Penalty Incident

I will be soon. :icon_mrgreen:

There is no clear evidence of contact there, other than a delayed reaction/tumble that is not even consistent with that type of tackle.

 

Never a penalty and he should have scored anyway. Really disappointed with this. Also disappointed with all the bullshit conspiracy nonsense and criticising collum for making a good decision. some people don't seem happy unless they can call the referee an orange *.

 

I actually can't believe you are suggesting that, when the player basically puts his feet in between Stokes' feet, that there is no contact. Utterly pathetic and laughable.

Ah yes, you 'read' them on twitter. Who needs enemies with 'friends' like that....

 

Watch it again mate, just as Stokes' right foot is caught between the defenders thighs he shapes to shoot and commits Bell, then takes a touch to his left to go round him and roll it into the empty net, his right foot never touches the ground again after the tackle knocks him off balance and down he goes.

He has a tap in into an empty net, no way would he go down in that situation.

 

Where the * are you getting this 'orange *' tripe from? Honestly?

 

No contact?



Stokes' Right foot is between the guys thighs, sole of his boot on top of one leg and the other leg above in a kind of scissor motion.

It was a split second but it was enough to put him off balance. Infact if you watch the highlights you can actually see Stokes' leg buckle a bit from the contact in the behind replay, incidentally that was the view Gollum had.

 

Fully agree with the second point.

The first, there may have been contact, but when stokes made the pathetic looking dive he reduced the chances of a penalty due to making it look like he was simulating. He's went down through choice and that's also a foul.. Is it a penalty? In my opinion no, do they get given? Yes they do. Did stokes dive? Yes he did. Should he have? If he was going to he should have done it very differently.

Contact from behind is a foul. It's unclear if there is a "brushing" of feet here. Its down to the referees view on things. It's not a stone waller like some we have been denied the last two seasons.

 

As there is clear as day contact (is your pc actually working?) it was not the correct call. As for the conspiracy theory you actually sound like you should write for the Scottish press. Its always the easiest way out. Rather than look at the evidence you try and shoot the messenger. Pretty shallow approach in all honesty.

 

So you're saying that there was contact - you admit that? So he's running and he gets kicked from behind when he is about to score from a yard out into an open net and his automatic reaction is to fall and not just kick the ball in the net? That'd be the automatic reaction of pretty much no player in world football. I've seen Stokes been kicked in the box before and stayed on his feet to get the shot away, nothing changed for the final. He didn't choose to go down, he was fouled and that makes it a stonewall penalty.

 

No I've stated multiple times it's unclear but in my opinion there was not. Then i was talking in the scenario one boot brushed another, you still cant dive.

Here you go:

Wheres the contact?



Why does he react as if his left (on our right) foot has been tripped?

 

It wasn't a penalty. Stokes was looking to go down.

 

This is * mental.

I can't believe people can look at the incident and say it's not a penalty

 

ther was contact ..i said before, anywhere else on the pitch and we get a free kick

 

That's a better angle. It's painful to watch.

Bad acting, not a pen.

 

I play football for a career aswell, i can tell you that the slightest bit of contact can cause a footballer who is running at a increased speed to lose his balance.

 

You're right but its clear he does not loose his balance here.

 

Cheated my *. We played * for 90 mins. It was a pen, but it was not a clear decision for him to make, he had to be sure, he was not, you cannot give it.

*, but true. We only have ourselves to blame for losing.h

 

The fact the GIF is slowed down makes it look like their is time between contact and Stokes going down. It also shows, from yet another angle, that their is definate contact.

 

OK we get it, you think it's a penalty. * sake, let people have different opinion without getting shot down immediately.

 

I agree that we didn't deserve it anyway but it doesn't help me feel any less angry at Collum getting another decision wrong in a game involving us....