deleteduser1 169 Posted December 24, 2011 Share Posted December 24, 2011 Aluko got clipped in the box but kept his feet only to shoot wide.I thought it was a stonewaller but does anyone else think this was a penalty and if so did Aluko do the right thing by staying on his feet? Reckon it crossed his mind to go over but he was possibly nervous at the idea of going down with such little contact after his recent 2 match ban. Personally , I can understand why he didn't go over but I felt at the time he should have gone down. Your thoughts guys. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bad Robot 21,513 Posted December 24, 2011 Share Posted December 24, 2011 he was clipped and due to the recent stuff he decided to stay on his feet which was the wrong decision for me, having said that the ref should have giving the penalty for the contact, i just cant understand why he never started. baffling and a very very poor decision ny ally Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Jela 21,689 Posted December 24, 2011 Share Posted December 24, 2011 I'm happy he stayed on his feet. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rossDas 1,071 Posted December 24, 2011 Share Posted December 24, 2011 It was my fear that this sort of thing would happen; haven't seen the game however, so I'll reserve judgment. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jocky Broon 207 Posted December 24, 2011 Share Posted December 24, 2011 Probably the only thought on his mind was to keep his feet and get a shot off.I dont think Aluko is a diver and I doubt he had sufficient time to even think about the Dunfermline incident. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jafrfc 614 Posted December 24, 2011 Share Posted December 24, 2011 I thought it was a penalty and he should of gone down. But I understand why he didn't considering all that's gone on. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangersMedia 35,962 Posted December 24, 2011 Share Posted December 24, 2011 I didn't think it was a penalty, glad he stayed on his feet and almost scored. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kirkiebear 1,013 Posted December 24, 2011 Share Posted December 24, 2011 If he went down there was no chance he would of got it. Not after whats happened and the way the referee was handling the game. Sad but true. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
deleteduser1 169 Posted December 24, 2011 Author Share Posted December 24, 2011 I didn't think it was a penalty, glad he stayed on his feet and almost scored.It would have been a big moment for us if it had been given and I reckon the ref should have given it regardless. Poor decision by the ref in my opinion.Would really like the chance to have another look at the incident. Does anyone have a clip they can upload? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
deleteduser1 169 Posted December 24, 2011 Author Share Posted December 24, 2011 If he went down there was no chance he would of got it. Not after whats happened and the way the referee was handling the game. Sad but true.You could well be right and would probably have picked up a yellow card for diving - which would have been the wrong decision IMO.Does this mean he is a marked man and can't go over in the box when genuine contact is made in future games?What if he gets clipped in the OF game this Wednesday? If he gets clipped like he did today I hope to fuck he goes down. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaz52 11,837 Posted December 24, 2011 Share Posted December 24, 2011 The guy will be scared to go down again due to the fucking joke of an organisation, full of beggars and anti-Rangers filth Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Papa Sasac 164 Posted December 24, 2011 Share Posted December 24, 2011 Thought it would have been very soft if he did go down. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OneDavidCooper 2,505 Posted December 24, 2011 Share Posted December 24, 2011 It should definitely have been a penalty.Makes a mockery of his 2 game ban in my view. Why be honest if it gets no reward? Next time he feels the slightest touch he should go down. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimbo. 952 Posted December 24, 2011 Share Posted December 24, 2011 Shows exactly why players go down with minimal contact.That was a penalty, and because he tried to stay on his feet it wasn't given.I wonder if the ref'll be given a two match ban for incompetence? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sicknote 26 Posted December 24, 2011 Share Posted December 24, 2011 He stayed on his feet. If he went down, it would have been seen as a dive. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
terrybutcher 23 Posted December 24, 2011 Share Posted December 24, 2011 Who cares he stayed on his feet shot at goal no penalty move on! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimbo. 952 Posted December 24, 2011 Share Posted December 24, 2011 He stayed on his feet. If he went down, it would have been seen as a dive.If he went down it should've been seen as a foul and a penalty. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OneDavidCooper 2,505 Posted December 24, 2011 Share Posted December 24, 2011 He stayed on his feet. If he went down, it would have been seen as a dive.Doesn't matter. If there is contact then the worst you can be accused of is embellishment. Its certainly not cheating.Stevie Me (Gerrard) was once awarded a penalty for Skiverpool v Sheff United because the defender tried (and failed) to bring him down but still put him off. In that context, Aluko's should have been nailed on. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
deleteduser1 169 Posted December 24, 2011 Author Share Posted December 24, 2011 Who cares he stayed on his feet shot at goal no penalty move on!I for one certainly care when my teams players don't get justice in any given situation and the decision was not only debatable but worthy of discussion , especially in light of Alukos ban for going down in a similar incident only recently. If you don't care then fair enough but why did you bother posting if you care so little? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLawMan 6,240 Posted December 24, 2011 Share Posted December 24, 2011 It was a penalty. He stayed on his feet because of his ban. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
norgerpd 280 Posted December 24, 2011 Share Posted December 24, 2011 It was my fear that this sort of thing would happen; haven't seen the game however, so I'll reserve judgment.What...You FEAR that players might try to stay on their feet instead of cheating?Yeah,that will ruin the game ffs Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLawMan 6,240 Posted December 24, 2011 Share Posted December 24, 2011 What...You FEAR that players might try to stay on their feet instead of cheating?Yeah,that will ruin the game ffsI would say he fears players trying to stay on their feet when its a clear penalty and advantage to the defense due to the fear of being retrospectively punished. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
norgerpd 280 Posted December 24, 2011 Share Posted December 24, 2011 I would say he fears players trying to stay on their feet when its a clear penalty and advantage to the defense due to the fear of being retrospectively punished.Wasnt a penalty.I would much rather see players stay on their feet and attempt to score legitimatelyI think this fast-track punishment system is a breath of fresh air(as long as it continues to be applied consistently) Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rossDas 1,071 Posted December 24, 2011 Share Posted December 24, 2011 I would say he fears players trying to stay on their feet when its a clear penalty and advantage to the defense due to the fear of being retrospectively punished.Spot on. Being cynically tugged back by a player who isn't even going for the ball is the sort of incident I have in mind, so long as the foul is definitely worth a penalty of course - anything else is just plain cheating. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
devref 201 Posted December 24, 2011 Share Posted December 24, 2011 contact was made although it was minimal advantage played as he stayed up on his feet.however as no advantage was gained the ref should have then awarded the penalty exactly as they award free kicks in any other area of the field.granted it takes a wee bit more balls to award the penalty but hey thats what refs get paid for making the big calls. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.