• Note for new users: Please keep your posts English or we will delete them. There's a "No English?" area in our Editing discussion forum for those who prefer writing in their native language.
  • Site maintenance info: We got rid of the "Patches and Option Files" area and moved all threads from 2020 to their corresponding subs in the Editing area. Let me know if you're missing a thread or face any other issues related to this move. /Tom

This is a PENALTY? Yes or No? Support your answer please!

Is it Penalty?

  • YES, it's penalty!

    Votes: 15 50.0%
  • NO!

    Votes: 15 50.0%

  • Total voters
    30

SPiTFiRE

Eusébio forever
6 April 2004
SL Benfica
Today was the derby of the year in Portugal, Benfica Vs Sporting in Luz Stadium.
The game generates polemic with 2 decisions by the referee of the match.

1. A Stolen PK to Benfica, when Nuno Gomes (Benfica) was "pushed" in the box of Sporting by Tonel!
2. Beto (Benfica) wanted to shot out the ball, and Liedson (Sporting) appears and gives his body to suffer a foul, and the referee signs PK against Benfica.

Here's the video about the "ghost" penalty kick against Benfica:
http://futebol.sapo.pt/mframe_video.html?cid=Xz0340J5&mid=1&arid=638307&p=futebol_videos.html

What do you all think?

It's penalty or no?

Support your vote with the answer please!

Portuguese Liga BetAndWin.com it's a SHAME!
 

Doping

Facemaker
20 September 2004
Almada, Portugal
SL Benfica
I'm a Benfica fan and both the penalties were well awarded...

Liedson got ahead and Beto fouled him after that, just as any other regular foul...

I'm not sure about the foul from Tonel on Nuno Gomes, but it looked like a foul as well...

Fair result as this was our worst match in months... Still too many games to play, though...

Força Benfica!
 

PLF

Legend
2 August 2004
Heheh yeah I'm sorry about the result today for you Pedro ;) :mrgreen: :lol:

Truth of the matter is though this is a penalty.

Beto had no intentions of fouling him, he wanted to kick the ball but that's a penalty anyway since Liedson came and made contact with ball, took it away and therefore Beto kicked him instead. So no intention but sure it's a foul cuz he hit the player and it looks like in a very bad place :lol: although it wasn't much of a contact I think thank god for Liedson.

Also Liedson is very smart player, so I'm sure he anticipated if I intercept this and maybe even make a small contact to ball to take it away and get hit, this will be a PK and he did just that but i'm afraid it's penalty anyway despite him and Andy Johnson being very clever in getting many PK's sometimes even running to the goalie in form on 1-on-1's to get the pk, it's clever and will be hard for many fans like Reading fans couple weeks ago in that match but it's a pk nonetheless created by Beto taking too long to shoot and Liedson being clever and getting ahead of it :)
 
C

ClericPreston

Guest
Come on.Benfica lost and the result was fair.Don´t go on saying that was the referee´s fault.Sporting played well and they had many chances to score more goals.
 

liedson

Sporting Clube Portugal
28 December 2005
Lisbon
Sporting
PLF said:
Also Liedson is very smart player,
off course i'm very smart \\:o/ :D
And both penalty's were well awarded, sporting played well and benfica doesn0t show solutions...
 

SPiTFiRE

Eusébio forever
6 April 2004
SL Benfica
ThomasGOAL said:
No penalty for me but in real speed it's very hard for the referee.
I have the same opinion too, but Liedson is one of that bastard players who can trick the referee very well.
He's very smart without any doubt.
 
Last edited:

PLF

Legend
2 August 2004
Pelintra said:
I have the same opinion too, but Liedson is one of that bastard players who can trick the referee very well.
He's very smart with any doubt.
I think you mean "without", Pedro ;)

ThomasGOAL said:
No penalty for me but in real speed it's very hard for the referee.
I don't know about you Thomas but that is a penalty to me. Forget the fact that Beto wanted to shoot the ball and had no intentions of fouling. Fact is he was too slow and he ended up kicking a PLAYER instead of ball so it's a foul whether planned or not whether Liedson bastard and smart or not :lol:
 
M

Massacre_1907

Guest
it might be awarded just for the leg going very high and dangerous way too..
 

bradley1886

Premiership
6 August 2004
London
think of it this way, would that have been given outside the box? most definiteley, so it was a penalty. just cause it's inside the box doesn't mean there's different rules on what's a foul and what's not.
 

BK_83

World Class
7 June 2003
singapore
this is a penalty
yes even though it was accidental, coz he did wack the player, and in the balls too! Ouch
 
Last edited:

Mart

Executive Janitor
Staff
28 February 2002
NYC
Darlington FC
I wouldn't have given it due to Liedson's reaction, he didn't need to fall over and could've reached the ball too. But I'm like that.
 

cucaspp

Alvalade XXI
21 March 2003
Lisbon, Carcavelos
Pelintra said:
Today was the derby of the year in Portugal, Benfica Vs Sporting in Luz Stadium.
The game generates polemic with 2 decisions by the referee of the match.

1. A Stolen PK to Benfica, when Nuno Gomes (Benfica) was "pushed" in the box of Sporting by Tonel!
2. Beto (Benfica) wanted to shot out the ball, and Liedson (Sporting) appears and gives his body to suffer a foul, and the referee signs PK against Benfica.

Portuguese Liga BetAndWin.com it's a SHAME!

No comment´s...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v508/kovacevic/liedson.jpg
 

Stan

Allez les Lionceaux !!!
12 September 2002
I would never give a penalty for what happened there.
No matter if it was intentional or not (it clearly wasn't) but this wasn't even a foul.. coul be seen as some sort odf dangerous play by the Sporting player...he had no reason to go after that ball...the Benfica player would always have it.

If you give a penalty for that "foul", you have to give a penalty every time there is a corner when players push or hold on to each other (and even that is more a penalty than this one...).

To me no doubt at all: no penalty (oh and i like Sporting more than Benfica).
 

SPiTFiRE

Eusébio forever
6 April 2004
SL Benfica
No comments...

1. FC Porto 43 Pts
2. Benfica 40 Pts
3. Sporting 37 Pts





\\:o/ :lmao: :applause:
 

BK_83

World Class
7 June 2003
singapore
PLF said:
I don't know about you Thomas but that is a penalty to me. Forget the fact that Beto wanted to shoot the ball and had no intentions of fouling. Fact is he was too slow and he ended up kicking a PLAYER instead of ball so it's a foul whether planned or not whether Liedson bastard and smart or not :lol:
i agree
 

Chris Davies

Chief PESsimist
Staff
14 May 2003
Tranmere Rovers
Wow, the poll is 50-50 at the moment (well, 11-11). I voted no, I don't think it's a penalty in the least. To me, he didn't intend to do that, so it's not a foul. Plus you could see that Liedson was fine, no harm done, it was accidental and I don't believe accidents should be given as fouls (unless there's a serious injury gained from it). However, from the referee's point of view... I can't blame him for giving it. If he'd have had the power of video-evidence, though, I'm not so sure he would have given it (or at least I would have been outraged if he did, if I was a Benfica fan).

Mart said:
I wouldn't have given it due to Liedson's reaction, he didn't need to fall over and could've reached the ball too. But I'm like that.
Couldn't agree more. Ever considered being a referee Mart?
 

Stan

Allez les Lionceaux !!!
12 September 2002
I agree with Chris, you can't blame the referee...

PS: your signature shows that you are a nice guy...it's very kind to do that....i wonder how things are for Sulph.
 

Revan

out the window
8 August 2003
Madeira, Portugal.
FC Porto
In my view it is a clear penaly, cmon Beto kicked him, doesn't matter if its an accident, cause if you say that then half the fouls shouldn't be awarded since I don't believe many players do the fouls on purpose, sometimes they simply miss the ball. they are both penalty's even not done on purpose,
Anyway, Sporting crushed benfica, the exibition level of Sporting was light years away from benfica. Benfica had a half goal chance in the entire game.

and if you were kicked like that you would roll over aswell. I know I would getting kicked like that in the leg or above! :lol:

cucaspp perfect :lol:
 
Last edited:

PLF

Legend
2 August 2004
I'm not sure why intention matters so much in a case like this where you get kicked in the balls.

Here are non-biased opinoins of me:

1- Liedson is a very smart player and also a bit "Dirty" so he WAS just trying to be clever and knew this might result in PK and did it anyway. So yes he played for it but because someone is a bit dirty and clever and smart doesn't mean you punish them by not giving PK's

2- Intention or not, if you do a foul its a foul whether outside the box or inside. Sure if there is intention, it can produce cards and be more of a "Sure foul" but I don't agree that this wasn't a foul.

Think of it like this:

Me and Pelintra are playing football let's say, I have the ball close to my feet and am about to go to "shooting animation", he tries to tackle the ball while I'm trying to shoot it, what happens is in last second he gets to the ball first and so makes slight touch to ball that takes it away and I end up kicking him hard in the face. It wasn't intentional though and I was always trying to kick the ball but what ended up happening? Me kicking someone in the face? Is that not a foul because of no intention?

I also don't agree with this Stan:
he had no reason to go after that ball...the Benfica player would always have it
How can he have no right to go after the ball? The ball is still in play and the game hasn't stopped so him and every other Benfica and Sporting player have the right and reason to go after the ball and be the faster to intercept it. Just because the guy is showing he's gonna shoot the ball (its animation) doesn't mean you have to let him do it and say this one is already his. If you're fast enough and clever enough you can intercept it especially as the guy might be slow and sloppy in which this case Beto was, he took a bit too long. So at end ball was taken away by a touch from Liedson who had the right to go for it (it's not like a goalkeeper was holding ball in his hand, it was an outfield player, ball was mid-air and didn't have Beto's name on it so everyone was free to go for it) touched it away and ended up getting kicked which is a foul intentional or not. Of course if intentional it can be red or yellow card.

Anyways that's the way I see it and is justified for me.

Looking forward to hearing arguments from those who dont agree with me so perhaps I can get convinced too in an intelligent but interesting battle where as Chris said is very interesting so far due to people being almost divided :)
 

Revan

out the window
8 August 2003
Madeira, Portugal.
FC Porto
I agree with PLF, intention has nothing to do with it since he hit him and Liedson went for the ball and got there first. You may call dirty to Liedson but have to call "slow" "stupid" "please get here first liedson" to beto. He was beggin for a penalty.
 

PLF

Legend
2 August 2004
I don't think so dude! ;)

I think half the people at least voting "No" on the poll are getting confused with fact that in a case like this "Intention does not matter". It's a foul either way only difference being if it was intentional, it'd produce red card as well or at least yellow.

My longer post above just explains it really from a non-biased view

1. It was an accident
2. Liedson is a bit dirty
3. It IS a foul therefore a penalty in my opinion.
 

juveboy

Juve con te!
3 January 2003
Torino
Juventus
Cast iron PK imo, the Benfica players boot was raised high and made no contact with the ball but the player, I know you are a passionate supporter however the video speaks volumes.
 

gerd

Retired Footballer
8 January 2002
Over the moon
KRC Genk, Spurs
juveboy said:
however the video speaks volumes.
Indeed it does: never a penalty...
Something happened i agree... but the forward made an irrealistic challenge to the ball...never a penalty unless refs give penalties for everything that happens in the box (like holding each other's short...if that is always a penalty kick , then i agree that this is one too...).

So in strictu senso: it is a penalty.
Realistic: no penalty.
 

Revan

out the window
8 August 2003
Madeira, Portugal.
FC Porto
well, I have to respect everyones opinion, but hell, i'm suprised that anyone can even say it isn't a penalty. It's a clear foul, in the box, ence a penalty. He hit the player on the leg, how can it not be a penalty?

Well then each to it's own. ;)
 
Top Bottom