Highlights

[saxman]

Who was the commentator, he clearly loves Rovers more than us!?

 

[Argyle sy]

Who was the commentator, he clearly loves Rovers more than us!?

I'm presuming the commentary was from a Bristol based angle rather than non biased

 

[rongreenblood]

To add to this,a lot of commentators/pundits say "oh there was contact,so he has the right to go down" this thing is one of the reasons why i am not enjoying the game as much anymore,also,some fouls in the middle of the pitch given,are not likely to be given in the penalty area,a foul is a foul wherever it is.

 

[IJN]

There were FOUR penalty incidents from where I was which was about 15 yards away.

The first one a trip on Mayor was a pen, the ref waved on.

The second one when Connnor Grant (I think) was policed right on the edge but inside the box was a pen the ref waved on.

The third one was harsh but the ref blew for it.

The missed one, in my opinion wasn’t a penalty.

A player two footed Sarce in the first half and only received a yellow when it was a straight red all day long.

On the incident in which Fadz injured himself the ref claimed no foul, Fadz injured himself by kicking the player on the byeline feet away from us Argyle fans. The ref waved on shouting not foul’.

In my opinion the ref was unfit for purpose.

 

[Cobi Budge]

I thought more decisions went in favour of Rovers than for us, in particular the dangerous challenge on Sarcevic early in the game that should have resulted in a red card. Rovers should feel fortunate they’re still in the hat, both from a decisions point of view, and the point of the view of the game in general.

 

[dunlop]

There were FOUR penalty incidents from where I was which was about 15 yards away.

The first one a trip on Mayor was a pen, the ref waved on.

The second one when Connnor Grant (I think) was policed right on the edge but inside the box was a pen the ref waved on.

The third one was harsh but the ref blew for it.

The missed one, in my opinion wasn’t a penalty.

A player two footed Sarce in the first half and only received a yellow when it was a straight red all day long.

On the incident in which Fadz injured himself the ref claimed no foul, Fadz injured himself by kicking the player on the byeline feet away from us Argyle fans. The ref waved on shouting not foul’.

In my opinion the ref was unfit for purpose.

100% agree with those comments some of this referee decision were ridiculous.

 

[F in Argyle]

A small personal bugbear: 'stonewall' does not mean 'certain', it means 'to block'. So neither were 'stonewall penalties', nor in fact even 'stone-cold penalties' :angel:

It must be true, it's in the paper

STONEWALL - WHERE DID IT COME FROM?

What is the first recorded use of the word "stonewall" to mean "absolutely certain", as in "it was a stonewall penalty"? The Chambers Dictionary lists "stonewall" as a verb, not an adjective. asked Seamus McCann last week.

"I believe that stonewalling was originally an Australian term used by politicians for delaying tactics," says Ray Routledge. "There was also an American Civil War general, Thomas Jackson, who was nicknamed Stonewall because during the Battle of Bull Run in 1861 he stood firm, 'like a stone wall'. In a sporting context I think it was first applied in cricket when a batsman would play constant defensive shots, blocking every delivery so as to minimise the risk of getting out."

But Mark Power claims: "Chambers is right: "stonewall" is a verb, as in "to block obdurately, or Defensively". I suspect what Seamus or Ron have seen is a stone-cold penalty, as in "dead obvious", or "a no-brainer".

 

[Southampton Green]

A small personal bugbear: 'stonewall' does not mean 'certain', it means 'to block'. So neither were 'stonewall penalties', nor in fact even 'stone-cold penalties' :angel:

It must be true, it's in the paper

STONEWALL - WHERE DID IT COME FROM?

What is the first recorded use of the word "stonewall" to mean "absolutely certain", as in "it was a stonewall penalty"? The Chambers Dictionary lists "stonewall" as a verb, not an adjective. asked Seamus McCann last week.

"I believe that stonewalling was originally an Australian term used by politicians for delaying tactics," says Ray Routledge. "There was also an American Civil War general, Thomas Jackson, who was nicknamed Stonewall because during the Battle of Bull Run in 1861 he stood firm, 'like a stone wall'. In a sporting context I think it was first applied in cricket when a batsman would play constant defensive shots, blocking every delivery so as to minimise the risk of getting out."

But Mark Power claims: "Chambers is right: "stonewall" is a verb, as in "to block obdurately, or Defensively". I suspect what Seamus or Ron have seen is a stone-cold penalty, as in "dead obvious", or "a no-brainer".

I think that "Stonewall" has lots of different meanings depending on the context. Most commonly it is used to denote something that acts as a complete block, but it can have other meanings. For instance a form of abuse, particularly in the domestic abuse context, where an abuser ignores a victim causing them to increase their efforts to please him/her. In the football context it might have come out of Scottish football where a stonewall is something completely obvious in the sense that a stone wall is an obvious barrier that is more difficult to walk in to when compared to other barriers such as wooden fences. The phrase seems to be in regular use now in English football in this sense. So, if the phrase "stonewall penalty" has gained this common usage sense, there shouldn't be a problem in using it as like every phrase it is just a way of conveying information where the writer and receiver both understand what is meant, it doesn't have to reflect the pure first origin of the phrase.

 

[pastiesforlife]

There were FOUR penalty incidents from where I was which was about 15 yards away.

The first one a trip on Mayor was a pen, the ref waved on.

The second one when Connnor Grant (I think) was policed right on the edge but inside the box was a pen the ref waved on.

The third one was harsh but the ref blew for it.

The missed one, in my opinion wasn’t a penalty.

A player two footed Sarce in the first half and only received a yellow when it was a straight red all day long.

On the incident in which Fadz injured himself the ref claimed no foul, Fadz injured himself by kicking the player on the byeline feet away from us Argyle fans. The ref waved on shouting not foul’.

In my opinion the ref was unfit for purpose.

The ref also twice gave Rovers free kicks when an Argyle player touched the Rovers player on the back and he went flying forward. Not that dissimilar to the penalties that were given, but of course not in the box. To that extent, the ref was consistent through the game.

I thought that we should have had two penalties but not for the two incidents when they were given.

 

[davie nine]

How do you define a ‘soft’ penalty?

Surely, it is either a correct decision or an incorrect decision. I haven’t seen the highlights yet.

Is there a suggestion that a foul in the penalty should be judged more leniently than an identical foul outside the penalty area?

I guess the answer to your question, Davie, is that the referee has to decide whether it IS a foul or whether the player has dived.

These days there will probably be a bit of both. The player has to decide what his chances are of scoring a goal and if he thinks he is unlikely to do so then he looks for contact from the opposition player before going to ground. Is it a foul? Is it a dive? It can be a bit of both and the referee has to make a quick decision as to whether he awards a penalty or not.

There are less clear cut decisions these days and the referee has to make a decision on what he has seen, which may not be from the best position from which a decision should be made (hence VAR, to make the decision easier for the ref).

The greater the dive, the softer the penalty decision I guess, going from 100% stonewall foul to 100% dive with little contact made, and all aspects in between.

I blame the continental footballers for bringing diving into the game and I also blame FIFA for not clamping down on it and it now seems to be treated as being part and parcel of the game.

In the early days the continentals did have a lot more skill than the English players and we used to hack them down relentlessly, so I suppose they have refined their diving skills in order to counter this treatment, and of course they have brought it with them into the British game as the Premiership has opened the door to the influx of foreign players.

We English have just copied them and it has now infiltrated all four leagues and probably all the schoolkids are now teaching themselves as they see it on tv as a matter of course.

Diving IS cheating, of course, because players do it in order to persuade the referee to award them an advantage, when their actions don't really warrant it.

There is so much at stake these days that players want to obtain every advantage that they can get.

Now don't get me started on time-wasting, the other bug bare of the professional game!!!!

Good post.

For clarity I would like to add, going down after feeling a touch and letting the referee make a decision is hoping the referee makes a WRONG decision and therefore is cheating.

So you are saying that there is no such thing as a ‘soft’ penalty as it’s either a CORRECT decision or a WRONG decision?

 

[IJN]

Anyone seen the West Brom pen from tonight (v PNE) an absolute disgrace.

It simply proves that sh*t refs are in every league.

 

[WoodsyGreen]

Anyone seen the West Brom pen from tonight (v PNE) an absolute disgrace.

It simply proves that sh*t refs are in every league.

Yes, though I never understand why keepers through themselves at attackers' feet like that. You're just asking for trouble.

 

[rongreenblood]

I noticed also,that it appeared that Telford may have wanted to take the second penalty but you can see Sarce point to his own chest to imply "I'm taking it".And it was a poor pen.I hope this missed chance does not fire up Rovers more than Argyle in the replay.

 

[Lundan Cabbie]

How do you define a ‘soft’ penalty?

Surely, it is either a correct decision or an incorrect decision. I haven’t seen the highlights yet.

Is there a suggestion that a foul in the penalty should be judged more leniently than an identical foul outside the penalty area?

I guess the answer to your question, Davie, is that the referee has to decide whether it IS a foul or whether the player has dived.

These days there will probably be a bit of both. The player has to decide what his chances are of scoring a goal and if he thinks he is unlikely to do so then he looks for contact from the opposition player before going to ground. Is it a foul? Is it a dive? It can be a bit of both and the referee has to make a quick decision as to whether he awards a penalty or not.

There are less clear cut decisions these days and the referee has to make a decision on what he has seen, which may not be from the best position from which a decision should be made (hence VAR, to make the decision easier for the ref).

The greater the dive, the softer the penalty decision I guess, going from 100% stonewall foul to 100% dive with little contact made, and all aspects in between.

I blame the continental footballers for bringing diving into the game and I also blame FIFA for not clamping down on it and it now seems to be treated as being part and parcel of the game.

In the early days the continentals did have a lot more skill than the English players and we used to hack them down relentlessly, so I suppose they have refined their diving skills in order to counter this treatment, and of course they have brought it with them into the British game as the Premiership has opened the door to the influx of foreign players.

We English have just copied them and it has now infiltrated all four leagues and probably all the schoolkids are now teaching themselves as they see it on tv as a matter of course.

Diving IS cheating, of course, because players do it in order to persuade the referee to award them an advantage, when their actions don't really warrant it.

There is so much at stake these days that players want to obtain every advantage that they can get.

Now don't get me started on time-wasting, the other bug bare of the professional game!!!!

Good post.

For clarity I would like to add, going down after feeling a touch and letting the referee make a decision is hoping the referee makes a WRONG decision and therefore is cheating.

So you are saying that there is no such thing as a ‘soft’ penalty as it’s either a CORRECT decision or a WRONG decision?

What I am saying is if you touch a player it isn’t an offence. If the player feels that touch and throws himself to the ground, he makes it appear to the referee that he has been pushed, which is an offence. Some say it is “asking the referee to make a decision” but in reality it’s just cheating.

 

[Willis88]

I'm pretty sure RL said that Sarce is his designated pen taker anyway.

Like when we had Carey taking all the pens for us, you wouldn't have wanted anyone else, even when he missed a few last season.