Peterborough United Home 9th March

Ok, just managed to hack Matt Donohues (referee) Skybet account. This might explain the penalty decision.

 

I never said Mellor wasn't feigning head injury. He took a decision that he thought a player had an injury serious enough to stop the game. Whether thats in the laws of the game or not, i'd say it was common sense decision.

 

You seem to be in lonersville, population 1, with this opinion. Haven't seen anyone else that thought the decision was a penalty.

 

I know we are all entitled to a difference of opinion but come on fella, let this one go, its not worth debating.

 

like i’ve said in each post, i don’t agree with the rule and i don’t think it was a penalty but within the rules it was there to be given. i can’t say what angle the ref had as i wasn’t stood at his side but as soon as caddis leaves the floor he gives the ref a decision to make.

 

how can he be in control when both feet are off the floor? the rule is there to protect the player with the ball, if maddison moves right rather than left caddis smashes into his ankle. caddis isn’t in control at that moment - like i keep saying, i thought it was a good tackle but when he leaves the ground he gives the ref a decision to make that he’s out of control and therefore careless. it’s like the man utd penalty during the week, might not have been a penalty but within the laws the defender gave the ref the chance to make the decision he did.

 

Maybe a “was it or wasn’t it?” separate thread?

Fact is. The ref gave it. Fact is, it didn’t make any difference to us winning three points. We’ve had stuff go against us, and we’ll have stuff go for us. Let it go

 

can you tell me where i said i thought it was a penalty? all i’ve done is point out the rules of the game and why the referee can interpret those rules to come to the decision he did - as soon as a player leaves the ground a tackle becomes reckless / careless whether he gets the ball or not. if so, the referee is entitled to give a direct free kick or penalty. caddis’ tackle gave him that option.

the things the referee has to take into consideration are;
1. does caddis leave the ground both feet? yes.
2. once off the ground is caddis’ in control of his tackle? no.
3. does that warrant a careless tackle? yes.

it doesn’t matter what you or i think. they are the rules. try taking off your city coloured glasses - at the other end, we’re wanting a penalty citing all the reasons above as to why the ref can make that decision.

 

Well I've looked at the replay many times and I don't see two feet off the floor. His left leg seems to be trailing and sliding on the floor. It's not a two footed lunge at all.

 

We win 3-1 against a side in the play offs, having been nothing short of a shambles for 2 months and you’ve spent the past 6 pages arguing over a penalty that has no real meaning?

God almighty. Talk about the great performances and the great win and how it felt good again at 5 o clock after a hard fought win.

We get your point. Move on ffs

 

no trailing leg here - both pointing in the same direction, both off the floor.

 

sorry pal, am i the only one discussing it? pretty sure i’m just replying to messages sent to me. i gather you’ve posted to everyone @‘ing me to move on too?

 

Don't be stupid. You've posted a picture that is completely blurred. You can't tell anything from that. Watch it in real time and keep your eye on Caddis.

 

Only @brisbanebantamand and Matt Donohue then .

 

Here we go. You are presuming wrongly that if the incident was the other way round that City fans would be screaming for a penalty. I speak only for myself, and that if it the incident was indeed the other way round i would have applauded what was a perfectly executed tackle in the penalty area, arguably the hardest area of the pitch to undertake such a tackle. Again, you're assuming, wrongly, the people who thought this wasn't a penalty don't know the reasons for giving one by banging on about this 'careless tackle' and 'feet off the ground'. When the penalty was given i can't be sure form my vantage point as to whether it is the right decision. Certainly the incensed reaction from the Bradford players seemed to merit a watch a replay of the decision when back home. When watching the replay it clearly shows Caddis get to the ball first, the tackle is near to perfection, Maddison then tumbles over Caddis's body with his momentum.
I've seen enough tackles this season and others to know what constitutes a careless and 'feet off the floor tackle, a tackle where the defender is deemed to have 'no control'. If this was the case with the incident in question i would hold my hands and say so, i'm not someone who watches a game with 'coloured glasses' on, like local radio commentators and the like.
I say it how it is, and that was not a careless tackle. Not at all.

 

Seems it. There were enough incidents up for debate from yesterdays game from a referee who seemed to have a different interpretation of the rules. Having watched the 'penalty' decision, it was another one he got completely wrong.

 

you’re assuming that it matters whether he gets the ball first or not, it doesn’t. hence why now you see red cards and free-kicks in the middle of the pitch for ‘use of excessive force’. getting the ball first became redundant years ago.

you may not like the rules or agree with them, but that’s what they are.

 

I thought Doyle took his goal well, anybody else?

 

Your wasting your time Tarty, he likes to think he knows best and is always right; he likes to be controversial and will argue the point relentlessly, we have the rule book, which tells us nothing and can be interpreted either way, we have a blurred still to prove Caddis has both feet off the floor, when clearly he had one leg bent on the ground. It was a really good and brave tackle, it was not careless or reckless, but hey what do I know.

 

very well, i liked the roll over on the ball to bring it onto his left foot too.