Sunderland 1-1 West Ham Utd (13/12/14)

Relive every moment of every first team game since the beginning of the 2005/06 season. Our archive of matchday threads originally posted in the General Discussion Forum.

Moderator: Gnome

Post Reply
User avatar
Sloop John B
The voice of reason
Posts: 7447
Joined: Thu Dec 05, 2002 1:02 pm
Location: On the High Seas
Has liked: 225 likes
Total likes: 448 likes

Re: Sunderland v West Ham United: Match Thread

Post by Sloop John B »

Kendal Iron wrote:I'm quite shocked that a number of people on here don't see the penalty as anything other than a blatant dive by Johnson
Did you miss the elbow nudge from Tomkins?? 8-)
User avatar
Hambrosia Stu
Posts: 18222
Joined: Tue Apr 04, 2006 12:03 pm
Location: Deepest, darkest, Devonia

Re: Sunderland v West Ham United: Match Thread

Post by Hambrosia Stu »

Kendal Iron wrote:I'm quite shocked that a number of people on here don't see the penalty as anything other than a blatant dive by Johnson
Quite
I can see why the ref might feel it was a penalty. I can see how he could have been conned, given his viewing angle. But he was conned, 100%.
And sure, you could perhaps say Tonks was a bit naïve giving a player like Johnson an obvious opportunity to dive, but again, to me, that just highlights a lot of what is wrong with the game.
There's no way that was anything other than a penalty bought by deliberate cheating, and it's shocking that both the ref and the pundits commentating couldn't see that

Reid's handball however.... looked much more of a penalty. Sure, there's the "deliberate" argument, but that's such a grey area. I mean, how often does a player actually handle the ball deliberately? It's often more about the position of the arm, etc. I've only seen the replays, but I'd have been expecting the ref to point to the spot for that
User avatar
WoodgateHammer
Posts: 1954
Joined: Mon Oct 06, 2008 4:58 am
Location: Formerly OzzHammer

Re: Sunderland v West Ham United: Match Thread

Post by WoodgateHammer »

Mosterhammer wrote:We have not been playing as well with either nolan or Carroll in our team. I think we are definitively better when playing as we did with enner and sakho up front and downing in the hole with noble koyate and song behind. Koyate is really not doing the business at the time so I would like to see amalfintano in for him. Koyate hasn't been the same since the injury, look at the goal against swansea. He doesn't follow his man an that happens way to often. Amalfintano does some hard work both defensively and offensively.
-
Not sure I totally agree with that, Carroll got his chance and took it, two goals and an assist the other week, has been a menace in and around the box, has been back defending when it counts - cant ask for much more than that really - does he deserve to be back on the bench if Enner is fit ? How many goals has Enner scored - not having a pop at Enner, but i think Carroll deserves his starting place...now whether that is to the betterment of our shape and the way we play you could argue that it has had a detrimental effect - but then we are still winning and picking up points away from home......tough one for Sam to answer me thinks.

Nolan was immense last week, putting himself about, agree though he seems to be a better option off the bench - adds that strength towards the end of a game...

We must be due to deliver a spanking to someone....Leicester up next :D
User avatar
SirStoneyOfBow
Posts: 7880
Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2008 8:50 pm
Location: Feelin’ the Zeel, brutha
Has liked: 21 likes
Total likes: 35 likes

Re: Sunderland v West Ham United: Match Thread

Post by SirStoneyOfBow »

Hambrosia Stu wrote: Quite
I can see why the ref might feel it was a penalty. I can see how he could have been conned, given his viewing angle. But he was conned, 100%.
And sure, you could perhaps say Tonks was a bit naïve giving a player like Johnson an obvious opportunity to dive, but again, to me, that just highlights a lot of what is wrong with the game.
There's no way that was anything other than a penalty bought by deliberate cheating, and it's shocking that both the ref and the pundits commentating couldn't see that

Reid's handball however.... looked much more of a penalty. Sure, there's the "deliberate" argument, but that's such a grey area. I mean, how often does a player actually handle the ball deliberately? It's often more about the position of the arm, etc. I've only seen the replays, but I'd have been expecting the ref to point to the spot for that
Agreed.
For me the one cancelled the other out. Johnson received minimal contact and took the easy way out, while Reid's handball was for me an obvious penalty.
Dowd's performance was still awful, though.
User avatar
Kendal Iron
Posts: 1000
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2008 4:40 pm
Has liked: 47 likes

Re: Sunderland v West Ham United: Match Thread

Post by Kendal Iron »

Hambrosia Stu wrote:e
I can see why the ref might feel it was a penalty. I can see how he could have been conned, given his viewing angle. But he was conned, 100%.
And sure, you could perhaps say Tonks was a bit naïve giving a player like Johnson an obvious opportunity to dive, but again, to me, that just highlights a lot of what is wrong with the game.
There's no way that was anything other than a penalty bought by deliberate cheating, and it's shocking that both the ref and the pundits commentating couldn't see that
Both pundits on MOTD called it a dive

Reid's handball however.... looked much more of a penalty. Sure, there's the "deliberate" argument, but that's such a grey area. I mean, how often does a player actually handle the ball deliberately? It's often more about the position of the arm, etc. I've only seen the replays, but I'd have been expecting the ref to point to the spot for that
You are absolutely right to say that you rarely see an obviously deliberate handball.

Years ago you did get more as defenders on the goal line, if unable to clear the ball legally, would often punch the ball away, of course giving away a penalty, but knowing at worst they would get a booking.

The automatic red card for such an offence has seen it all but disappear.

So as deliberate hand ball in the box is rare, so should penalties given for handball be
User avatar
Hambrosia Stu
Posts: 18222
Joined: Tue Apr 04, 2006 12:03 pm
Location: Deepest, darkest, Devonia

Re: Sunderland v West Ham United: Match Thread

Post by Hambrosia Stu »

Kendal Iron wrote: Both pundits on MOTD called it a dive
Fair point.
I wasn't implying that most pundits thought it was a penalty (though I can see how it might read that way). More that there has been some suggestion that it was, and that some have made mention of stuff like "there was contact". Sure, it's probably a minority, but my point was that I'm shocked a single person would see it as anything other than an obvious dive
Kendal Iron wrote:You are absolutely right to say that you rarely see an obviously deliberate handball.

Years ago you did get more as defenders on the goal line, if unable to clear the ball legally, would often punch the ball away, of course giving away a penalty, but knowing at worst they would get a booking.

The automatic red card for such an offence has seen it all but disappear.

So as deliberate hand ball in the box is rare, so should penalties given for handball be
It's become a bit of a grey area.
In the vast majority of penalties given for handball, there is no deliberate intent to handle the ball

You often see analysis of a player attempting to stop a cross, where such things as the exact position of his arm, and the distance from him to the ball are analysed in microscopic detail. If the players arm is firmly down by his side, and the ball hits it, it's not a penalty, whereas if the players arm is stuck out at 90 degrees to his body, it is considered handball. It's what happens in the areas between that is the grey area, and is left to the ref's judgement, rather than any detailed description in the rules of where the hand/arm should and shouldn't be

With that in mind, the position Winston's arm was in, when the ball hit it, made me think a penalty would have been given most of the time in that situation
User avatar
Aceface
Posts: 16360
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 11:01 am
Location: Blighty
Has liked: 358 likes
Total likes: 1446 likes

Re: Sunderland v West Ham United: Match Thread

Post by Aceface »

SirStoneyOfBow wrote: For me the one cancelled the other out. Johnson received minimal contact and took the easy way out, while Reid's handball was for me an obvious penalty.
Don't think it's part of the rules but I do wonder if the fact no advantage was gained by it hitting his hand was a factor in him not giving it.

Normally for penalised handballs they're either because it changes the course of the ball, or because it happens during a shot on goal. That one wasn't from a goal-threatening move and also would have hit him harmlessly in the midriff anyway had his hands not been there, as opposed to the usual type where the arm is away from the body and stops a ball that would otherwise have sailed past. That or Dowd is completely blind, obv.

Tomkins should have been smarter for the penalty. It's soft as soft can be, but if you stick a hand on someone running at pace then you know what could happen
User avatar
Johnny Byrne's Boots
Posts: 32128
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2006 5:19 pm
Location: Care home dodger
Has liked: 1786 likes
Total likes: 2071 likes

Re: Sunderland v West Ham United: Match Thread

Post by Johnny Byrne's Boots »

I think the guidance on handball changed a few years ago. Players have to make an effort not to handle it now. Combine that with the distance the ball travelled before it hit WR's hands (yes I know ball hit hand, not the other way round), he had ample opportunity to play it correctly. We were very fortunate not to concede a penalty.

I think it's a good interpretation of the handball law. It used to be defenders would wave their arms around in front of an attacker and if the ball hit one it was rarely penalised. Now defenders can be seen holding their arms behind their back as they face an opponent, as all the arm waving is now rightly considered 'unnatural'.
User avatar
Aycliffe
Posts: 304
Joined: Mon Sep 20, 2010 6:43 pm
Location: Woodham, Newton Aycliffe

Re: Sunderland v West Ham United: Match Thread

Post by Aycliffe »

Romford wrote:Happy with a point...draw about fair although when they got the pen we were all over them...Downing MOTM with Song a close 2nd.

Shame about the Sunderland stewards who tried to make a problem where there wasn't one....again.

Hartlepool was cracking AGAIN :scarfer:

Romford were you drinking in The Avenue on Saturday?

Lad at work says he was talking to some good West Ham lads that were stopping in Hartlepool.

On the stewards front we had no bother with them this time and they seemed pretty friendly. The only time they came up was to make sure no one was stood in the aisles other than that we stood all game with no hassle!
Post Reply