Should Max Bird sue?

[Mikeyboy1963]

I think Tamworthram proves it there. Look at the position of both players in the frame he provides - Bird couldn’t have been brought down from that position. He ‘went over’ of his own volition, running away from goal. That’s the softest penalty I have seen in 55 years of watching.  Dino Maarmria and Dave Fletcher called it absolutely correctly. So I don’t think Max will be going to court!!!! 

Edited April 23, 2023 by Mikeyboy1963

[angieram]

2 minutes ago, Mikeyboy1963 said:

I think Tamworthram proves it there. Look at the position of both players in the frame he provides - Bird couldn’t have been brought down from that position. He ‘went over’ of his own volition, running away from goal. That’s the softest penalty I have seen in 55 years of watching.  Dino Maarmria and Dave Fletcher called it absolutely correctly. So I don’t think Max will be going to court!!!! 

So, I take it you've not been watching Derby this season?

[jimtastic56]

50 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

No, but he does have 6 already...

Says 4 on net. McGoldrick could of had a couple yesterday as well. 

[PistoldPete]

6 hours ago, ck- said:

It was a fortunate penalty for sure. Not because it wasn’t a foul, but because it was a needless foul. Bird was moving away from goal in a crowded penalty area, with no obvious options to create a goal scoring opportunity. And he was just barged off the ball. If I was Burton’s manager, I’d be furious with my player for that. 

It was a stupid foul, a cheap penalty. But a very clear one. I’m astonished that there is any complaint about it. 

[Ram-Alf]

22 minutes ago, Mikeyboy1963 said:

I think Tamworthram proves it there. Look at the position of both players in the frame he provides - Bird couldn’t have been brought down from that position. He ‘went over’ of his own volition, running away from goal. That’s the softest penalty I have seen in 55 years of watching.  Dino Maarmria and Dave Fletcher called it absolutely correctly. So I don’t think Max will be going to court!!!! 

The Burton players hand is on Birds arm...now for controversial part...Players are coached/told that if they feel physical contact by the opposition in the box...then fall over...let the official decide.

I've not seen too many pens given away when players have been hauled down in the box from corners/free kicks...there's a particular imbalance there isn't there? 

 

[PistoldPete]

3 hours ago, Tamworthram said:

Controversial and unpopular (not me, my thoughts 😀) but if you slow it down frame by frame, I don't think it was a penalty. The defenders leg looks like it was behind both of Bird's and he may not have made contact sufficient to bring him down. Obviously the ref didn't have the benefit of a slow motion replay but I suspect VAR wouldn't have given it. Swings and roundabouts though. We all know doubtful penalties have been given against us that have almost certainly cost us points.

“He may not have made enough contact to bring him down” is not grounds for not awarding a penalty. He makes contact with the player in the box doesn’t get the ball. It’s a penalty. 

[sage]

5 hours ago, i-Ram said:

Mmmh. Carnero, my friend, we both know that on each occasion the defending player got ‘surprised’ by the attacker coming at pace from behind, and the attacker gets caught by a clumsy foot. Both penalties, but arguably unlucky on the part of each defender. On both occasions too, the Managers were using the opportunity to moan about the penalty to deflect from a poor performance overall by their side.

Last week white was pushed over with 2 hands in his back and then fell on the player who fouled him.

This was a trip. Completely different 

[nottingram]

1 hour ago, angieram said:

So, I take it you've not been watching Derby this season?

30 posts since joining the forum the day after we played Burton in the 2016/17 season suggests he’s not been watching much Derby but has perhaps been watching plenty of Burton!

[B4ev6is]

4 hours ago, Tamworthram said:

Controversial and unpopular (not me, my thoughts 😀) but if you slow it down frame by frame, I don't think it was a penalty. The defenders leg looks like it was behind both of Bird's and he may not have made contact sufficient to bring him down. Obviously the ref didn't have the benefit of a slow motion replay but I suspect VAR wouldn't have given it. Swings and roundabouts though. We all know doubtful penalties have been given against us that have almost certainly cost us points.

Looking at the picture stone cold pentley.

[Tamworthram]

1 hour ago, PistoldPete said:

“He may not have made enough contact to bring him down” is not grounds for not awarding a penalty. He makes contact with the player in the box doesn’t get the ball. It’s a penalty. 

Making contact but failing to get the ball surely doesn't automatically result in a free kick (or penalty in the penalty area). It is a contact sport after all.

According to the FA rules (rule 12), a free kick is awarded if the referee considers the "offending" player is careless, reckless or uses excessive force". It could be argued that the defender was careless but to warrant a penalty the defender would need to show "a lack of attention or consideration when making a challenge or acts without precaution". This is obviously subjective and I can see why ref gave it but I don't really think the defender was sufficiently careless to cause Bird to go down. However, as I say, it's irrelevant now and we've certainly been on the receiving end of softer penalties. 

[PistoldPete]

23 minutes ago, Tamworthram said:

Making contact but failing to get the ball surely doesn't automatically result in a free kick (or penalty in the penalty area). It is a contact sport after all.

According to the FA rules (rule 12), a free kick is awarded if the referee considers the "offending" player is careless, reckless or uses excessive force". It could be argued that the defender was careless but to warrant a penalty the defender would need to show "a lack of attention or consideration when making a challenge or acts without precaution". This is obviously subjective and I can see why ref gave it but I don't really think the defender was sufficiently careless to cause Bird to go down. However, as I say, it's irrelevant now and we've certainly been on the receiving end of softer penalties. 

It was a very careless challenge. I don’t think there’s any doubt about that. But yes ok not all contact in the box will result in a penalty , players jostle for the ball and that’s ok . But this was a penalty clear as day. 

[Tamworthram]

5 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

It was a very careless challenge. I don’t think there’s any doubt about that. But yes ok not all contact in the box will result in a penalty , players jostle for the ball and that’s ok . But this was a penalty clear as day. 

The only important thing is it was a penalty because the ref awarded one regardless of what we, the Burton fans or Maamria think.

[Hans Datdo-Dishes]

1 hour ago, B4ev6is said:

Looking at the picture stone cold pentley.

My favourite WWE wrestler 

[ram59]

2 hours ago, angieram said:

So, I take it you've not been watching Derby this season?

No, just the 2 times we've played against Burton or maybe not even that, as I reckon quite a few of those in the away end yesterday don't go to the home games.

[Mucker1884]

3 hours ago, Mikeyboy1963 said:

I think Tamworthram proves it there. Look at the position of both players in the frame he provides - Bird couldn’t have been brought down from that position. He ‘went over’ of his own volition, running away from goal. That’s the softest penalty I have seen in 55 years of watching.  Dino Maarmria and Dave Fletcher called it absolutely correctly. So I don’t think Max will be going to court!!!! 

Totally agree with your last sentence.

This is Derby County.  We do things differently around here, so tell that boss of yours to settle out of court... we'll be happy to keep the agreed figure undisclosed, of course... and let's hear no more about it!  

[Crewton]

2 hours ago, nottingram said:

30 posts since joining the forum the day after we played Burton in the 2016/17 season suggests he’s not been watching much Derby but has perhaps been watching plenty of Burton!

Good point - he probably needs counseling.

[Jimbo Ram]

14 hours ago, LondonRam2 said:

hi all

Dino M publicly accused Max Bird of diving yesterday on Radio Derby.

If I were Max Bird I would sue for defamation.

Would you?

 

No, not sure it was a pen, not heard a lot about the ref 🤣

[i-Ram]

4 hours ago, sage said:

Last week white was pushed over with 2 hands in his back and then fell on the player who fouled him.

This was a trip. Completely different 

In his back? And despite that, White then somehow fell on him in that split second of contact. I’ve had a few beers today, but that all seems a stretch to me. 

[DarkFruitsRam7]

3 minutes ago, i-Ram said:

In his back? And despite that, White then somehow fell on him in that split second of contact. I’ve had a few beers today, but that all seems a stretch to me. 

Never a penalty

 

[Ambitious]

No idea how anyone could argue it’s a penalty, to be honest. It’s unfortunately for the Burton player but you essentially trip a player in the box without getting near the ball then you don’t leave the ref much of a choice. Not too dissimilar to the one we conceded at Ipswich, Accrington and Port Vale.