A wins a win

[Sackcloth Ox]

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.

Bit 'one eyed'? Clist was fouled and was prevented from taking up a goal scoring opportunity.

Rather be 'one eyed' than bloody blind!

[Joey's Toe]

Clist was fouled and was prevented from taking up a goal scoring opportunity.

Except he wasn't, was he? The ball had already run beyond his reach when he went down. The goalscoring opportunity had been and gone. You could still make a case for a penalty (although I still say it wasn't from where I was sat directly in line with it), but it was never a sending off.

[A-Ro]

Clist was fouled and was prevented from taking up a goal scoring opportunity.

Except he wasn't, was he? The ball had already run beyond his reach when he went down. The goalscoring opportunity had been and gone. You could still make a case for a penalty (although I still say it wasn't from where I was sat directly in line with it), but it was never a sending off.

Does it have to be a goal scoring opportunity to be a penalty?

I am fairly sure I remember Nigel Cassidy going down following a forearm smash at Vicarage Road while the ball was near the half way line and the ref giving a penalty.

[Dr Bob]

Clist was fouled and was prevented from taking up a goal scoring opportunity.

Except he wasn't, was he? The ball had already run beyond his reach when he went down. The goalscoring opportunity had been and gone. You could still make a case for a penalty (although I still say it wasn't from where I was sat directly in line with it), but it was never a sending off.

Are we back to the debate of what is versus what should be? By definition (and the laws of physics) the foul occurs before the player goes down (ignoring divers, obviously), so at speed the time lag is part of the consideration and is one problem with the laws simply that the situation you describe IS a sending off offence? Which is, of course, quite different to whether or not it should be.

I was interested to see a photo accompanying a report on the Oxford Mail website showing clearly the defender has his hand on Clist's arm (aaahhh), maybe not much, which brings us back perhaps to the meaning of 'soft', but it is there.

[JoeyBeauchamp]

Moving on from the penalty, which didn't affect the result at all, I can't beelive some people are criticising Wright for their goal. The fault lies with Purkiss alone - hence the reaction of Clarke and others - and with the fact that the ball in was inch perfect. Wright was beaten by the accuracy of the delivery as was Clarke, as you could argue that a ball that close to goal should have been his.

[Myles Francis]

The fault lies with Purkiss alone

I'm sorry, but that's bow-locks.

Purkiss is shadowing their left winger as he brings the ball on and, perhaps wrongly, stays with him for too long after the ball has been played infield. The ball is then played out to their left back who has bombed forward and, yes, Purkiss is out of position to cover that player. But that is more a problem of playing 433 - if we'd been playing 442, it would've been our right winger who should've been covering their left back. To blame Purkiss for not being able to cover two players at the same time is a bit daft, IMHO.

And Wright wasn't beaten by the accuracy of the delivery. He was beaten by allowing his man to stay three yards off him.

[Joey's Toe]

Are we back to the debate of what is versus what should be? By definition (and the laws of physics) the foul occurs before the player goes down (ignoring divers, obviously), so at speed the time lag is part of the consideration and is one problem with the laws simply that the situation you describe IS a sending off offence? Which is, of course, quite different to whether or not it should be.

Well, again, it's interpretation - to my eyes, both at the time and watching the replay, Clist has lost control of the ball before the foul is committed. He's still fouled (insofar as the player manhandles him, albeit only slightly), but it doesn't deny a clear goalscoring opportunity. Hence my view that it's arguably a penalty (depending on your opinion of the contact), but definitely not a sending off.

[boris]

Does it have to be a goal scoring opportunity to be a penalty?

No, a penalty is given for any foul by the defending team inside the penalty area for which a direct free-kick is the punishment. For a sending off, however, the referee has to be convinced that the fouler was denying an obvious goalscoring opportunity (dogso).

[womble]

your learning boris

[Baboo]

[
Does it have to be a goal scoring opportunity to be a penalty?.

We all know it 100% does not. Can't quite see why there's been so much debate on this.

[Hog]

I can't believe there's been so much hand wringing because a decision went our way!

[Baboo]

I can't believe there's been so much hand wringing because a decision went our way!

We're a strange lot.

[Snake]

I can't believe there's been so much hand wringing because a decision went our way!

We're a strange lot.

Indeed, but honest most of the time.