HOW was that not a penalty??

If the contact was enough to impede him from getting his shot in, he had to go down. Unfortunately referees stopped giving free kicks and penalties to players that stayed on their feet years ago.

 

If Cole was a diver, he could’ve gone down a couple of times against Derby..
Chose to stay on his feet & scored our goal of the month..

 

I just think if he was trying to go down easily, he wouldn't have had the stumbling leg, to me that seems like he's trying to stay up but as he's turning he's been pulled by the defender. Pen for me all day long. Especially these days

 

Tbh i thought it was Gavin Ward. Had to look at the programme and double check. Thomas Parsons. Must be his twin brother, looks like Mr Ward and refs like Mr Ward!

 

Well yes technically he had a reason to go down but in reality he really didn't because the far easier option of an open goal tap in from 2 yards out was staring him in the face.

 

Last week, when Kane was penalised for a very clear dive, the argument was put on here that he couldn't possibly have dived as the incident took place in his own half and no footballer would dive in his own half.

This week the argument is that Cole couldn't possibly have dived because if he didn't he could have scored.

It's like no one has ever seen a game of professional football before. Footballers cheat. And when they do so they don't necessarily do it to their advantage. It's so ingrained in them to go down if they feel a touch that they're on the ground before assessing the situation they're in.

That doesn't mean Cole dived. But there are so many examples of footballers going to ground in situations where they could have easily scored that it cannot be used as a definitive argument that he didn't dive.

In this case the Bristol Rovers defender clearly had his hands on Cole. He may well have also pulled him back. Or Cole could have felt the touch and gone down. If he did, he's in the company of thousands of others that have done it before him.

 

Mike Riley wouldn’t have given it (see Old Trafford 1998 for the young ‘uns)

 

In the heat of moments like this, instincts take over from premeditation. I'm not sure that the instinct to cheat overrides the striker's instinct to stick the ball in the net from 2 yards....

 

Aye, Cole still had both his legs.

 

That was my general take on things. I've watched it several times now and I'm pretty sure it should have been a penalty.

 

Pretty sure it should have been given but not surprised it wasn't. The ref was stood near the penalty spot when the ball came over. Gibson had his back to the ref and obscured his vision of Cole. He wouldn't have been able to see the tug on Coles shoulders. By the time he had a clear vision of Cole he was sat on the floor. It was a very clever fowl by the defender.

 

Why on earth would you dive for a penalty 3 yards out with an open goal, if you could have stayed on your feet and tapped it in?

 

Because he made the decision to go down before the ball dropped to him.

 

I think we have now gone 42 games (or something near) to not having a penalty in the league.
Not many teams can claim that.

 

I honestly don't know how there's a debate around this. It's a stonewall penalty and I honestly don't get what some people are seeing to make them think otherwise.

Their lad is clearly dragging Cole back, who is still trying to attack the ball despite being fouled, and only doesn't make a connection with the ball because he's being fouled. Their player has made no attempt to play the ball whatsoever.

It's as clear a penalty as anything I've seen.

 

He hasn't 'made the decision to go down', he's blatantly being dragged down.

 

Exactly this

 

Opinions, huh.