2006-2007 FA Cup Thread - The Final!

  • Thread starter Famine
  • 71 comments
  • 2,677 views
Status
Not open for further replies.
Brilliant goal, as was SWPs.

So a United vs Chelsea final at Wembley then?
 
Nah, its so gonna be watford V Blackburn:P

But as MOTD said, if Chelsea were to win it, they would be the last team to win the fa cup at the old wembley and the first at the new..
 
Oooh ;lol:, theres more Manchester United fans in Manchester than Manchester city fans.

It was a blatant penalty though, I don't know how anyone can question it. Woodgate slipped, he went down and his knee clearly took out Ronaldos right leg. Even if Ronaldo hadn't gone down, his balance and speed would have still taken a hit. At the end of the day it was a foul in the penalty area, that's a penalty.
 
pwnexplode.gif
 
live4speed
It was a blatant penalty though, I don't know how anyone can question it. Woodgate slipped, he went down and his knee clearly took out Ronaldos right leg. Even if Ronaldo hadn't gone down, his balance and speed would have still taken a hit. At the end of the day it was a foul in the penalty area, that's a penalty.
Click to expand...

Ping! No intent, ergo no penalty. There has to be intent in a challenge in the penalty area in order for it to be a penalty - and in fact sometimes the intent alone classes as a penalty.

(never mind the fact that there was no contact anyway, and Ronaldo had overrun the ball right into Schwarzer).
 
Famine
Ping! No intent, ergo no penalty. There has to be intent in a challenge in the penalty area in order for it to be a penalty - and in fact sometimes the intent alone classes as a penalty.

(never mind the fact that there was no contact anyway, and Ronaldo had overrun the ball right into Schwarzer).
Click to expand...
Intent isn't needed, the FA handbook clearly states regarding penalties that a penalty may be given against any team that commits any of the 10 fouls inside thier own penalty box that would otherwise award a direct free kick. One of thoes fouls that would award a direct free kick is if a player trips or attempts to trip an opponent. Obviousely you need intent to attempt to trip another player, but you can actually trip another player accidentally. And even if it is accidental, the referee may give a free kick. Intent is not mentioned regarding penalties or direct rfee kicks in general. Roanldo was knocked over in the box, the ref gave a penalty, there was nothing wrong with the decision. As for the contact, I don't know which replays you have or haven't seen, but the post match commentary with Jamie Redknapp and the other fellas showed it from an angle that quite clearly showed Ronaldo's leg getting knocked under him by Woodgates knee and everyone agreed that it was a definite penalty.

You can download the FA handbook here
http://www.thefa.com/TheFA/RulesAndRegulations/
 
live4speed
Intent is not mentioned regarding penalties or direct rfee kicks in general.
Click to expand...

1st game of this season, Liverpool vs. Sheffield U****d. Steven Gerrard won a penalty despite not being contacted. The referee stated that he knew no contact had occurred, but gave the penalty for the intent of the challenge.

live4speed
Roanldo was knocked over in the box, the ref gave a penalty, there was nothing wrong with the decision. As for the contact, I don't know which replays you have or haven't seen, but the post match commentary with Jamie Redknapp and the other fellas showed it from an angle that quite clearly showed Ronaldo's leg getting knocked under him by Woodgates knee and everyone agreed that it was a definite penalty.
Click to expand...

I saw Ronaldo leaving his trailing leg behind and falling over. The channel I watch the most is Sky Sports News, and I've seen it from every angle they can provide.
 
What I mean when I said intent is not mentioned in general, is that there is no general rule thats says a foul has to be done with intent if it's in the box, in the 10 fouls there are specific examples where the guidline is that intent is all that is needed but intent isn't needed to give away a free kik or penalty. You can give away a penalty for doing something with intent, but you can also accidentally trip a player unintentionally and that is still a penalty. At the end of the day Woodgate knocked Ronaldo over, weather Ronaldo made a meal of it is irrelevent, the contact was made, Woodgate didn't get the ball and everyone after the match agreed it was a definite penalty. Ronaldo does make the most of these situations, he does go over very easy, often too much so. But if you want a list of penalties that shouldn't have been penalties, this one shouldn't be on it. There's a lot, and some of Ronaldos will be on there, but not this one.
 
live4speed
What I mean when I said intent is not mentioned in general, is that there is no general rule thats says a foul has to be done with intent if it's in the box, in the 10 fouls there are specific examples where the guidline is that intent is all that is needed but intent isn't needed to give away a free kik or penalty. You can give away a penalty for doing something with intent, but you can also accidentally trip a player unintentionally and that is still a penalty. At the end of the day Woodgate knocked Ronaldo over, weather Ronaldo made a meal of it is irrelevent, the contact was made, Woodgate didn't get the ball and everyone after the match agreed it was a definite penalty. Ronaldo does make the most of these situations, he does go over very easy, often too much so. But if you want a list of penalties that shouldn't have been penalties, this one shouldn't be on it. There's a lot, and some of Ronaldos will be on there, but not this one.
Click to expand...

I'll give you another example of intent and fouls then.

Ball-to-hand - no intent - no penalty
Hand-to-ball - intent - penalty
 
So, it's often a case by case scenario. for example, if your ball to hand prevents the ball from going into the back of the net a penalty is often still given. Tripping a player, if you trip a player in the box by accident a penalty may still be given, it doesn't have to be malicious. The Rules state that tripping an opposing player results in a free kick, it doesn't say intentionally tripping an opposing player. The rules also state than any incident that would result in a free kick should result in a penalty if it occurs in your penalty area. The facts are that Ronaldo was tripped, Woodgate didn't touch the ball at all, let alone before making contact with Woodgate. In the midfield that would no doubt have been a free kick, since the rules state than any incident tha twould result in free kick is grounds for a penalty what is the fuss about.
 
live4speed
The rules also state than any incident that would result in a free kick should result in a penalty if it occurs in your penalty area.
Click to expand...

Nnnnnnthat's not true neither.
 
Word for word the FA rules are...
A penalty kick is awarded against a team which commits any of the offences for which a direct free kick, inside it's own penalty area and while the ball is in play.

A free kick is awarded for tripping an opposing player. Ronaldo was an opposing player who was tripped in the penalty area while he had the ball and was in the penalty area. It was a penalty.
 
live4speed
Word for word the FA rules are...
A penalty kick is awarded against a team which commits any of the offences for which a direct free kick, inside it's own penalty area and while the ball is in play.
Click to expand...

Firstly, I don't believe that - unless the FA are as good with the possessive apostrophe as they are with punishments for hyper rich players.

Secondly the word DIRECT is in there too. You said:

live4speed
The rules also state than any incident that would result in a free kick should result in a penalty if it occurs in your penalty area.
Click to expand...

Which isn't the same thing - you can have an INDIRECT free kick inside the penalty area... The most common incident which leads to that is the 'keeper handling a backpass.



All that aside, I'm going to have to change my bait. My nets can't cope with all of this.
 
I did say it was direct free kicks back in post 43, I just forgot to in that one, but my original point still stands. that happens down the wing no one would bat an eyelid at the resulting direct free kick. You can download the FA rules from that link I provided earlier, it's a 533 page PDF document. You can see what it says word for word in there, A direct free kick can be taken for tripping an opposing player, a penalty can be given for that too if it happens in your area. It doesn't say the trip has to be intentional or not. Anything that can result in a direct free kick is also grounds for a penalty.

EDIT, in that PDF there is a contents page :lol:, i wasn't expecting someone to peruse all 533 pages. It's in the section "Laws of the game" and free kicks are covered in Laws 12 and 13, penalties are covered in Law 14.
 
Man U 4 Watford 1, sorry Aidy but you didn't match landing on the moon.
 
Correction (not that it changes anything) but Man Utd 4 - 1 Watford, didn't keep a clean sheet. Still, far as I'm concerned it flattered Man Utd to be perfectly honest, they weren't exactly at their best nor worth the big margin.
 
A bad typo, I know Watford scored I watched the match :lol:. It didn't really flatter Man U though imo, they didn't play their best but Watford simply were not a threat in any way except set pieces. We played in low gear most of the time, but we always had that ability to jump up a gear or two during the game, which we did a few times if even for brief periods. Watford didn't have that. We didn't need to play i90 mins in a high gear to win, but we played like we could of if we needed to.
 
What a load of rubbish. Two best teams in the country? My a*se, this is like watching their 0-0 at the end of the Prem season, the bottom two of the "Big Four" would be better than this. Better pick up in the second half otherwise it'll be a repeat of Man U v Arsenal a couple of years back, the most boring FA Cup Final I'd ever seen that...this looks like it could beat it
 
Is there football on? I'm watching BBC1 and can't see any. They've just got some kind of documentary on about grass growing.
 
You're lucky. On Sky Sports 1 they're showing a 120 minute drama about paint drying.
 
It seems the paint has dried and 1-0 is written in blue on the surface.
 
Why didn't they bring Ronaldo on as a substitute painter/grass mower?
 
Because he only works for 4 minutes in every 90.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest Posts

Back