Match highlights (plymouth)

[tufcgiants]

[youtube]Ok58j8vVRjk[/youtube]

Didn't think so at the time, but now that I've watched it back, I think it looks a certain penalty.

Our goal was very well finished.

Amazing save by McCormick on to the bar.

[lucy6lucy]

Kind of agree, but still harsh. How many times has that been given no penalty.

[nickbrod]

Sitting in the Family Stand at the time I was dubious but having watched it several times these are the facts: the referee gave the penalty and Argyle scored. However, (1) Craig was probably no more than 5 yards from where the ball was kicked, (2) Craig jumped in sideways and at best the ball hit him, not surprisingly from that short distance, on his upper left arm on the back of it and (3) Craig's jump shielded the ball and his arm so the ref could not have had a clear view. The ref 'guessed' and was over keen to point to the spot. Not surprising he's not refereeing the Premiership.

[CP Gull]

Seriously?

I'm sorry but I totally disagree!

Having freeze framed the video, it is perfectly clear to me that Nathan Craig has his BACK turned when the cross comes in. In other words, there is absolutely no way that that could be deemed as deliberate handball as he wasn't even in sight of the ball.

Shocking decision by a shocking referee. The likes of Roger East are only happy when they are the centre of attention ... the sooner the likes of him are "retired off" the better as far as I am concerned!

Unfortunately, it seems, there are far too many referees, the likes of East, who having refereed at the top level, who seem to want to take centre stage when it comes to refereeing in the lower leagues and last night was a case in point. Dreadful display by him and as far as I am concerned he got this one badly wrong!

[Jeff]

You know what Alan Hansen would be saying, never turn your back and all that.

Bit of a harsh call, one of those "we never get them for us" decisions. But to be fair, we'd have been howling for a pen if it had been the other way.

[AustrianAndyGull]

It's deja vu once again as for much of last season we were saying we needed to score at least twice to have a chance of winning a game and it's the same this season. The only games we've won we've scored at least 2.

Penalty or not it has happened and we've still needed to score 2 to win.

We must be mentally tough enough to not let this bother us and go out and make things happen. I am a bit surprised we've not been given a penalty yet this season though, maybe on Saturday?

[ferrarilover]

Concur CP. Manse is clearly making the point to East about 'how else should one jump?' Offside runner earns very soft free kick then blasts his shot so high that it goes out of the ground, except it happens to hit an arm and suddenly, Argyle have a point they desperately didn't deserve.
What that video didn't show was the Marquis incident, where he skinned 4 men and broke into the box. From my view (a long way away), he seemed to be bundled over by the last man just as he was about to fire across the keeper.
Anyone up that end not think it was a pen and a red?

Matt.

[CP Gull]

Ultimately it is down to whether a player who clearly, in this case, has his BACK to the cross, is DELIBERATElY guilty of handling the ball? OK, I accept that Craig has his arms outside of his torso, but seriously should that be deemed as a deliberate attempt to deny a goal scoring opportunity, I don't think so!

Not only that, but having watched the highlights, I would also seriously question whether the "alleged" handball was even inside the area too!

The FACTS are that Argyle got LUCKY on this occasion and that ROGER EAST is quite simply a poor referee!

[jonnyfive]

I disagree CP. Deliberate handball earns a caution, but handball is often given where the player simply doesn't do enough to prevent the ball striking his hand or arm. As for denying a goal-scoring opportunity, that is of even less relevance; that's the rationale for a red card!

Craig jumps to block the cross, and spreads his arms to make himself a broader obstacle. At the very least he is reckless as to whether the ball hits his arm. It's a penalty.

[Gullscorer]

I agree with Jonnyfive. On a balance of probabilities it can be said that Craig may well have jumped with his arm up the way he did in the hope or even the expectation that his arm would have a good chance of stopping the ball. Having looked at the video a few times, I am of the opinion that most referees would have awarded a penalty in this situation.

[Rjc70]

Graham Poll on the issue of handball:

'So the question of intent is now, did the offender deliberately place his arms in an unnatural position to increase the chances of the ball hitting him?
If the answer to that is yes then it is correct to penalise that player even though it used to be argued that was ball to hand.'


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footba ... z2lt4FlBM9

I think it's a penalty. A harsh one. I'd like to see the shout we had when Trotman did the same later on in the game, to see if there was any balance when it came to both verdicts. Even if it does or doesn't though, to keep this in the category of seen them given/not given seems fair.

[ferrarilover]

You'll be surprised to find that I disagree with basically everything you've posted, J5.

Craig has to use his arms to jump, which he is perfectly entitled to do. He turns his back on the ball and brings his arm round as he does so. This is his attempt to prevent the ball hitting his arm. The trajectory of the ball must also be a factor in the decision. If, as in this case, the ball is heading a mile high and a furlong wide, then the ball/hand interface element of the offence must be of a greater level in order to make out a sufficiently serious offence to warrant the award of a penalty.
It's a little bit like giving a free kick in the centre circle. If penalties were given for the same level of offence as free kicks in the centre circle, there would be many, many penalties. A penalty is a really serious punishment and it should reflect a really serious error from the defending team. This was no such error, it was a consequence, if anything, of the free kick being so poor. Had it been of any quality at all, if might well have hit Craig in the family jewels.

Matt.

[ferrarilover]

Graham Poll on the issue of handball:

'So the question of intent is now, did the offender deliberately place his arms in an unnatural position to increase the chances of the ball hitting him?
If the answer to that is yes then it is correct to penalise that player even though it used to be argued that was ball to hand.'


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footba ... z2lt4FlBM9

I think it's a penalty. A harsh one. I'd like to see the shout we had when Trotman did the same later on in the game, to see if there was any balance when it came to both verdicts. Even if it does or doesn't though, to keep this in the category of seen them given/not given seems fair.

I think that quote falls down on two counts. I would argue that, in jumping as he did, which was, in itself, perfectly reasonable, Craig had his arms in an absolutely natural position. Indeed, it would be most unnatural for his arms not to have been used for leverage in the act of jumping, rather, left by his side.

Further, he didn't have his arm where it was found at the point of contact with the ball in order to increase the chances of the bahh hitting him, he had them there as a natural consequence of performing a perfectly allowable jump.

Matt.

[tufcgiants]

Ultimately it is down to whether a player who clearly, in this case, has his BACK to the cross, is DELIBERATElY guilty of handling the ball? OK, I accept that Craig has his arms outside of his torso, but seriously should that be deemed as a deliberate attempt to deny a goal scoring opportunity, I don't think so!

Not only that, but having watched the highlights, I would also seriously question whether the "alleged" handball was even inside the area too!

The FACTS are that Argyle got LUCKY on this occasion and that ROGER EAST is quite simply a poor referee!

That was very clearly inside the area CP.

[Gullscorer]

I think that quote falls down on two counts. I would argue that, in jumping as he did, which was, in itself, perfectly reasonable, Craig had his arms in an absolutely natural position. Indeed, it would be most unnatural for his arms not to have been used for leverage in the act of jumping, rather, left by his side.

Further, he didn't have his arm where it was found at the point of contact with the ball in order to increase the chances of the bahh hitting him, he had them there as a natural consequence of performing a perfectly allowable jump.

Matt.

Matt your talking codswallop as usual. Of course people can and do use their arms when they jump, but they usually have their arms in a higher position at the beginning of the jump. At the apex of their trajectory their arms would normally be inclined downwards. To have his arms in the position they were at the top of his jump would indicate the distinct possibility that they were so placed in the hope if not the expectation that they had a chance of stopping the ball.

It was at the very least a reckless decision by the player to take such an action in a situation where the referee would have no choice but to award a penalty.