years following the City that I have seen a referee allowing 2 advantages before going back to the original foul He played on through the foul by Cala, that's fine, but the first advantage ended at the point he was confronted by Marshall, he then went wide had a swing and missedagain which is the second advantage and then the referree blows up.

That is simply something I have never seen before. The referees on here can tell me whether it's technically right or wrong but it's not something I've ever seen. I'm not saying I'm against it but it did seem that the ref was doing everything to make sure Sunderland scored and it ain't consistent with what I've seen all season with referees blowing up at the first possible opportunity We might well have lost anyway but I'm still not convinced about that decision.

had the gella scored,would he have sent Cala off?..its pretty obvious that he wasnt going to give the pen ,because he played advantage TWICE.........poor poor all round by the ref tbh.........

Nope.

A foul committed outside the box that continues into the box is a penalty. I think you are the only one left saying it didnt

Penalty.

Inside or outside ........ that is debateable. I admit to being biased but my view is that Cala was removing his hand prior tp them going to the box. By the time they got inside the box there was no "pulling" or pushing pressure just very slight contact. The contact that unbalanced the forward was clearly outside, not once did he appear to take advice from the linesman.

However, it's the first time in 43 years following the City that I have seen a referee allowing 2 advantages before going back to the original foul He played on through the foul by Cala, that's fine, but the first advantage ended at the point he was confronted by Marshall, he then went wide had a swing and missedagain which is the second advantage and then the referree blows up.

That is simply something I have never seen before. The referees on here can tell me whether it's technically right or wrong but it's not something I've ever seen. I'm not saying I'm against it but it did seem that the ref was doing everything to make sure Sunderland scored and it ain't consistent with what I've seen all season with referees blowing up at the first possible opportunity We might well have lost anyway but I'm still not convinced about that decision.

had the gella scored,would he have sent Cala off?..its pretty obvious that he wasnt going to give the pen ,because he played advantage TWICE.........poor poor all round by the ref tbh.........

No, if he scored i dont think he would have sent him off.

The refs have been given discretion to use for the good of the game, the good of the game is 11v11 and he tried to make that happen with the hope he would tuck it away anyway. He didnt as the foul forced him wide.

I dont understand people saying "but ive never seen it before", not seeing something before doesnt mean its wrong. I cant even remember someone pulling a striker back outside the box and continuing into the box, so on that basis alone that view point is pretty pointless.

Im not sure what the complaints are about though really. It was a pen, he should have been sent off - im not sure any reasonable person can think otherwise... Yet some cardiff fans are annoyed because they think after he stayed on his feet and missed the ridiculously hard chance that he should then be punished for not going down.

Its nonsense really. The ref did his best for you to keep cala on but his foul didnt allow Wickham to slot it home. So he brought it back and did the right thing.

Do you think its just a crazy coincidence that he is getting praise from everywhere.... Apart from a few cardiff fans?

There's alway the league of WALES if you don't like it.

Wouldn't mind. We'd win every year, we'd be able to take over Aberystwyth and Rhyl and we'd have a chance of Europe. Maybe it'll happen if Tan decides to walk. See you in the Europa League.