Juventuz LIVE matches 2011/2012 (28 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.

king Ale

Senior Member
Oct 28, 2004
21,689
Lol at all those who believe it was not a penalty. It couldn't be any clearer than that. Even if there was no ball involved, even if there was no chance of scoring a goal, what the keeper did was a foul so it was a penalty. No doubt about that.
 

Art^

StrikerMania Champ 2004
Jan 11, 2003
2,905
Guys. I've looked the penalty incident through some times. At first i didnt think it was a penalty either. But the more i look at it, it actually looks like Marhisio tried to lob the ball over the keeper and continue his run. The ball was jumping in a slow pace and while Matri was standing still and had no chance of catching it, Marchisio was at pace.

That should have been a penalty and red card. Because we don't know if it was a shot or a lob for himself. And Castellazzi prevented him that run
 

v1rtu4l

Senior Member
Mar 4, 2008
6,349
Precisely. It's inconsistent, as had he simply chipped the ball sideways it would be a penalty, but since it was a shot, the play is finished. I don't think it's a good rule, but it's pretty standard
it is a good rule, because if it wasn't for this rule you could try to shoot on goal in one-on-one situations and if you see you miss you just run into the keeper to get a penalty
 

Zé Tahir

JhoolayLaaaal!
Moderator
Dec 10, 2004
29,281
Precisely. It's perhaps a inconsistent, as if he had simply chipped the ball sideways it would be a penalty, but since it was a shot, the play is finished. I don't think it's a good rule, but it's pretty standard
The wall did go wide but he was still fouled. That's a PK.

How many times have you seen a player pass the ball and then get fouled (when not in possession) and the ref calls a foul? Millions of times. The rules don't change because it was in the PK box.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 28)