That Cala Penalty

Sorry to bring up old news but I was playing golf earlier and for some reason this thought entered my head.

I know by the letter of the law the referee was 100% correct in what he did, however I've heard on TV that had the striker put the ball in the net Cala would most likely have been given a yellow but because the shot was blocked he went back to the penalty and gave Cala an early bath.

My scenario is this.... The shot beat the keeper, so it was goal bound and was cleared off the line. Advantage was played the ball didn't go in the net so the ref brought it back for a pen. Fair enough.

However had he blown up straight away, given the penalty and they missed it - would he have made him retake the penalty?

(I mean the penalty has been given, the attacking team now has gained the advantage rather than let play go on where he may have scored anyway. But he misses the pen, so does the ref bring the advantage back and say have another go fella as you may have scored had I not been so hasty with the whistle in the first place?)

It should have been retaken anyway, one of their players was about 3 yards into the area when the kick was taken.

What I don't get is that he gave a penalty due to playing advantage from the initial tug which was well outside the area, so surely by playing on from there he's playing advantage on the advantage. FFS, surely this isn't right ?

Also by the time Wickham was in the area there was minimal contact, certainly not enough for a pen.

Compare this to some of the ones which HAVEN'T been given to us and we can certainly feel aggrieved.
Not forgetting we had one turned down ourselves 10 minutes earlier, where one of their players slipped and took Campbell down.

Luck definitely not been on our side this year with decisions.

whats been said is utter crap.........if that exact thing puts England out of a world cup the same clowns who called it all the right decision will want the refs head.............if Cala had prevented a goal scoring opportunity why didnt he blow?.........the answer of course is he didnt prevent one......the fella should have scored,fucked up twice....8 seconds goes by then he blows...never seen it in a football match before in 43years..........

Christ.. Get over yourselves. It was a penalty and the right decision to send Cala off. Yes, it was the end of the game as a contest afterwards, but that is not Dowd's fault - blame Cala and his 2 left feet!

It was a sending off but not a penalty. Cala clearly grabbed Wickham outside the box, kept hold of him and then released Wickham's shirt when Wickham was on the 18 yard line. The WHOLE of Wickham would have had to have been inside the box with Cala still grabbing his shirt for the penalty decision to be correct, but not all of Wickham was in the box at the point Cala released his shirt. Therefore, just like when all the ball doesn't cross the line, it is not a goal; when all of Wickham doesn't cross the 18 yard line, it is not a penalty. Cala definitely releases Wickham's shirt directly on the 18 yard line, before the whole of Wickham manages to cross the 18 yard line into the box.

To the poster above:

The 18 yard line is considered part of the box, a foul committed on the line is still a penalty.

As for the foul. The arms are not considered a footballing part of the body, you can not score with them - you can also not be given offside if your arms are offside but feet are on.

Fouls arent determined by where your hand is when you are pulled back its where you are, and he was a yard inside the box.

It was a pen all day long.

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

To the poster above:

The 18 yard line is considered part of the box, a foul committed on the line is still a penalty.

As for the foul. The arms are not considered a footballing part of the body, you can not score with them - you can also not be given offside if your arms are offside but feet are on.

Fouls arent determined by where your hand is when you are pulled back its where you are, and he was a yard inside the box.

It was a pen all day long.

Wickham's back foot is on the 18 yard line and his arm hasn't even reached the 18 yard line. Not a penalty.

We can talk about this all day. If Cala had been focused he wouldn't have messed up that pass back and then he followed it up by tugging Wickham continuously into the area.

There's only one person I blame for it all. I don't understand why he didn't just let Wickham go. Marshall has saved enough one on ones for us to rather take our chance with that than give away a pen. It was idiotic.

To the poster above:

The 18 yard line is considered part of the box, a foul committed on the line is still a penalty.

As for the foul. The arms are not considered a footballing part of the body, you can not score with them - you can also not be given offside if your arms are offside but feet are on.

Fouls arent determined by where your hand is when you are pulled back its where you are, and he was a yard inside the box.

It was a pen all day long.

Wickham's back foot is on the 18 yard line and his arm hasn't even reached the 18 yard line. Not a penalty.

what has his back foot got to do with anything?

Anyway, on the line is in the box according to the law, so even the back foot is on the line theory still results in a penalty.

He is in the penalty box and you yourself say he was fouled on the line....

Penalty.

To the poster above:

The 18 yard line is considered part of the box, a foul committed on the line is still a penalty.

As for the foul. The arms are not considered a footballing part of the body, you can not score with them - you can also not be given offside if your arms are offside but feet are on.

Fouls arent determined by where your hand is when you are pulled back its where you are, and he was a yard inside the box.

It was a pen all day long.

Picture is clearly deceiving but suits your anti cardiff threads yet again,the foul was commited outside the box,with little contact made inside the area,it would have been better just to have let him score,2-0 but with still 11 men on the pitch

To the poster above:

The 18 yard line is considered part of the box, a foul committed on the line is still a penalty.

As for the foul. The arms are not considered a footballing part of the body, you can not score with them - you can also not be given offside if your arms are offside but feet are on.

Fouls arent determined by where your hand is when you are pulled back its where you are, and he was a yard inside the box.

It was a pen all day long.

Picture is clearly deceiving but suits your anti cardiff threads yet again,the foul was commited outside the box,with little contact made inside the area,it would have been better just to have let him score,2-0 but with still 11 men on the pitch

so I guess everyone in this world have an anti cardiff agenda then?

How is the picture decieving?

A foul committed outside the box that continues on or in - is a penalty.

So its a penalty and every man and his dog agrees. Stop crying.

To the poster above:

The 18 yard line is considered part of the box, a foul committed on the line is still a penalty.

As for the foul. The arms are not considered a footballing part of the body, you can not score with them - you can also not be given offside if your arms are offside but feet are on.

Fouls arent determined by where your hand is when you are pulled back its where you are, and he was a yard inside the box.

It was a pen all day long.

Picture is clearly deceiving but suits your anti cardiff threads yet again,the foul was commited outside the box,with little contact made inside the area,it would have been better just to have let him score,2-0 but with still 11 men on the pitch

so I guess everyone in this world have an anti cardiff agenda then?

How is the picture decieving?

A foul committed outside the box that continues on or in - is a penalty.

So its a penalty and every man and his dog agrees. Stop crying.

Who's crying?,every time I see your name on this forum I burst out laughing

Because you always end up looking silly?

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

Because you always end up looking silly?

I look silly,you spend most of your day on a rivals forum,and you say I'm silly pmsl

There is no hard and fast instruction on how long a referee has to wait when playing an advantage

So no one would raise an eyebrow if the penalty wasn't given and Cala got sent off. Just because it's not wrong, doesn't make it right

Because you always end up looking silly?

I look silly,you spend most of your day on a rivals forum,and you say I'm silly pmsl

Glad you agree

Because you always end up looking silly?

I look silly,you spend most of your day on a rivals forum,and you say I'm silly pmsl

Glad you agree

As long as you and your ego is happy roathie

Because you always end up looking silly?

I look silly,you spend most of your day on a rivals forum,and you say I'm silly pmsl

Glad you agree

As long as you and your ego are correct roathie

Edited for you

To the poster above:

The 18 yard line is considered part of the box, a foul committed on the line is still a penalty.

As for the foul. The arms are not considered a footballing part of the body, you can not score with them - you can also not be given offside if your arms are offside but feet are on.

Fouls arent determined by where your hand is when you are pulled back its where you are, and he was a yard inside the box.

It was a pen all day long.

Picture is clearly deceiving but suits your anti cardiff threads yet again,the foul was commited outside the box,with little contact made inside the area,it would have been better just to have let him score,2-0 but with still 11 men on the pitch

so I guess everyone in this world have an anti cardiff agenda then?

How is the picture decieving?

A foul committed outside the box that continues on or in - is a penalty.

So its a penalty and every man and his dog agrees. Stop crying.

The picture clearly shows Wickham's back foot is on the 18 yard line and his arm, or more importantly his shoulder as you say only body parts the player can score with count, are behind his back foot so are therefore behind the 18 yard line. Therefore, the whole of Connor Wickham hasn't reached the 18 yard line so it isn't a penalty.

and the penalty should of been retaken due to them having another player in our box
why does the ref ignore this why do all those saying the ref was right to give penalty and red card retrospectively totally ignore infringements against us

roathie, can I ask you why in the game against Southampton the week before why Zaha didn't get a penalty when he went through on goal, was fouled outside the box, the foul continued into the box yet he still wriggled clear enough to have his shot blocked by the keeper.

The whole scenario was almost to the letter a carbon copy of what happened with Wickham however with an obviously totally opposite outcome.

As the ref was "correct" on Saturday and the media keep falling over themselves to say how well the situation was handled, why has Zaha's scenario been swept under the carpet?

roathie, can I ask you why in the game against Southampton the week before why Zaha didn't get a penalty when he went through on goal, was fouled outside the box, the foul continued into the box yet he still wriggled clear enough to have his shot blocked by the keeper.

The whole scenario was almost to the letter a carbon copy of what happened with Wickham however with an obviously totally opposite outcome.

As the ref was "correct" on Saturday and the media keep falling over themselves to say how well the situation was handled, why has Zaha's scenario been swept under the carpet?

That's a very good point, but the fact is the amount of contact as Wickham entered the area was minimal - if this was enough to give a penalty for then we should have had at least 50 this season.

Most people who are agreeing with this have missed the points I brought up above - mainly because most pundits and refs are too thick to be able to think logically.

roathie, can I ask you why in the game against Southampton the week before why Zaha didn't get a penalty when he went through on goal, was fouled outside the box, the foul continued into the box yet he still wriggled clear enough to have his shot blocked by the keeper.

The whole scenario was almost to the letter a carbon copy of what happened with Wickham however with an obviously totally opposite outcome.

As the ref was "correct" on Saturday and the media keep falling over themselves to say how well the situation was handled, why has Zaha's scenario been swept under the carpet?

That's a very good point, but the fact is the amount of contact as Wickham entered the area was minimal - if this was enough to give a penalty for then we should have had at least 50 this season.

Most people who are agreeing with this have missed the points I brought up above - mainly because most pundits and refs are too thick to be able to think logically.

Cheers mate I try not to post rubbish if I can help it!

Oh and just to be clear - I haven't missed the points you made (correctly!)

roathie, can I ask you why in the game against Southampton the week before why Zaha didn't get a penalty when he went through on goal, was fouled outside the box, the foul continued into the box yet he still wriggled clear enough to have his shot blocked by the keeper.

The whole scenario was almost to the letter a carbon copy of what happened with Wickham however with an obviously totally opposite outcome.

As the ref was "correct" on Saturday and the media keep falling over themselves to say how well the situation was handled, why has Zaha's scenario been swept under the carpet?

That's a very good point, but the fact is the amount of contact as Wickham entered the area was minimal - if this was enough to give a penalty for then we should have had at least 50 this season.

Most people who are agreeing with this have missed the points I brought up above - mainly because most pundits and refs are too thick to be able to think logically.

That's an excellent point, the incidents are exactly the same! Inconsistencies going against us once again. I hate using excuses as we have been poor this season, but we have definitely been cheated with some of our games. We would probably be a good 6 points better off if the fair, correct decisions were given to us. We had 3 points taken away from us at Everton to start!

Because you always end up looking silly?

I look silly,you spend most of your day on a rivals forum,and you say I'm silly pmsl

Glad you agree

As long as you and your ego are correct roathie

Edited for you

Good boy

roathie, can I ask you why in the game against Southampton the week before why Zaha didn't get a penalty when he went through on goal, was fouled outside the box, the foul continued into the box yet he still wriggled clear enough to have his shot blocked by the keeper.

The whole scenario was almost to the letter a carbon copy of what happened with Wickham however with an obviously totally opposite outcome.

As the ref was "correct" on Saturday and the media keep falling over themselves to say how well the situation was handled, why has Zaha's scenario been swept under the carpet?

Nail. Head. On.

Why didnt we play half the game against spurs at home with their keeper off the pitch?
Why havent we been awarded about 15 penalties this season?

Let's all get the rule book out to justify Dowd's extreme decision on the weekend, and totally ignore the absolute oceans of penalties we havent been awarded this season.

refereeing - consistency? Liverpool v Chelsea, 2 players go off injured at the same time. Result? Allowed back on immediately, as the ball is being played back in. Sound familiar?.

To the poster above:

The 18 yard line is considered part of the box, a foul committed on the line is still a penalty.

As for the foul. The arms are not considered a footballing part of the body, you can not score with them - you can also not be given offside if your arms are offside but feet are on.

Fouls arent determined by where your hand is when you are pulled back its where you are, and he was a yard inside the box.

It was a pen all day long.

Picture is clearly deceiving but suits your anti cardiff threads yet again,the foul was commited outside the box,with little contact made inside the area,it would have been better just to have let him score,2-0 but with still 11 men on the pitch

so I guess everyone in this world have an anti cardiff agenda then?

How is the picture decieving?

A foul committed outside the box that continues on or in - is a penalty.

So its a penalty and every man and his dog agrees. Stop crying.

The picture clearly shows Wickham's back foot is on the 18 yard line and his arm, or more importantly his shoulder as you say only body parts the player can score with count, are behind his back foot so are therefore behind the 18 yard line. Therefore, the whole of Connor Wickham hasn't reached the 18 yard line so it isn't a penalty.

How can you type while clutching all those straws?

when a keeper touches the ball with his hand he is deemed in the box if he picks up the ball in the box but all the rest of his body is outside the box.

Wickham was in the box with ball at feet, it doesn't matter of his arm is on the line or outside the line (I see you conveniently changed it from "on" to "behind" after informing you in fact "on" is counted as "in")

Penalty and a great decision as 99% of the world is saying