Was it a penalty? Was it a goal?

Was it a penalty? Was it a goal?

- Firstly the attempt on Daniel i'd say was definetely a penalty! Just because it's him they think he dives all the time.
- The clearance fromm inside the goal? I think that was touch and go, but like most of the calls didnt go our way!

What do u guys think?

I think if it was an Adelaide player who went down in the area, and they had a clearance off the line, i think it would of been 2 goals for Adelaide... Nah all jokes aside i believe it was a penalty, but the clearance was too hard to call, a better camera view would of settled it, the players seemed to be convinced though!!

i'd prob say no to both, but we did get done on other occasions by the ref

I think Daniels history of dives prevented it being given as a penalty.

daniel stayed on his feet much better last night,  

It was a penalty and the goal, hard to say from the replays but I looked across to the linesman (sorry assistant referee) and he stayed down in the corner for a good 4-5 seconds after the ball was cleared. HeySeus2007-09-23 12:58:45

Diver Dan always looks so amazed that he doesn't get a penalty/freekick, like he can't believe the game's so backward here. I love all the "Jesu Christos, I can't work under these conditions!" gestures. Felipe's late launch in the box was a cracker too.

After watching the replay I'd say, yes to the penalty.

No way i rekon they cleared the off the line easily. No goal. Fair result in the end i believe too.

so is the rule that if it gets over the line in the air its a goal?? i'm assuming this cause of the fuss being brought around it as i thought it had to touch the ground over..

also the daniel incident was definitely a penalty, constanzo took him down simple as that, daniel beat him, and constanzo got him in the legs, it was also good too see daniel visibly trying to stay up and he really looked, especially through his face, that he really wanted to get that ball. it was a terrible call, and probably the only reason was because it was him, it kept happening all game, the ref was appaling

Yes it was definately a penalty! Costanzo definitely made contact with Daniel's legs, taking him out.  From aisle 26 it looked like the ball had crossed over the line and between the posts too.Thats a goal in my book! The people around me thought so too! I was hoping for a more conclusive angle from the telly but didn't get one.  Could have been 4-2! Alas the ref and linespeople had their way! Same old Aussies, always cheating!!!!!!  Still got those convict genes kicking in there!!!

Haven't seen the replay, but as I was watching the game live from the YF zone, I thought it was a clear penalty (a young guy in the row below me was jumping up and down thinking the penalty had been awarded, and I had to explain to him that it wasn't - not an easy task giving that I was seriously slurring words by that stage!)but the clearance off the line looked fine.
The ref had an absolutely shocking game overall.

Can anyone post a replay of the goal that wasn't a goal?

Wathcin on tv, too hard to tell if ball had crossed the line, but ross went mental at the lino for not calling it. With the penalty, seemed like one of those ones where reluctant to give in the box even thou he clipped him, but if happened anywhere else on the field, it would have been a foul... On the whole, a terrible refereeing performance, I hope he doesnt get paid to do his job yellowfury2007-09-23 15:40:16

Too right that was a clear penalty. And is it me or was Costanzo RUBBISH!

On the penalty decision, the guy had two cracks at him. The first one when he kicked him in the back of the calf, from that falling over onto Daniel and bringing him down.
At least the AR was right on the line to be the judge for the ball being headed off the line. From that you'd have to take from it that it didn't cross the line cause he would have had the best position of anyone.

ref = poo juber WARZYCHA2007-09-23 17:40:37

I didn't say I agreed with the decision the referee gave. I'm saying he was fouled twice in that piece therefore should have been a penalty.

The day a referee gets assaulted on an A league game in NZ is that day we will get booted from the league. You can bet on that.

And no it wasn't a goal.

Looked like a penalty to me - I don't think the ref's decision was swayed by Daniel's previous theatrics, I just think the ref was a t**ser.

No to both I think. It was way too hard to call the 'goal' for the ref or the linesman (it may have crossed - who knows.) and Daniel was almost running out and the challenge was accidental if I remember correctly.

Yeah, I thought it was a penalty. I was already jumping around because I thought it had been given. (I don't think I was the young one mentioned by el grapadura.. young - I wish!)

from tv - definate pen, as DR quack says 2 fouls

talked to someone close to the team...

I think some refs don't have the 'balls' to call penalties.

replay on SKY shows it was about a foot behind the goal line, and Aloisi KNEW it was in!

so is the rule that if it gets over the line in the air its a goal?? i'm assuming this cause of the fuss being brought around it as i thought it had to touch the ground over..
    Hi Muso,

Penalty yes. Goal, hmmm dunno.

I was right on the goal line 10 rows back and had a great view of both incidents.

I think the Laws state:

A goal is scored when the whole of the ball crosses the goal line, between the posts and under the crossbar either on the ground or in the air.

Here we go - Law 10 FIFA Laws of the game

A goal is scored when the whole of the ball passes over the goal
line, between the goalposts and under the crossbar, provided that no
infringement of the Laws of the Game has been committed previously
by the team scoring the goal.

I was in ailse 23 row J and my nephew and I both thought it had crossed the line from our angle.

i was in the fever zone and all you cougars who think you have the vision of google earth are full of it - although i nevertheless fully endorse that kind of blind parochial opinion

It reminds me of a training day we had about 5 years ago. We had all these young ones who were full of it, 16-17 years old and had no problems telling everyone what they thought of every referee and their performance. As one of the old hands (I was 26 at the time, really old he he) we decided to teach them a lesson. We went down to a pitch pre-season and taught them specifics of refereeing. How crutialliy important it was to be line up on the offside line, how important positioning was etc etc.
Well these kids just weren't getting it so we sent them on a 5 k run. That gave us time to set up the next exercise which was balls hanging from a string over the goal line; from the cross bar and tied to the back net so that these 6 balls we had were on the line or close to crossing it but in the air.
We then sent them out to the touch line and stood them 6 yards off the goal line and told them to let us know which balls had wholly crossed the line. Naturally they said all of them. We then moved them further down the line so they were about 1-2 yards from the flag. This time it was only 3 or 4 of the 6 that had crossed the line. Once we moved them down to the flag, they were adamant that none of the balls were over the line. It taught them a lesson that positioning is really important and being out by even a yard can make a difference.

The unfortunate thing with Sat nights coverage was that there was no perfect camera position other than the AR and the people sitting directly behind and opposite him. Its quite an interesting exercise (as interesting as refereeing is really *snore*) when you see how easy it is to say yep its this or that when really, once you are in the best position, then your opinion become clear based on the facts in front of you, not assumptions.