[ITA] Serie A 2012/2013 (67 Viewers)
- Thread starter Azzurri7
- Start date
- Status
Orsato again huh? Cellino in silenzio stampa? Not on TV yet to say the championship is rigged? 
btw, those "boos" at Ibarbo? Nothing in the media huh? Watch em' rip our asses in the Coppa Italia if one of our "fans" coughs when a meelan coloured player touches the ball. Big fine, stadium ban and bad image coming up!
btw, those "boos" at Ibarbo? Nothing in the media huh? Watch em' rip our asses in the Coppa Italia if one of our "fans" coughs when a meelan coloured player touches the ball. Big fine, stadium ban and bad image coming up!
So Agazzi would still have been sent off?
I can see why Cagliari are upset with this particular call, since the ball went out of play, but 'keepers generally get away with clattering into forwards late far too much.
I also wouldn't really agree with the idea that it shouldn't be a penalty because the ball had been played.
Klose had less chance of scoring because of Agazzi launching himself forward in a reckless fashion.
I can see why Cagliari are upset with this particular call, since the ball went out of play, but 'keepers generally get away with clattering into forwards late far too much.
I also wouldn't really agree with the idea that it shouldn't be a penalty because the ball had been played.
Klose had less chance of scoring because of Agazzi launching himself forward in a reckless fashion.
Yes he would have been sent off . Definetly not a chance of scoring , he played the ball far too early , when agazzi fouled him the ball was sky high , no chance of ever getting it back in control
- - - Updated - - -
How is an indirect free kick explained than ? Honest question , i am not really informed about it
- - - Updated - - -
How is an indirect free kick explained than ? Honest question , i am not really informed about it
My point is that Klose wouldn't have played the ball so early, had Agazzi not been flying at him so aggressively, so would have had a better chance of scoring.
Clearly no-one was going to get another touch on the ball the way things actually transpired.
Would have to see what the rule actually says, but, regardless of what it does say, I'd say a penalty and a yellow card was the corrent outcome.
Clearly no-one was going to get another touch on the ball the way things actually transpired.
Would have to see what the rule actually says, but, regardless of what it does say, I'd say a penalty and a yellow card was the corrent outcome.
Obstruction and dangerous play (high feet) should also, technically be indirect freekicks.
Not a rule that tends to be properly enforced.
- - - Updated - - -
GdS doesn't seem too sure about the penalty incident.
Question seems to be whether the ball still being within the limits of the pitch means that it was correct to give the penalty or if the ball being in a position where no-one was going to be able to touch it again - though still within the limits of the pitch - means that the penalty shouldn't have been given.
- - - Updated - - -
In the SPL I can recall a couple of incidents where the ball has been in play - but nowhere near the penalty area - when a defender has punched a player in the penalty area.
In one case a penalty was given, in one case the penalty wasn't given.
Can't recall the reason given (if any) for the difference between the decisions.
Not a rule that tends to be properly enforced.
- - - Updated - - -
GdS doesn't seem too sure about the penalty incident.
Question seems to be whether the ball still being within the limits of the pitch means that it was correct to give the penalty or if the ball being in a position where no-one was going to be able to touch it again - though still within the limits of the pitch - means that the penalty shouldn't have been given.
- - - Updated - - -
In the SPL I can recall a couple of incidents where the ball has been in play - but nowhere near the penalty area - when a defender has punched a player in the penalty area.
In one case a penalty was given, in one case the penalty wasn't given.
Can't recall the reason given (if any) for the difference between the decisions.
True klose got rushed by the keeper moving quickly torwards him , but that is not reason to give a penalty in my opinion . In the end agazzi could have also stopped in the last moment , he could have retracted his hands , there is no actual way to prove that he would have gone for his legs to justify kloses actions of rushing the shot and giving him less chance to score . Klose should have simply done better .
Nah, I thought it was a pretty good effort by Klose.
He had to get it up very quickly due to how quickly Agazzi was getting out, but also had to take into consideration that he probably had to land it in the goal or the defenders running back would probably have cleared it.
He only missed his mark by a couple of feet.
He had to get it up very quickly due to how quickly Agazzi was getting out, but also had to take into consideration that he probably had to land it in the goal or the defenders running back would probably have cleared it.
He only missed his mark by a couple of feet.
- Status