Therefore the penalty was correctly awarded as it meets both of the criteria you yourself have quoted. Try and stop digging before you reach Australia:D

Not according to several ex-referees and pundits Wilai. See previous posts.

The thing is, some may say it was and some will say it wasn't and it could have gone either way. Personally I thought it was harsh but it certainly wasn't nailed on.

Harsh? Soft maybe; but still nailed on. The fact is Mr BJ that the decision went one way, and one way only. Every team gets decisions they agree or don't agree with. Part and parcel of the game, and I hope it continues, but to give the required criteria in a post and then to suggest it wasn't met is disingenuous at best, or more like total <deleted>, defending the undefensible

Which part of the said criteria do YOU think was not met? The fact that a trip took place, or the fact that Delaney was not careless?

(As for ES's new mate, the edit was to correct a font...and a spelling error, something he may wish to look a.....t "EDITTED"? )

^Nailed on; hardly.

When a decision is being debated so much and for so long clearly shows it was not nailed on.

Try reading the whole thread and there's plenty for a penalty and penalty against it being a penalty, and as stated there's respected retired referrees saying it wasn't a penalty and I think they're more knowledgeable than TV forum dwellers on the laws and application of those laws.

Well 91 opinions and thats all they are.

Drawing a parallel with cricket.Since the game began, caught behinds or in the slips,did the batsmans bat or goves make contact with the ball or not?

They came up with "Snicko' which showes graphically, at the Umpires, request, the true picture and put up on the screen

Perhaps all football players could be fitted with a football version of "snicko" because that is the only way you will ever know.

I've watched the replay many times and still have no idea.If "intent" is the decider that's a huge grey area and pure speculation.

Well 91 opinions and thats all they are.

Drawing a parallel with cricket.Since the game began, caught behinds or in the slips,did the batsmans bat or goves make contact with the ball or not?

They came up with "Snicko' which showes graphically, at the Umpires, request, the true picture and put up on the screen

Perhaps all football players could be fitted with a football version of "snicko" because that is the only way you will ever know.

I've watched the replay many times and still have no idea.If "intent" is the decider that's a huge grey area and pure speculation.

Where do the rules mention intent ?

Well 91 opinions and thats all they are.

Drawing a parallel with cricket.Since the game began, caught behinds or in the slips,did the batsmans bat or goves make contact with the ball or not?

They came up with "Snicko' which showes graphically, at the Umpires, request, the true picture and put up on the screen

Perhaps all football players could be fitted with a football version of "snicko" because that is the only way you will ever know.

I've watched the replay many times and still have no idea.If "intent" is the decider that's a huge grey area and pure speculation.

Where do the rules mention intent ?

What are the "rules"?

Football has laws.

However, referees guidelines allow them to sanction a player if he tries dangerously to foul an opponent. Missing is not necessarily an excuse.

Yep laws! Well worth downloading the latest version of the "laws of the game 2015/16" which nowadays include 'Interpretations' and 'Guidelines for Referees'.

Well 91 opinions and thats all they are.

Drawing a parallel with cricket.Since the game began, caught behinds or in the slips,did the batsmans bat or goves make contact with the ball or not?

They came up with "Snicko' which showes graphically, at the Umpires, request, the true picture and put up on the screen

Perhaps all football players could be fitted with a football version of "snicko" because that is the only way you will ever know.

I've watched the replay many times and still have no idea.If "intent" is the decider that's a huge grey area and pure speculation.

It's also a shame football isn't played with a gentlemanly attitude and honesty any more. In the same way I like to see cricketers he honest and walk when they know they're out, I'd like to see footballers jump up and admit it wasn't a penalty if the ref blew for one...I know in this day and age that's a lot to ask for but there are footballers out there who do honest deeds (Robbie Fowler once remonstrated with the ref that a penalty given to him wasn't a penalty).