Yesterday’s match between Chelsea and Spurs – watching it on TV and after Bale scores the question is posed, would Spurs rather have a goal or a penalty and Chelsea down to 10 men?
The co-commentator responds that he’d rather have a goal.
Why? Because a goal gives you a lift and impetus to go on… drive and belief and so on and so forth.
Surely if you score the penalty you will get the same benefits? And a penalty is a pretty good chance of scoring.
Even if the penalty is missed – you will be playing against 10 men! There was still a fairly long way to go in the game – so that could have had an effect…
Now I’m not a Spurs or a Chelsea fan so not grinding any grudges or anything like that, I think the referee acted correctly as advantage was played so a goalscoring opportunity was not denied and the foul itself was not worthy of a red card. I’m just extremely curious about the commentator’s perspective. Playing against 10 men doesn’t guarantee victory – but it certainly can tip the odds in your favour. I’d have thought most people would prefer a penalty and face 10 men – am I wrong? Or are the commentators talking nonsense?
Rather a pen?
posted on 16/4/12
Why then in the 2006 CL final was Lehmann sent off and a goal not awarded?
=================================
Because the referee had already blown for the foul. He hadn't in this game so Bale was free to tap the ball home.
posted on 16/4/12
It's an interesting scenario...
I've been involved in many a game, only a local level, where we have had a foul against us - which would give us a free kick and a shooting opportunity - and have the opponent on a yellow, but because the ball breaks back to one of our players the referee plays "advantage". Possession does not mean advantage necessarily!
The same here - playing "advantage" was technically correct from the referee... but Spurs would have been better off had he not.
Had Bale shot and missed - I don't think the ref could have gone back and given a pen - since the opportunity for a goal still existed.
Had Bale stopped, and left the ball - the penalty could have been awarded perhaps...
It does throw into question the validity of the advantage rule.
posted on 16/4/12
Didi - exactly. Lehman was different, play had stopped. So glad it's not just me who sees that!
posted on 16/4/12
A penalty and red card is either for violent conduct or denying a goalscoring chance. Cech made a genuine effort to get the ball which fell to Bale who scored. The goalscoring opportunity was not ddenied. Had he made a cynical hack it may have been different.
posted on 16/4/12
Comment Deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 16/4/12
Surely, 10 men and a penalty is more of an advantage?
=======================================
It probably is but in the heat of the moment he had less than a second to make the call and his first instinct must surely be to play advantage where he can and keep the game flowing.
posted on 16/4/12
Yes it's understandable Didi - not a criticism of the ref at all, or of Bale - if he was more cynical he could have stopped running to ensure the red card.
I just think it highlights where the rules are a bit bizarre.
posted on 16/4/12
It was a cop out. Who says the ref was even gonna give the penalty?
posted on 16/4/12
If Bale wasn't there- a penalty would have been awarded.
Because Bale was there - it isn't a red card.
posted on 16/4/12
Technicalities aside, a red card and a penalty would have been better. But Bale was there to take the advantage.
What bothered me the most was, why did we not play so directly from the start? Through ball from midfield to CF, winger running to support. Why did we have to wait until 2-0?