Wellington Phoenix Men

1st penalty

81 replies · 636 views
over 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Covs did a shield & feint (not dive) strikers move and sucked the defender in. the defender was never going to reach the ball at all with the Covs shield but he commit a desperate act and made contact. Cov was going to be contacted by the defender tackle with the shield & feint move whilst in control of the ball = penalty.
Permalink Permalink
over 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
el grapadura wrote:
Scottishbhoy wrote:
el grapadura wrote:
But contact was made = he was fouled. Foul in the box = Penalty. End of.

�

�

Shoulder to shoulder stuff where covs goes down..

�

I obv. can't win so i'm not even going to bother.

�

�


You can't win because you're wrong. Did the defender hit him on the leg without making contact with the ball?

Yes. That's a foul. It was in the box. That's a penalty. Whether Coveny was falling over before that is irrelevant.


I'm in agreement with his version El G. Horse took in the ref hook line and Sinker. Brilliant job it was too!HarryHotspur2008-10-07 17:11:46
Permalink Permalink
over 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

Yeah i'm not complaining because we got a point. I just don't like people 'cheating'.

ive got a song that wont take long, Adelaide are rubbish.. the second verse is same as the first.. ADELAIDE ARE RUBBISH

Permalink Permalink
over 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
totally. it's not the harshest tackle i've seen. but there is contact, in the box. the contact puts an end to a clear chance for the Phoenix. Hence it is a penalty

VUW AFC - Victoria University Football for life

Permalink Permalink
over 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
el grapadura wrote:
But contact was made = he was fouled. Foul in the box = Penalty.

End of.


Contact being made = foul?? When did this new rule come into play?

End of.
Permalink Permalink
over 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
I think it is the case in tiddlywinks though.
Permalink Permalink
over 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Wolfben wrote:
el grapadura wrote:
But contact was made = he was fouled. Foul in the box = Penalty.

End of.


Contact being made = foul?? When did this new rule come into play?

End of.


Contact is allowed in football, sure. does that mean I can just take you out with a slide and you don't deserve a penalty?

I really think this is futile eh. The ref made his call and come on it's not live Vaugh totally took a dive is it?

VUW AFC - Victoria University Football for life

Permalink Permalink
over 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Wolfben wrote:
el grapadura wrote:
But contact was made = he was fouled. Foul in the box = Penalty.

End of.


Contact being made = foul?? When did this new rule come into play?

End of.
 
i think he was referring to most peoples interpretation of diving when there has ben no contact made

Founder

Permalink Permalink
over 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
contact is also made when a player leaves a trailing leg for the keeper to make contact with. the correct decision there though is a yellow for diving.
like john hutchinson the other week
 
Permalink Permalink
over 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
just watched the youtube of it, and it is a clear cut penalty.  Covs does well to put his body between the ball and the defender, who makes a rash challenge.  A bloke at work (who has no bias either way) also said clear cut peno. 
The second one is a ridiculous challange.

All I do is make the stuff I would've liked
Reference things I wanna watch, reference girls I wanna bite
Now I'm firefly like a burning kite
And yousa fake fuck like a fleshlight

Permalink Permalink
over 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Frankie Mac wrote:
just watched the youtube of it, and it is a clear cut penalty.  Covs does well to put his body between the ball and the defender, who makes a rash challenge.  A bloke at work (who has no bias either way) also said clear cut peno. 
The second one is a ridiculous challange.
 
now I know you're lying!

Founder

Permalink Permalink
over 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
ok - it is a tramp who comes round to my flat everyday to drink Special Brew with me.  He is currently pissing in my fridge after setting fire to my curtains.
 
Such a character.

All I do is make the stuff I would've liked
Reference things I wanna watch, reference girls I wanna bite
Now I'm firefly like a burning kite
And yousa fake fuck like a fleshlight

Permalink Permalink
over 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Frankie Mac wrote:
just watched the youtube of it, and it is a clear cut penalty.� Covs does well to put his body between the ball and the defender, who makes a rash challenge.�


This is my interpretation of it also. I'm not saying Covs wasn't looking for a penalty but he definitely got fouled in the area and that is a penalty.
Permalink Permalink
over 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Tegal wrote:
nice el.
 
A soft penalty,but still a penalty nonetheless.
 
Just because a player is looking for a penalty doesnt mean hes diving (although he may have been...).
 
But dive or no dive before contact...there was still contact that would have brought him down anyways imo,so penalty. Having said that it possibly could have gone either way...due to the fact it was soft
 
My 1000th post!!
 

Allegedly

Permalink Permalink
over 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
chocnut wrote:
Frankie Mac wrote:
just watched the youtube of it, and it is a clear cut penalty.  Covs does well to put his body between the ball and the defender, who makes a rash challenge. 


This is my interpretation of it also. I'm not saying Covs wasn't looking for a penalty but he definitely got fouled in the area and that is a penalty.
 
Exactly! I think we all agree that its  50/50 call, I've seen some refs call play on in that situation, however the tackle was clumsy, and certainly not playing the ball, in the box etc - penalty!

Queenslander 3x a year.

Permalink Permalink
over 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Wolfben wrote:

el grapadura wrote:
But contact was made = he was fouled. Foul in the box = Penalty.

End of.
Contact being made = foul?? When did this new rule come into play? End of.


I was referring to this specific situation.

Leaving aside shoulder-to-shoulders, use of body o shield the ball, etc, in tackle situations incidental contact is allowed, but only if made in the process of clearly winning the ball. The Newcastle defender attempted to dispossess Coveny by hooking his leg accross Coveny trying to get to the ball, and didn't get within three feet of it and made clear contact with Coveny's legs.
That's a foul in any ref's book. It was in the box, so it was a penalty.
Permalink Permalink
over 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
pao1908 wrote:
contact is also made when a player leaves a trailing leg for the keeper to make contact with. the correct decision there though is a yellow for diving.
like john hutchinson the other week

�


Fouls are awarded on the basis of who initiated the contact.
There's no doubt that the Jets defender did this, is there?
Or I'll really start to despair...
Permalink Permalink
over 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
From the FIFA Laws of The Game, some of the offences for which a direct free-kick (or penalty) is awarded. Take your pick of which apply here!
 
If a player.....
 
kicks or attempts to kick an opponent
trips or attempts to trip an opponent
tackles an opponent to gain possession of the ball, making contact with the opponent before touching the ball
 
IT WAS A PENALTY!!!!!!!!
 
Jag2008-10-08 08:56:35

Apparently I'm apathetic, but I couldn't care less.

"Being a Partick Thistle fan sets you apart. It means youre a free thinker. It also means your team has no money." Tim Luckhurst, The Independent, 4th December 2003

Permalink Permalink
over 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
who caresss we got a golden point!!!

am I suddenly back in Italy?? over there a discussion of this kind can go on for years..
An example?
Was it a penalty at the World Cup against the OZ? My answer is always the same
I dont care! World Championsssss

VUW AFC - Victoria University Football for life

Permalink Permalink
over 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Coveny put himself betweem the ball and the defender, who clattered him going for the ball,
 
Not only  a penalty ,but clever play from Coverley.
 
 
Permalink Permalink
over 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
yes it was a penalty no doubt, but I'm a bit concerned that after looking at that youtube clip it's pretty clear that Coveny had no option but to go looking for a penalty, given the lack of support he had. Not once does he look for the goal, he just gets into the box and uses his ancient, wisened antics to get us the pen.
You know we belong together...

Permalink Permalink
over 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
there are plenty of tackles in football where there is contact, as we all know. would a free kick have been given for a foul if it was in the middle of the park? i suspect not. i can't fault the defender with the covs penalty, even though he may well have 'initiated' the contact - not that i agree entirely with that either. i think covs ran across him a bit. the defender can't make himself invisible at the whim of the attacking player. contact is allowed, and is usually legal.
Permalink Permalink
over 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
pao1908 wrote:
there are plenty of tackles in football where there is contact, as we all know. would a free kick have been given for a foul if it was in the middle of the park? i suspect not. i can't fault the defender with the covs penalty, even though he may well have 'initiated' the contact - not that i agree entirely with that either. i think covs ran across him a bit. the defender can't make himself invisible at the whim of the attacking player. contact is allowed, and is usually legal.
 
And a goal is the result where there was no chance of a goal. That's where these decisions are harsh, particularly when they end up against your team
Permalink Permalink
over 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
pao1908 wrote:
there are plenty of tackles in football where there is contact, as we all know. would a free kick have been given for a foul if it was in the middle of the park? i suspect not. [/QUOTE]

Of course it would have been. Jag spelled it out for you a page back.


[QUOTE=pao1908] i can't fault the defender with the covs penalty, even though he may well have 'initiated' the contact - not that i agree entirely with that either. i think covs ran across him a bit. the defender can't make himself invisible at the whim of the attacking player. contact is allowed, and is usually legal.


Like I said in an earlier post, what Coveny did before he was fouled was perfectly legal - shoulder to shoulder contact, followed by the shielding of the ball which Coveny was in control of (it was within playing distance of him). Absolutely nothing wrong with that. The defender then lashes out with his leg, striking Coveny accross his legs without getting the ball. As Jag pointed out, this is a foul on perhaps three different counts, and penalty was correctly awarded.

The defender was a muppet, he should have just tried to hold of Coveny with his upper body and track him to prvent a square ball accross the goal, since it appeared that Covs didn't look like he had the strength or pace to beat him. Instead he dumbly flies in with a stupid tackle and gives away the penalty.

If he was a Nix player I'd be seriously pised off and asking for his head right now...el grapadura2008-10-09 08:39:45
Permalink Permalink
over 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Royal wrote:
pao1908 wrote:
there are plenty of tackles in football where there is contact, as we all know. would a free kick have been given for a foul if it was in the middle of the park? i suspect not. i can't fault the defender with the covs penalty, even though he may well have 'initiated' the contact - not that i agree entirely with that either. i think covs ran across him a bit. the defender can't make himself invisible at the whim of the attacking player. contact is allowed, and is usually legal.

�

And a goal is the result where there was no chance of a goal. That's where these decisions are harsh, particularly when they end up against your team


Why are 'these decisions' harsh? Every player knows what the punishment is for committing fouls in the penalty area.
That's why you don't do stupid things inside it (or at least try not to...).
Permalink Permalink
over 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
How can there be four pages of comments on a penalty that was awarded to us?  Anyone would have thought it was a dodgy penalty against us given by ben william in the last minute of a game.
Permalink Permalink
over 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Oska wrote:
yes it was a penalty no doubt, but I'm a bit concerned that after looking at that youtube clip it's pretty clear that Coveny had no option but to go looking for a penalty, given the lack of support he had. Not once does he look for the goal, he just gets into the box and uses his ancient, wisened antics to get us the pen.
 
Covs is very clever at drawing penalties. I'd hazard a guess that he's probably actually drawn more penalties for the nix than he has scored goals? Cause I can remember him drawing a few penalties, but am struggling to recall too many goals.
Permalink Permalink
over 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
I think he's drawn two penalties and scored once.

Though he may have earned more (I know of the Perth one and this one)
Permalink Permalink
over 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
okay, three penalties:

Adelaide at home as well.
Permalink Permalink
over 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
el grapadura wrote:
Royal wrote:
pao1908 wrote:
there are plenty of tackles in football where there is contact, as we all know. would a free kick have been given for a foul if it was in the middle of the park? i suspect not. i can't fault the defender with the covs penalty, even though he may well have 'initiated' the contact - not that i agree entirely with that either. i think covs ran across him a bit. the defender can't make himself invisible at the whim of the attacking player. contact is allowed, and is usually legal.

 

And a goal is the result where there was no chance of a goal. That's where these decisions are harsh, particularly when they end up against your team


Why are 'these decisions' harsh? Every player knows what the punishment is for committing fouls in the penalty area.
That's why you don't do stupid things inside it (or at least try not to...).
 
Of course a penalty where there is controversy is harsh, depending what team you support of course. Agree the rules are there for the players to play too. That's what started this thread - was it a penalty or not. I'm thankful it didn't happen down the other end or the outcry on here would've been unbearable
Permalink Permalink
over 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Royal wrote:
el grapadura wrote:
Royal wrote:
pao1908 wrote:
there are plenty of tackles in football where there is contact, as we all know. would a free kick have been given for a foul if it was in the middle of the park? i suspect not. i can't fault the defender with the covs penalty, even though he may well have 'initiated' the contact - not that i agree entirely with that either. i think covs ran across him a bit. the defender can't make himself invisible at the whim of the attacking player. contact is allowed, and is usually legal.

 

And a goal is the result where there was no chance of a goal. That's where these decisions are harsh, particularly when they end up against your team


Why are 'these decisions' harsh? Every player knows what the punishment is for committing fouls in the penalty area.
That's why you don't do stupid things inside it (or at least try not to...).
 
Of course a penalty where there is controversy is harsh, depending what team you support of course. Agree the rules are there for the players to play too. That's what started this thread - was it a penalty or not. I'm thankful it didn't happen down the other end or the outcry on here would've been unbearable
 
I doubt it, it was a penalty I wouldnt be raving if it was called against uus id be angry at the defender but the ref would be correct
Permalink Permalink
over 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
pedersen wrote:
Royal wrote:
el grapadura wrote:
Royal wrote:
pao1908 wrote:
there are plenty of tackles in football where there is contact, as we all know. would a free kick have been given for a foul if it was in the middle of the park? i suspect not. i can't fault the defender with the covs penalty, even though he may well have 'initiated' the contact - not that i agree entirely with that either. i think covs ran across him a bit. the defender can't make himself invisible at the whim of the attacking player. contact is allowed, and is usually legal.

�

And a goal is the result where there was no chance of a goal. That's where these decisions are harsh, particularly when they end up against your team
Why are 'these decisions' harsh? Every player knows what the punishment is for committing fouls in the penalty area. That's why you don't do stupid things inside it (or at least try not to...).

�

Of course a penalty where there is controversy is harsh, depending what team you support of course. Agree the rules are there for the players to play too. That's what started this thread - was it a penalty or not. I'm thankful it didn't happen down the other end or the outcry on here would've been unbearable

�

I doubt it, it was a penalty I wouldnt be raving if it was called against uus id be angry at the defender but the ref would be correct






Same here.el grapadura2008-10-09 19:28:06
Permalink Permalink
over 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Definite penalty.  What did Coveny do wrong?  The defender hooks his leg around his and denies Vaughan Coveny a clear chance at pursuing the ball inside the box.  It'd be a foul anywhere else on the field, as it should be here.  The defender was nowhere near getting a piece of the ball either.  Poor, and illegal, piece of defence=penalty.
Permalink Permalink
over 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
pao1908 wrote:
there are plenty of tackles in football where there is contact, as we all know. would a free kick have been given for a foul if it was in the middle of the park? i suspect not. i can't fault the defender with the covs penalty, even though he may well have 'initiated' the contact - not that i agree entirely with that either. i think covs ran across him a bit. the defender can't make himself invisible at the whim of the attacking player. contact is allowed, and is usually legal.


Of courese it would have been a foul anywhere else on the field.  The defender hooked around Vaughan's legs and did not connect with the ball, nor was he even in the vicinity of the ball.  It was as clear as pie.   Penalty every day of the week and twice on Labour Day Monday.
Permalink Permalink
over 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
might have even earned the defender a card, that tackle wasn't bad but as you sday he was nowhere near the ball, and had no uintention of going for it!

Queenslander 3x a year.

Permalink Permalink
over 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
2ndBest wrote:
How can there be four pages of comments on a penalty that was awarded to us?  Anyone would have thought it was a dodgy penalty against us given by ben william in the last minute of a game.
 
Yeah, but it would have been 8 pages if it hadn't been given...

Apparently I'm apathetic, but I couldn't care less.

"Being a Partick Thistle fan sets you apart. It means youre a free thinker. It also means your team has no money." Tim Luckhurst, The Independent, 4th December 2003

Permalink Permalink
over 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
On the refereeing but not on the penalty, how did Harkansson or whatever his name was get away with jumping on Karl Dodds back, i would think if he hadn't been given a yellow in the first half he would have got one for that. Was a munter of a challenge

www.kiwifromthecouch.blogspot.com

Permalink Permalink
over 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Jag wrote:
2ndBest wrote:
How can there be four pages of comments on a penalty that was awarded to us?  Anyone would have thought it was a dodgy penalty against us given by ben william in the last minute of a game.
 
Yeah, but it would have been 8 pages if it hadn't been given...



True... and the comments would probably have been far angrier as well
Permalink Permalink
over 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
I think we should be congratulating Covs for a good piece of play. The rules are there and you play to them.

Yes, he cut across the defender, yes he played for the foul, but he did get fouled.

Dead set penalty

Good one Covs
Permalink Permalink
over 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Yes coveny changed his line, but he was nowhere near the ball.
Permalink Permalink