Does this mean we've turned it around with....

[tRiKS]

I thought it was a penalty, i am sure one foot was in the box which would then make it a penalty to me, also it was shoulder to shoulder, which is fair and not a penalty, but after the shoulder feet got tangled and that could be why it was given

100% correct. It was the legs that made it a pen and the fact part of pinaar and the ball were in the area makes it certainly in the box.

 

[tRiKS]

Exactly

exactly... incorrect. inside and a foul. you don't see them given to the away team and pienaar was canny with his leg but factually a penalty.

 

[wooderz]

It's nothing to do with where the player's left tentacle is. It's where the foul occurred. Which was outside...not that it was a foul!

 

[CaptainCat]

it really is times like this when the rose tinted glasses mob make ultimate fool of themselves.

If that was given against us the same mob would have cried for a week.

I know. :lol:

 

[FITZ]

Thought it was a foul, don't care if it was in or out - he gave a pen. Sad state of affairs to see Liverpool players throwing themselves around all game. I'm not against someone going down if an opportunity is taken from them, but to just throw yourself around was like watching Chelsea or the arse from a few years ago.

 

[C0YS]

It was not even close to a foul, if anything Pieneer shoulder barges into Flanagan, before they both tangle up. It was also quite clearly outside the box, where they make contact, Pieneer which knows he is going down makes sure he lands well in the box. I'm not complaining but if that was given against us I would be outraged, and do you know what so will the majority of people who think it was a pen.

http://videa.hu/videok/sport/l0-2t-HFDNlSw3Jk0kjAvK

no look at that over and over, and tell me how is that a Pen?

 

[Mr Pink]

Definitely had one foot just inside the line, and Pienaar was clever as he managed to get his body on the inside of what looked liked shoulder to shoulder just before going down.

We've had a lot of shit decisions against us lately, this was one of those ones which could of gone either and we got it.

About time we got one of these 'debatable decisions'...they've been going against us lately.

 

[Archibald&Crooks]

A shit ref had another shit game and for once we were on the right end of his shitness.

 

[jonnyrotten]

No foul, just outside too.

 

[fortworthspur]

I thought it was a cynical foul - Flanagan beaten and didnt even make a play on the ball, just Pienaar's body. Maybe not always given, but a foul. dunno about inside/outside the box.

anyway, we were better and deserved the three points.

 

[fortworthspur]

its not fair, but being 18 year-old Flanagan doesnt help. Glen Johnson, Ashley Cole etc probably get away with that.

 

[wooderz]

I've just watched it back, Peanut barges Flanagan if anything. Definitely no foul, but I'm happy we got it!

 

[$hoguN]

I think it was a foul wooderz as Pienaar had the ball and Flanagan's only attempt was to barge him off it and not to go for the ball.

 

[Coyboy]

I was right in front of it eight rows back and looked like a pen on first sight but was surprised Webb gave it. Having seen it, I am not convinced it was inside the box but think it a foul. My Dad's an Evertonian and he does say Pienaar does down easily. (stop it!)

 

[Ironskullll]

I didn't think it was a fair shoulder charge, in that he wasn't capable of playing the ball from where he was, and he shifted the whole of his weight sideways towards Pienar - if Pienear hadn't been there then he himself would have fallen over and got nowhere near the ball. But to an extent, Pienar was doing exactly the same. As for the position, Pienaar did have one foot on the line, and perhaps could be considered to be in the box from that perspective.

Either way, it's not totally cut and dried for me. It's the sort of foul that gets given all over the pitch but raises doubts as to whether it should be a penalty.

I think it falls into that category of "some you get, some you don't get", and as such is not particularly controversial, being so borderline.

For me though, it does highlight a long-standing fault in the penalty rule that doesn't sem to get much attention. Innocuous fouls within the area can result in a penalty, yet significant fouls outside the area simply result in innocuous free kicks. I don't see the logic in that. I heard Craig Brown suggesting recetly that a red card offence committed anywhere on the pitch should result in a penalty. And I heard a radio pundit suggest that innocuous fouls within the area shuld not result in penalties. I'm inclined to agree with both of them from a purist kind of point of view, but from a practical POV it might not be such a wise change to make, heaping even more responsibility onto the ref.

But it reminds me of another rule I find difficulty agreeing with - a red card early in the match deprives a team of a player for many times more minutes than one late on, so the deterrent effect of a possible red card wears off towards the end of the game. Similarly, suspensions puzzle me. Your team might be deprived a goal in the last minute by a red card offence, and yet some other team gets rewarded a week or two later by that player being suspended against them.

I don't advocate wholesale changes, and I'm more a fan of evolution that revolution, but I do think these sort of issues are worth discussing at some level, along with the use of technology in decision making.

Equally

 

[wooderz]

Peanut makes the barge toward Flanny as much as vice versa IMO.

 

[$hoguN]

Pienaar has a right to defend the ball

 

[mabolsa_ritchey]

Webb just hates Liverpool more than he hates us.

 

[brett.spurs]

It's a foul and inside the box.