Gus Poyet deluded

Best decision he's seen in his life WTF

I hope they go down, I would love them to lose their last three ........

Best decision he's seen in his life WTF

I hope they go down, I would love them to lose their last three ........

I thought Poyets comments were pathetic regarding the penalty.

Monkey c**t. Had he been on the end of that decision he would begoing beserk.

think he's got marino itis! after what he said last week about refs

Best refereeing decision ive seen in years, genuinely.

Best refereeing decision ive seen in years, genuinely.

It would be

Best refereeing decision ive seen in years, genuinely.

It would be

Why wouldn't it be? It was text book.

The ref is trusted with discretion with the good of the game in mind.

Cala fouled Wickham outside of the box, continues to foul him inside of the box... But as Wickham was through on goal he waited to see if he would tuck it away anyway, he didnt as he got pushed wide as a result of the foul so he brought it back for the penalty.

Superb.

Best refereeing decision ive seen in years, genuinely.

It would be

Personally I fail to see what possible complaint anyone could have. It was for me an outstanding decision and generally accepted by everyone as being so bar a small number of Cardiff fans.

It's exactly how a referee should deal with the situation.

Best refereeing decision ive seen in years, genuinely.

Stop being so f*cking soft. And advantage can last for 3 seconds, their advantage lasted 7 seconds

Best refereeing decision ive seen in years, genuinely.

Stop being so f*cking soft. And advantage can last for 3 seconds, their advantage lasted 7 seconds

There is no hard and fast rule as to how long an advantage can last.

Best refereeing decision ive seen in years, genuinely.

Stop being so f*cking soft. And advantage can last for 3 seconds, their advantage lasted 7 seconds

You just made that up

Best refereeing decision ive seen in years, genuinely.

Stop being so f*cking soft. And advantage can last for 3 seconds, their advantage lasted 7 seconds

There is no hard and fast rule as to how long an advantage can last.

When was the last time you saw a referee allow advantage to go on for such a long time before deciding to punish the initial offence?

In a rugby match I would guess.

Never seen that on a football pitch before.

Best refereeing decision ive seen in years, genuinely.

Stop being so f*cking soft. And advantage can last for 3 seconds, their advantage lasted 7 seconds

There is no hard and fast rule as to how long an advantage can last.

When was the last time you saw a referee allow advantage to go on for such a long time before deciding to punish the initial offence?

In a rugby match I would guess.

Never seen that on a football pitch before.

I agree it's rare, but absolutely the right decision to give the pen and the red card nonetheless.

Best refereeing decision ive seen in years, genuinely.

Stop being so f*cking soft. And advantage can last for 3 seconds, their advantage lasted 7 seconds

There is no hard and fast rule as to how long an advantage can last.

When was the last time you saw a referee allow advantage to go on for such a long time before deciding to punish the initial offence?

In a rugby match I would guess.

Never seen that on a football pitch before.

I have never seen an incident like that before so have nothing to compare it to. The foul pushed him wide so the advantage was always going to take linger to see if he tucked it away.

Players usually go down on contact so cant remember many advantages played in the box.

However if one does happen in the future id hope for it to be dealt with like this otherwise what advantage does the attacker have by staying on his feet?

Best refereeing decision ive seen in years, genuinely.

Stop being so f*cking soft. And advantage can last for 3 seconds, their advantage lasted 7 seconds

There is no hard and fast rule as to how long an advantage can last.

When was the last time you saw a referee allow advantage to go on for such a long time before deciding to punish the initial offence?

In a rugby match I would guess.

Never seen that on a football pitch before.

I agree it's rare, but absolutely the right decision to give the pen and the red card nonetheless.

How so? Wickham rounded Marshall and had an effort at goal, that was their advantage and they didn't take it - he shouldn't have pulled it back.

Best refereeing decision ive seen in years, genuinely.

Stop being so f*cking soft. And advantage can last for 3 seconds, their advantage lasted 7 seconds

There is no hard and fast rule as to how long an advantage can last.

When was the last time you saw a referee allow advantage to go on for such a long time before deciding to punish the initial offence?

In a rugby match I would guess.

Never seen that on a football pitch before.

I agree it's rare, but absolutely the right decision to give the pen and the red card nonetheless.

How so? Wickham rounded Marshall and had an effort at goal, that was their advantage and they didn't take it - he shouldn't have pulled it back.

Because the chance Wickham was left with was much harder than he would have had if he hadn't been pulled back. Blame your defender for the incident, not the referee.

Best refereeing decision ive seen in years, genuinely.

Stop being so f*cking soft. And advantage can last for 3 seconds, their advantage lasted 7 seconds

There is no hard and fast rule as to how long an advantage can last.

When was the last time you saw a referee allow advantage to go on for such a long time before deciding to punish the initial offence?

In a rugby match I would guess.

Never seen that on a football pitch before.

I agree it's rare, but absolutely the right decision to give the pen and the red card nonetheless.

How so? Wickham rounded Marshall and had an effort at goal, that was their advantage and they didn't take it - he shouldn't have pulled it back.

You think having to shoot from a tight/almost impossible angle with defenders on the line as well is an advantage over a clear penalty?

He gave every chance for him to tuck it away and the match remain 11 v 11 but the foul made the chance to hard and he fluffed it.

Does this now mean that if any advantage played does not lead to a goal then at the end of that period of play (however long that may be) a free kick should be given where the offence took place?

Does this now mean that if any advantage played does not lead to a goal then at the end of that period of play (however long that may be) a free kick should be given where the offence took place?

Depends how long after and what happens in between.

The law stipulates: advantage to be given and if there is no advantage after a few seconds the foul should be awarded.

The key word there is "few" - they dont state a number and instead say "few" because each scenario is different and thus a ref can use his discretion.

The definition of few is - not many but more than one.

Best decision he's seen in his life WTF

I hope they go down, I would love them to lose their last three ........

I thought Poyets comments were pathetic regarding the penalty.

Why?

Best refereeing decision ive seen in years, genuinely.

Stop being so f*cking soft. And advantage can last for 3 seconds, their advantage lasted 7 seconds

There is no hard and fast rule as to how long an advantage can last.

When was the last time you saw a referee allow advantage to go on for such a long time before deciding to punish the initial offence?

In a rugby match I would guess.

Never seen that on a football pitch before.

I agree it's rare, but absolutely the right decision to give the pen and the red card nonetheless.

How so? Wickham rounded Marshall and had an effort at goal, that was their advantage and they didn't take it - he shouldn't have pulled it back.

Because the chance Wickham was left with was much harder than he would have had if he hadn't been pulled back. Blame your defender for the incident, not the referee.

Correct. Hard pill to swallow of course for a Cardiff Fan but the referee was spot on in fairness.

Motd2 thinks its a brilliant decision as well. Looks like apart from a few bitter redbirds everybody else thought it was spot on.

Unfortunately Mr Dowd missed the Sunderland player encroaching so far into the penalty area when the penalty was taken that he was almost standing next to the penalty taker when he kicked the ball.

No doubt Mr Dowd was keeping an eye on Marshall so that if the penalty was missed he could have ordered it retaken.

If a player encroaches the penalty should be retaken. Of course it would most likely have been scored but perhaps Poyet can confirm whether that was a great decision by Mr Dowd.

And whether or not he's right he's a smug, officious tw*t.

Motd2 thinks its a brilliant decision as well. Looks like apart from a few bitter redbirds everybody else thought it was spot on.

Did they mention the player encroaching on MOTD2?

I don't think I've ever seen a penalty where there is no encroaching.

But ive not often seen someone complain about it either, maybe id it fell to the encroacher then fair enough.

Unfortunately Mr Dowd missed the Sunderland player encroaching so far into the penalty area when the penalty was taken that he was almost standing next to the penalty taker when he kicked the ball.

No doubt Mr Dowd was keeping an eye on Marshall so that if the penalty was missed he could have ordered it retaken.

If a player encroaches the penalty should be retaken. Of course it would most likely have been scored but perhaps Poyet can confirm whether that was a great decision by Mr Dowd.

And whether or not he's right he's a smug, officious tw*t.

Wow playing the encroachment card is a clear sign of desperation.

I will try to explain what our problem with this decision was (or at least my problem) to visitors.

If I can draw a parallel with our rugby following neighbours, compare it to Warburton's sending off in the world cup. Here we have a decision made on the biggest of occasions, where everything was riding on it for both teams, which goes completely against the precident set by refereeing day to day. Warburton was (by the rule book) correctly sent off. he however, was sent off for an offense that 95% of offenders, before and since, were not sent off for. That is why everybody was angry then.

Now, with that in mind I ask the following question:

When was the last time a player carried on after being fouled, had a shot, and then had it brought back for a penalty? It just doesnt happen. I have seen players of ours fouled, carried on and no penalty awarded too many times to count. The referee chose this game, on this occasion, to make a stand and completely punish us in the most extreme way possible.

I would argue that the foul happened outside the box. It has been argued that it was inside. I am still unconvinced but would be willing to afford Mr Dowd the benefit of the doubt were it not for the underlying fury I have at the literally countless occasions this season where blatant, blatant, text book penalties have not been awarded to us and blatant, blatant, textbook red cards not brandished to our opponents (spurs keeper anybody?)

I hoped that, given the occasion and the amount that was riding on this game, Mr Dowd might, on this occasion, give us the benefit of doubt of a matter of inches and award a free kick and a red card. In short, I thought this might be the occasion we got lucky. Given the margins involved (the foul definitely started outside the area - had the attacker gone down, as Niall Quinn so objectively pointed out) we would have been a man down, but with a free kick conceded not a penalty.

Refs are not the reason we are going down. We are going down cos we are rubbish. Nobody denies that - and without Marshall we would have been in more trouble.

But, and I dont say this because I am biased, decisions have not evened themselves out by a million miles this season. I could compile a list of the red cards not awarded against us, or the penalties not awarded to us, but it would be too long to bother with. I just find it hilarious how many unpunished assaults we have faced in our box this season, and find it impossible not to be angry at the willingness mr dowd showed to not only award a penalty, but send our man off aswell, AFTER giving wickham the chance to score anyway....

Dowd is a tw*t and i hate his stupid little smug face. BUT on this occastion I think he was bang on. I just wish more refs would act with as much common sense.

I will try to explain what our problem with this decision was (or at least my problem) to visitors.

If I can draw a parallel with our rugby following neighbours, compare it to Warburton's sending off in the world cup. Here we have a decision made on the biggest of occasions, where everything was riding on it for both teams, which goes completely against the precident set by refereeing day to day. Warburton was (by the rule book) correctly sent off. he however, was sent off for an offense that 95% of offenders, before and since, were not sent off for. That is why everybody was angry then.

Now, with that in mind I ask the following question:

When was the last time a player carried on after being fouled, had a shot, and then had it brought back for a penalty? It just doesnt happen. I have seen players of ours fouled, carried on and no penalty awarded too many times to count. The referee chose this game, on this occasion, to make a stand and completely punish us in the most extreme way possible.

I would argue that the foul happened outside the box. It has been argued that it was inside. I am still unconvinced but would be willing to afford Mr Dowd the benefit of the doubt were it not for the underlying fury I have at the literally countless occasions this season where blatant, blatant, text book penalties have not been awarded to us and blatant, blatant, textbook red cards not brandished to our opponents (spurs keeper anybody?)

I hoped that, given the occasion and the amount that was riding on this game, Mr Dowd might, on this occasion, give us the benefit of doubt of a matter of inches and award a free kick and a red card. In short, I thought this might be the occasion we got lucky. Given the margins involved (the foul definitely started outside the area - had the attacker gone down, as Niall Quinn so objectively pointed out) we would have been a man down, but with a free kick conceded not a penalty.

Refs are not the reason we are going down. We are going down cos we are rubbish. Nobody denies that - and without Marshall we would have been in more trouble.

But, and I dont say this because I am biased, decisions have not evened themselves out by a million miles this season. I could compile a list of the red cards not awarded against us, or the penalties not awarded to us, but it would be too long to bother with. I just find it hilarious how many unpunished assaults we have faced in our box this season, and find it impossible not to be angry at the willingness mr dowd showed to not only award a penalty, but send our man off aswell, AFTER giving wickham the chance to score anyway....

You can't give a few kick for a tug that starts outside the box and finishes in the box the rule is a penalty

I am a city fan and the decision was spot on, all I would argue is the definition of an advantage I belive just cos wickham didn't score it was brought back had he scored we'd be 2-0 down and still have 11 men on field

Personally after watching it at least 5 times I belive wickham was given the chance to score and he didn't so for me that should have been that although it is debatable

Regardless of that we'd have lost anyways cos I thought yet again when it mattered we were gutless this has been typical city for the last 5 years bottle big matches games like united and man city where there is no pressure we pick points up it's no coincidence we have a bottling problem happened under last 3 managers now