1. #1
    secret007
    secret007's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 01-12-09
    Posts: 1,786
    Betpoints: 332

    Ronaldo penalty claim vs Juventus

    The link could be found here (fast forward to 7:00 mark):



    My friend and I just had discussion about Ronaldo 9. Suddenly we came into discussion regarding that infamous penalty claim against Juventus in 1997. He thought that it was a 100% stone call penalty. I told him that 7 out of 10 referees would give the penalty but 3 out of 10 referees would not give it.

    He disagreed with me and said that I was biased because I am a Juventus fans.

    SO i would like to hear the your opinion. Is it 100000% penalty?

    I would like a non-biased comment so please no comment from Juventus / Inter fans.

    Thanks

  2. #2
    secret007
    secret007's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 01-12-09
    Posts: 1,786
    Betpoints: 332

    I would like to add a few more sentences. I dont think it was a 100% penalty because it could also be considered a rough/excessive body check but since it was inside the penalty area, it wasn't 100% penalty ( you know there's a different between a foul inside and outside the penalty area ). Notice that Juventus player (Iuliano) tried to put his feet in front of Ronaldo but pulled the last minute. What can you do as a defender when a player as fast as ROnaldo came right TO you?

    by the way im not saying its was not a penalty. I think it was a penalty but if the game was refereed by 100 different people, 30 people would not give the penalty.

    Thanks, sorry in advance for my ENglish (it's my 3rd language)
    Last edited by secret007; 02-20-11 at 02:28 AM.

  3. #3
    jw
    jw's Avatar SBR PRO
    Join Date: 10-25-09
    Posts: 3,999
    Betpoints: 6737

    I think he looked for the penalty ... he pushed the ball away and then ran into the defender ... there was never any way he could get around him .... so he simply ran straight into him. The defender stood his ground .. momentum was moving him forward but he did not intentionally block Ronaldo ... personally i'd say it would be given 50% of the time in the English Premiership and 80% in Italy.

  4. #4
    secret007
    secret007's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 01-12-09
    Posts: 1,786
    Betpoints: 332

    fair enough, thanks for the comment.. I am waiting for the comments from other people. I need probably around 30 people opinions to make a conclusion

  5. #5
    manu4life
    manu4life's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 01-30-11
    Posts: 132

    penalty

  6. #6
    secret007
    secret007's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 01-12-09
    Posts: 1,786
    Betpoints: 332

    Quote Originally Posted by manu4life View Post
    penalty
    I would like you to elaborate more. I DO think it was a penalty but could it go the other way given my explanation?

  7. #7
    p3re
    p3re's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 11-13-10
    Posts: 432
    Betpoints: 689

    That's a penalty that only biased referees would not give.

  8. #8
    McDeere
    McDeere's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 08-05-10
    Posts: 100

    Penalty !!!
    Last edited by McDeere; 02-20-11 at 10:39 AM.

  9. #9
    barcelonafc
    barcelonafc's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 02-16-11
    Posts: 428

    penalty now as you cant touch these sissies!!!

    15 years ago never a penalty!!

  10. #10
    RedDevil11
    RedDevil11's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 01-18-10
    Posts: 335
    Betpoints: 106

    Clear penalty imo....defender made no attempt at playing the ball. Had it happened outside the box, it would almost certainly be called...so no different

  11. #11
    Pauulzcappin
    Pauulzcappin's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 04-23-10
    Posts: 20,295
    Betpoints: 568

    The defender clearly goes towards Ronaldo to stop him from advancing. Clear penalty.

  12. #12
    secret007
    secret007's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 01-12-09
    Posts: 1,786
    Betpoints: 332

    I found something interesting..

    If you guys have time and are interested in this topic, you can read the article here.

    http://www.rvsoa.net/tng%20oct%202004.htm

    It says:

    If the impedance occurs in the penalty area, the punishment is an indirect free kick and NOT a penalty kick. A penalty kick is not awarded for impedance inside the penalty area.


    and this is what the referee said a couple of years ago regarding that infamous penalty claim.

    “I watched replays the following day, I made a mistake,” Ceccarini admitted to La Gazzetta dello Sport this morning.

    “However, I would have awarded an indirect free kick in the penalty box. I don’t want to come off as arrogant, but that was obstruction.

  13. #13
    secret007
    secret007's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 01-12-09
    Posts: 1,786
    Betpoints: 332

    Quote Originally Posted by p3re View Post
    That's a penalty that only biased referees would not give.
    Thanks for your opinion ..
    Quote Originally Posted by McDeere View Post
    Penalty !!!

    Quote Originally Posted by barcelonafc View Post
    penalty now as you cant touch these sissies!!! 15 years ago never a penalty!!
    Yes, soccer used to be a phyiscal game, nowadays a single touch foul.
    Quote Originally Posted by RedDevil11 View Post
    Clear penalty imo....defender made no attempt at playing the ball. Had it happened outside the box, it would almost certainly be called...so no different
    Thanks for your opinion .. Will you change your opinion after you read the article I had above. Was it obstruction ( indirect free kick ) or was it penalty according to you.
    Quote Originally Posted by Pauulzcappin View Post
    The defender clearly goes towards Ronaldo to stop him from advancing. Clear penalty.
    Thanks Paul for the opinion!

  14. #14
    Dark Horse
    Deus Ex Machina
    Dark Horse's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 12-14-05
    Posts: 13,764

    Quote Originally Posted by secret007 View Post
    I found something interesting..

    If you guys have time and are interested in this topic, you can read the article here.

    http://www.rvsoa.net/tng%20oct%202004.htm

    It says:

    If the impedance occurs in the penalty area, the punishment is an indirect free kick and NOT a penalty kick. A penalty kick is not awarded for impedance inside the penalty area.
    Referees never give this anymore. And they are wrong. Last week there was a last minute pk in the game between Fulham and Chelsea (that Fulham missed). It should have been an indirect free kick inside the penalty area.

  15. #15
    secret007
    secret007's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 01-12-09
    Posts: 1,786
    Betpoints: 332

    Spot on Darkhorse. It is very rarely for the referee to give an indirect free kick inside the penalty are nowadays. It happens probably 1 in a hundred games or something like that. But is Law 12 still the valid current rule or has it been changed?

    But, if we based that case on that rule, it wasn't a penalty, am I correct? ..

    It was 14 years ago so that law was valid at that time and hence why the referee said he should have given indirect free kick to Inter

  16. #16
    RedDevil11
    RedDevil11's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 01-18-10
    Posts: 335
    Betpoints: 106

    Quote Originally Posted by secret007 View Post
    I found something interesting.. If you guys have time and are interested in this topic, you can read the article here. http://www.rvsoa.net/tng%20oct%202004.htm It says: If the impedance occurs in the penalty area, the punishment is an indirect free kick and NOT a penalty kick. A penalty kick is not awarded for impedance inside the penalty area. and this is what the referee said a couple of years ago regarding that infamous penalty claim. “I watched replays the following day, I made a mistake,” Ceccarini admitted to La Gazzetta dello Sport this morning. “However, I would have awarded an indirect free kick in the penalty box. I don’t want to come off as arrogant, but that was obstruction.
    Yes, the 'impeding' infraction replaced the old rule of obstruction (Fifa). If there is no contact made when impeding, then it is an indirect free kick, but if contact is made then it's a direct free kick. As per ref, Mark Clattenburg " If there is obstruction in the penalty area then it would be a Indirect Free Kick but if there was contact in the process of a player trying to obstruct another player then it would be a penalty kick"

    So yes, it is still a penalty kick in this case.

Top