A wins a win

[Baboo]

Well I stick by my view of Craddock being dreadful on Sat, he gave the ball away, pulled out of tackles, didn’t get involved and generally looked a bit un-interested – people near me were of the same opinion as well.

Can't see this at all.
Did he really give the ball away more than any one else?
Did he really pull out of tackles?
How can he get involved if he is playing in the position Wilder tells him to and the ball rarely comes his way?

[Baboo]

Better than four. At least last time I checked it was.

What about 2 &amp 3 &amp 6 ?

Er, what point were you making. I seem to have missed it.

I'll get back to you on that!

Four goals in 9 games ain't bad.

I was just pointing out he'd scored five, t'is all. Sorry for the confusion.

Has he - I should know not to trust Soccerbase. (Or perhaps my counting ain't what it was)
Cheers - he's even better than I thought.

[Baboo]

Also, that must have been one of the softest pens we've ever been awarded - if there's any justice N'hampton's appeal against the sending off should be successful (the goalie already had the ball in his hands when Clist went down, plus contact by Johnson was minimal, plus Clist wasn't heading goalwards so I'm not sure how that could have been an obvious goalscoring opportunity.

Just watched the football league show from Saturday night - Clist was down before the ball reached the keeper's hands. And Johnson did give a little pull of Clist's arm - enought to interupt his stride and balance and stop him getting a shot in. Penalty. Sending off harsh, but these are the ridiculous rules the authorities impose on us.

[Snake]

Also, that must have been one of the softest pens we've ever been awarded - if there's any justice N'hampton's appeal against the sending off should be successful (the goalie already had the ball in his hands when Clist went down, plus contact by Johnson was minimal, plus Clist wasn't heading goalwards so I'm not sure how that could have been an obvious goalscoring opportunity.

Just watched the football league show from Saturday night - Clist was down before the ball reached the keeper's hands. And Johnson did give a little pull of Clist's arm - enought to interupt his stride and balance and stop him getting a shot in. Penalty. Sending off harsh, but these are the ridiculous rules the authorities impose on us.

Yeah, but we’d all but won the game by then. Imagine if the shoe had been on the other foot at Wembley last May and York went and won a penalty to make it 2-2 in injury time. Saturday was one of those occasions when I think someone at OUFC should have held their hands up (officially or not) and supported Northampton and said “yes, the ref got it wrong

[Sackcloth Ox]

Also, that must have been one of the softest pens we've ever been awarded - if there's any justice N'hampton's appeal against the sending off should be successful (the goalie already had the ball in his hands when Clist went down, plus contact by Johnson was minimal, plus Clist wasn't heading goalwards so I'm not sure how that could have been an obvious goalscoring opportunity.

Just watched the football league show from Saturday night - Clist was down before the ball reached the keeper's hands. And Johnson did give a little pull of Clist's arm - enought to interupt his stride and balance and stop him getting a shot in. Penalty. Sending off harsh, but these are the ridiculous rules the authorities impose on us.

Yeah, but we’d all but won the game by then. Imagine if the shoe had been on the other foot at Wembley last May and York went and won a penalty to make it 2-2 in injury time. Saturday was one of those occasions when I think someone at OUFC should have held their hands up (officially or not) and supported Northampton and said “yes, the ref got it wrong

[A-Ro]

You what? Definite penno.

I agree it was a definite penalty, albeit a bit soft. I didn't think it was at the time and even after watching it again I'm surprised it wasn't waved away, not because I don't think it was a penalty more because I've seen far more deserving penalties not given. That's the problem when you have to put up with inconsistent referees and inconsistent refereeing.

[Dr Bob]

You what? Definite penno.

I agree it was a definite penalty, albeit a bit soft. I didn't think it was at the time and even after watching it again I'm surprised it wasn't waved away, not because I don't think it was a penalty more because I've seen far more deserving penalties not given. That's the problem when you have to put up with inconsistent referees and inconsistent refereeing.

That's a relief - I was beginning to think I was the only one who thought it was a clear penalty. Genuine question (no sarcasm, for a change) - what do you mean by soft? It was not a huge thumping challenge, but it does not have to be to affect someone's stride and progress. And Clist was running at an angle away from the goal. And the ball was a bit of a way ahead of him.

The problem I have - not with you but with this term generally - is that it seems to be used mostly to disparage the player who goes down (aka he 'wins' a penalty which presumably means it would not otherwise be given) and often the ref - rather than the defender for his stupidity and/or carelessness and, as others have said, the ridiculous inflexible rules forced on officials.

In short, I thought it was a definite penalty given the rules. I thought it was a definite red card given the rules. I wonder if some of the disagreement in this thread is underpinned by some going on this basis and others using (shock, horror) common sense to say what should be.

[Ancient Colin]

Well, one definition of a &quotsoft&quot penalty would be one that we would be screaming blue murder about if it were given against us! Which I think would certainly have been the case here. So to say &quotdefinite penno&quot is a bit one eyed (and excessive on the letter n, too) and if every time there was contact like that refs gave fouls we wouldn't see a lot of football. Anyway, I do think that the red card was harsh, though: from the TV it looks like Clist's let the ball run away from him and, on a generous interpretation, it looks like one of the N'ton defenders could just about be getting back behind the keepeer onto the goalline.

[Old Abingdonian]

Not particularly in relation to this incident, I also think the word 'soft' for a penalty can imply the the conceding player had another clear option. In one sense, no-one needs to foul an opponent, but often the challenge which concedes a penalty is a desperate attempt to prevent a goal, and the challenge is late, misjudged (or misread!). A 'soft' penalty is one where the defender need not have bothered (player going way from goal, ball going out of play), or where another defender could have made a better challenge.

In this instance, I thought the red card harsh (but not wrong), and the penalty a good piece of refereeing. I get fed up with the routine shirt-pulling, whether by our players or the opposition.

[Baboo]

if every time there was contact like that refs gave fouls we wouldn't see a lot of football.

There's contact &amp there's contact - a little pull of an opponents arm, shirt, shorts etc shows not the slightest of intent on winning the ball fairly. Worse than a mistimed tackle imho.

[Ancient Colin]

Oh, I agree, it's just that it happens all the time and rarely gets called back.

Amazing that we've got through page three and no one has complained about the missing apostrophe in the thread title, by the way.

[boris]

I considered it, but decided that Ty would be getting enough stick for some of the stuff he wrote in his opening post that it would just detract from the other, more minor, arguments.

[Snake]

I considered it, but decided that Ty would be getting enough stick for some of the stuff he wrote in his opening post that it would just detract from the other, more minor, arguments.

Good on you, boris, as we all make small mistakes/typos now and again. However, using a variation of the same word twice in one sentence when it’s central to your argument is a Rage Online crime.

i.e. “That's the problem when you have to put up with inconsistent referees and inconsistent refereeing.

[A-Ro]

I mean soft in the sense that there are many factors about the situation which could have given the referee the opportunity to not give the pen. Things like the ball was running away from Clist, there was the possibility of a covering player, he was running away from goal etc. etc. Agreed the majority of those factors relate more to the sending off part of the offence rather than the penalty itself.

There have been many more clear cut penalties that have not been given which is why I was surprised when this one was. In the next couple of matches there will be an incident which the ref will wave away and we'll be back here referring to the Clist penalty and moaning about referees again.

[A-Ro]

[quote=&quotSnake&quot]However, using a variation of the same word twice in one sentence when it’s central to your argument is a Rage Online crime.

i.e. “That's the problem when you have to put up with inconsistent referees and inconsistent refereeing.