To me it was the definition of 'could have gone either way'
If it wasn't given, I don't think the Reading players would have been that angry.
Soft is def the right way of viewing it.
Posted By: Kev on December 30th 2022 at 21:51:40
Message Thread
- Can someone who has the benefit of replays confirm if it was a pen please?! (n/m) (NCFC) - JD3, Dec 30, 21:42:00
- To me it was the definition of 'could have gone either way' (NCFC) - Kev, Dec 30, 21:51:40
- Was talking about theirs sure sure sure (n/m) (NCFC) - JD3, Dec 30, 21:44:51
- Which one? The Pukki one would have been soft but less soft than theirs (dive) (n/m) (NCFC) - Jim, Dec 30, 21:44:16
- Defender had two hands on Pukki's back, Pukki probably (NCFC) - Mozzer, Dec 30, 21:43:38
- Agree (n/m) (NCFC) - ChampsChamps2023, Dec 30, 23:05:15
- Theirs? No. Two handed push in Pukki's back? Yes (n/m) (NCFC) - NJ_Canary, Dec 30, 21:43:15
- Definitely in my book - clear push on Pukki (n/m) (NCFC) - Boyer, Dec 30, 21:43:12
- Left a leg. Ran across Dowell. Pen but 100% bought the foul (n/m) (NCFC) - 51eve, Dec 30, 21:42:48
- It wasn’t a foul. He bought the contact then dived. (n/m) (NCFC) - Jim, Dec 30, 21:45:48
- Looking at the replays, I'm not even 100% sure Dowell touched him. Pulled out v. early (n/m) (NCFC) - NJ_Canary, Dec 30, 21:49:11
- Cheers. Exactly the kind of bought penalty I hate!! (n/m) (NCFC) - JD3, Dec 30, 21:44:18
- ^ This for me. (NCFC) - LincolnshireCanary, Dec 30, 21:43:45
- It wasn’t a foul. He bought the contact then dived. (n/m) (NCFC) - Jim, Dec 30, 21:45:48
- It was a push in the back on Pukki. He went down easy, could’ve turned and scored (n/m) (NCFC) - ChampsChamps2023, Dec 30, 21:42:36
- Blub (n/m) (NCFC) - Wrath analytica, Dec 30, 21:44:09
Reply to Message
In order to add a post to the WotB Message Board you must be a registered WotB user.
If you are not yet registered then please visit the registration page. You should ensure that their browser is setup to accept cookies.