Bonnyrigg Rose vs Dumbarton

[squeezebox-son]

 

Highlights up. I think the pen is a bit soft, but I can see why it was given also. The ball spent a bit more time in the Bonnyrigg box in the second half than they cared to include in the highlights but that's fair enough. For all the possession we had, they 'keeper never had a save to make.

Still see it as a good point and another one closer to whatever total we need to finish on top of the league

[pleslie99]

Just watched the highlights to see the penalty. Soft but it looks a pen to me, striker nicks the ball 1st so correct call. We were lucky to avoid a pen earlier in the game for the Carswell handball, couldn't have argued had that been given either, very clumsy. All in all a decent point.

[WC Boggs]

2 hours ago, pleslie99 said:

Just watched the highlights to see the penalty. Soft but it looks a pen to me, striker nicks the ball 1st so correct call. We were lucky to avoid a pen earlier in the game for the Carswell handball, couldn't have argued had that been given either, very clumsy. All in all a decent point.

I don't see the keeper going for anything else but the ball, so not a penalty for me. That's football though isn't it. Sometimes they're given when they shouldn't be and sometimes they're not given when they should be.  You just have to hope for a balancing distribution of refereeing errors over the season.

[Bring Back Paddy Flannery]

I honestly think their penalty looks like a stonewaller. Brett doesn’t get a touch on the ball whatsoever judging by the highlights. You could argue that there is minimal contact because the Bonnyrigg player tries to jump over him but from every angle on the highlights that looks like a penalty to me. Whether or not the keeper is going for the ball doesn’t matter, he doesn’t get the ball. The Carswell one is a bit more debatable IMO but you’ve seen them given. 

I’m not sure if the highlights are biased towards Bonnyrigg but I think we’re extremely lucky to escape with a point there. We created very little and they had some glorious chances, especially in that 2nd half. Brett Long made some huge saves.

[squeezebox-son]

1 hour ago, Bring Back Paddy Flannery said:

I honestly think their penalty looks like a stonewaller. Brett doesn’t get a touch on the ball whatsoever judging by the highlights. You could argue that there is minimal contact because the Bonnyrigg player tries to jump over him but from every angle on the highlights that looks like a penalty to me. Whether or not the keeper is going for the ball doesn’t matter, he doesn’t get the ball. The Carswell one is a bit more debatable IMO but you’ve seen them given. 

I’m not sure if the highlights are biased towards Bonnyrigg but I think we’re extremely lucky to escape with a point there. We created very little and they had some glorious chances, especially in that 2nd half. Brett Long made some huge saves.

Yeah, I agree. It is soft but a penalty. 

The highlights definitely show more or Bonnyrigg than Dumbarton. As I said above, we didn't always get shots away but the ball was bouncing around their box a fair bit and they looked fairly uncomfortable at various times when we pushed forward. But it wasn't really shown in the highlights. That being said, they definitely worked Brett more than we worked their 'keeper as I don't think he had a meaningful save to make in the 2nd half.

[pleslie99]

9 hours ago, WC Boggs said:

I don't see the keeper going for anything else but the ball, so not a penalty for me. That's football though isn't it. Sometimes they're given when they shouldn't be and sometimes they're not given when they should be.  You just have to hope for a balancing distribution of refereeing errors over the season.

Regardless of whether he's going for the ball or not., it makes no odds. He didn't touch the ball but did the player, if that's in the other box were screaming for it and demanding its a stonewaller. I dont blame Brett long  it's a ball he has to go for and was there to be won, the striker just got there 1st.

[FifeSons]

Our keeper’s kit is also very smart this season.

[WC Boggs]

15 hours ago, pleslie99 said:

Regardless of whether he's going for the ball or not., it makes no odds. He didn't touch the ball but did the player, if that's in the other box were screaming for it and demanding its a stonewaller. I dont blame Brett long  it's a ball he has to go for and was there to be won, the striker just got there 1st.

H,mmm, I don't see any intent by the keeper at all, but these days I'm not so sure if lack of intent counts the way it used to .So you may be right under present day interpretation of the rules. Still makes me shudder seeing a penalty given with no intent to foul though. 

[pleslie99]

42 minutes ago, WC Boggs said:

H,mmm, I don't see any intent by the keeper at all, but these days I'm not so sure if lack of intent counts the way it used to .So you may be right under present day interpretation of the rules. Still makes me shudder seeing a penalty given with no intent to foul though. 

There has never been any such interpretation that a player needed to foul with intent for it to be a penalty or free kick. A foul's a foul regardless of intent. I'd say the majority of fouls are a result of players genuinely going for the ball and missing doesn't make it any more or any less a foul.

[Boghead ranter]

52 minutes ago, pleslie99 said:

A foul's a foul regardless of intent. I'd say the majority of fouls are a result of players genuinely going for the ball and missing doesn't make it any more or any less a foul.

This, same applied when I used to ref basketball. Jusy because a player didn't mean to foul didn't mean that they didnt foul (when they did).

[keptie]

Watched the highlights and a penalty imo, thought the keeper should've got there first though if he'd dived on the ball instead of trying to pick it up.