Post now..!

[backofthenet]

It was a gut wrencher for sure

[Saxo1man41]

It was a gut wrencher for sure

Yes it was. The first poster to say unlucky too deserves banning.

[AucklandRover]

Yes it was. The first poster to say unlucky too deserves banning.

Calm down, Saxo. I've only just finished watching.
"Unlucky"? Not the right word. Two glaring misses, and some poor decisions in the box, though. My 9-year-old grandson would have scored the header Williams missed.
As BOTN said, "gut-wrenching"! I thought we'd done it, and then the Bristol player produced that fantastic shot.
Both teams struggled with the ball on the floor a bit, but at least one of our quick counters should have led to goal.
I thought it was a good idea, going to three at the back, and - to be fair - Samuel played well when he came on.
Same old story, however: when you haven't got the second goal, the opposition sniff a chance and your own players started to hack the ball away instead of keeping control.
What you haven't mentioned, Saxo, is Wigan's nil-nil draw. It's called "competitive sport". You can't always batter the opposition.
I was a bit puzzled their player wasn't shown a second yellow card after the penalty.

[Despair]

Mark Atkins seemed to suggest he believed now it is determined the penalty is the punishment and a second yellow inducing the red is too much punishment.
Which is all well and good if the pen is slotted. If it’s not he’s ‘got away with it!
Don’t know if this is correct or not (the new ruling) if it is it’s news to me.

[AucklandRover]

Mark Atkins seemed to suggest he believed now it is determined the penalty is the punishment and a second yellow inducing the red is too much punishment.
Which is all well and good if the pen is slotted. If it’s not he’s ‘got away with it!
Don’t know if this is correct or not (the new ruling) if it is it’s news to me.

Thanks, Despair. Yes - I do remember that now. Surely it wouldn't apply to a cynical, deliberate hack, though? That would be the ultimate blessing for a professional foul! (Not the case today, anyway).

[Despair]

Thanks, Despair. Yes - I do remember that now. Surely it wouldn't apply to a cynical, deliberate hack, though? That would be the ultimate blessing for a professional foul! (Not the case today, anyway).

Now that I've actually seen the incident, I can sort of get where the change to ruling is trying to come from.
If that had been outside the area that would have been second yellow, an he's off.
In this case it was inside, so a pen. But it wasn't a blatant hack borne out of stopping a goal scoring opportunity.
Yes we were in the area trying to work an opening, but that may have or may not have proven successful.
So a pen gives us a much more likely opportunity, that's the 'punishment.
On the basis this is not a totally black or white ruling, it does come down though to the ref reading the 'situation' fairly / correctly.

[AucklandRover]

Now that I've actually seen the incident, I can sort of get where the change to ruling is trying to come from.
If that had been outside the area that would have been second yellow, an he's off.
In this case it was inside, so a pen. But it wasn't a blatant hack borne out of stopping a goal scoring opportunity.
Yes we were in the area trying to work an opening, but that may have or may not have proven successful.
So a pen gives us a much more likely opportunity, that's the 'punishment.
On the basis this is not a totally black or white ruling, it does come down though to the ref reading the 'situation' fairly / correctly.

I totally agree, Despair, but there are still some inconsistencies. As you said, what if the penalty is missed? Also, some of the yellow card "offences" are quite trivial. A player could get sent off for two of those, but not get a second yellow for a penalty-area foul which might have prevented a goal.