PieFacE Posted April 27, 2014 VT Supporter Share Posted April 27, 2014 (edited) Why dont Cardiff start with Zaha? Edited April 27, 2014 by PieFacE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laivasse Posted April 27, 2014 Share Posted April 27, 2014 (edited) Dowd got that right, waited a long time which is the only criticism. Foul started outside the box and continued into it, therefore well within his rights to give the penalty and clearly a sending off. He can't win because Wickham is clearly impeded and the 'keeper is on top of him by the time he regains balance, if he'd managed to score Cardiff avoid the double punishment. Don't get me wrong, I hate Dowd and believe he is the worst ref in the division. I agree with you and all the pundits, I think it was good refereeing. Same as you guys, I think he made a decent interpretation of a nuanced situation. Also in order to preserve the game as a contest and avoid further headlines he's just allowed Fabio to get away with murder. Edited April 27, 2014 by Laivasse Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyClarke Posted April 27, 2014 Share Posted April 27, 2014 Fabio really is an idiot isn't he? Cardiff look like a team on the verge of really embarrassing themselves. known as 'doing an Aston Villa' 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rainer Posted April 27, 2014 Share Posted April 27, 2014 So in hindsight Cardiff should have just smashed the ball know their own net, concede the goal and keep 11 players on the pitch. Or would he have got sent off regardless? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PieFacE Posted April 27, 2014 VT Supporter Share Posted April 27, 2014 So in hindsight Cardiff should have just smashed the ball know their own net, concede the goal and keep 11 players on the pitch. Or would he have got sent off regardless? That's an interesting point. If the foul wasn't given, would he have been sent off? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laivasse Posted April 27, 2014 Share Posted April 27, 2014 So in hindsight Cardiff should have just smashed the ball know their own net, concede the goal and keep 11 players on the pitch. Or would he have got sent off regardless? That's a quirky one but my interpretation of the rules is that in instances of unsporting behaviour or serious foul play, you get the card at the next stoppage regardless of whether the referee allows play on or not. There was no avoiding the red IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLax Posted April 27, 2014 Share Posted April 27, 2014 So in hindsight Cardiff should have just smashed the ball know their own net, concede the goal and keep 11 players on the pitch. Or would he have got sent off regardless? The defender should have realised he was beaten and left it for the keeper to save. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLax Posted April 27, 2014 Share Posted April 27, 2014 So in hindsight Cardiff should have just smashed the ball know their own net, concede the goal and keep 11 players on the pitch. Or would he have got sent off regardless? That's a quirky one but my interpretation of the rules is that in instances of unsporting behaviour or serious foul play, you get the card at the next stoppage regardless of whether the referee allows play on or not. There was no avoiding the red IMO. The red is for 'denying a goal'. If Sunderland had scored there is no red card, just a yellow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laivasse Posted April 27, 2014 Share Posted April 27, 2014 So in hindsight Cardiff should have just smashed the ball know their own net, concede the goal and keep 11 players on the pitch. Or would he have got sent off regardless? That's a quirky one but my interpretation of the rules is that in instances of unsporting behaviour or serious foul play, you get the card at the next stoppage regardless of whether the referee allows play on or not. There was no avoiding the red IMO. The red is for 'denying a goal'. If Sunderland had scored there is no red card, just a yellow. That would make sense if it's true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rainer Posted April 27, 2014 Share Posted April 27, 2014 Would have been interesting if Cala scored an own goal in the advantage period.. Would the ref have given the goal and sent him off also, or disallowed the goal and sent him off as in theory he shouldn't have been on the pitch... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLax Posted April 27, 2014 Share Posted April 27, 2014 Would have been interesting if Cala scored an own goal in the advantage period.. Would the ref have given the goal and sent him off also, or disallowed the goal and sent him off as in theory he shouldn't have been on the pitch... I'd say that if the goal is scored then there is no need for a red card. Even if it comes off the Cardiff player and counts as an own goal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laivasse Posted April 27, 2014 Share Posted April 27, 2014 So in hindsight Cardiff should have just smashed the ball know their own net, concede the goal and keep 11 players on the pitch. Or would he have got sent off regardless? That's a quirky one but my interpretation of the rules is that in instances of unsporting behaviour or serious foul play, you get the card at the next stoppage regardless of whether the referee allows play on or not. There was no avoiding the red IMO. The red is for 'denying a goal'. If Sunderland had scored there is no red card, just a yellow. I had a look and the red should be for 'denying an obvious goalscoring opportunity', not the goal itself, so I believe my first guess about the red standing should be the way it would have been played out, if Phil Dowd had refereed evenly. (Not saying he would, in general I find him to be shite). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLax Posted April 27, 2014 Share Posted April 27, 2014 So in hindsight Cardiff should have just smashed the ball know their own net, concede the goal and keep 11 players on the pitch. Or would he have got sent off regardless? That's a quirky one but my interpretation of the rules is that in instances of unsporting behaviour or serious foul play, you get the card at the next stoppage regardless of whether the referee allows play on or not. There was no avoiding the red IMO. The red is for 'denying a goal'. If Sunderland had scored there is no red card, just a yellow. I had a look and the red should be for 'denying an obvious goalscoring opportunity', not the goal itself, so I believe my first guess about the red standing should be the way it would have been played out, if Phil Dowd had refereed evenly. (Not saying he would, in general I find him to be shite). That's just it, if a goal is scored then the defender hasn't denied a goal scoring opportunity has he so there can not be a red card. It's similar to the red that got overturned when Gibbs hand balled a shot that was going wide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeyjavfc Posted April 27, 2014 VT Supporter Share Posted April 27, 2014 ...nice finish Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PieFacE Posted April 27, 2014 VT Supporter Share Posted April 27, 2014 Well Cardiff are gone. It's unlikely Norwich will stay up. Just that last spot now IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chap of Steel Posted April 27, 2014 Share Posted April 27, 2014 Chelsea starting XI not as weak as I thought, though a first start for Kalas Schwarzer, Azpilicueta, Ivanovic, Kalas, Cole, Lampard, Mikel, Matic, Salah, Schurrle, Ba Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davkaus Posted April 27, 2014 Share Posted April 27, 2014 Well, with the confidence Sunderland will have after this I think that's us finishing 17th. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laivasse Posted April 27, 2014 Share Posted April 27, 2014 That's just it, if a goal is scored then the defender hasn't denied a goal scoring opportunity has he so there can not be a red card. It's similar to the red that got overturned when Gibbs hand balled a shot that was going wide. It depends on whether you think the goal comes from the original goal scoring opportunity or the attacker has had to use his skill to craft another. If, say, a defender fouls to deny a one-on-one finish, then the ball rolls out and someone scores from a 30 yard screamer, then the 'obvious opportunity' has certainly been denied - it's just that the attacking team has created another second chance anyway. The original infraction may still need to be punished. However Barnes interpreted as you did, in that there was still a goal scoring opportunity during the advantage that was played. Back on topic: game over now... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post StefanAVFC Posted April 27, 2014 Popular Post Share Posted April 27, 2014 Regardless of whether it was a pen or not, the card was only ever going to be Juan Cala. 9 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarewsEyebrowDesigner Posted April 27, 2014 Share Posted April 27, 2014 Chelsea starting XI not as weak as I thought, though a first start for Kalas Schwarzer, Azpilicueta, Ivanovic, Kalas, Cole, Lampard, Mikel, Matic, Salah, Schurrle, Ba If ever a team was set up to counter, that's it. I can see Chelsea win 1-0. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts