Arsenal taking the Pires??

Firstly, why is Match Of The Day scheduled on a Sunday morning so early at 7.45am?? Imagine socialising on a Saturday night, and wishing to catch up on the football highlights the next day, to find that you will not wake up for 7.45am unless:

a) You have to go to work.
b) You have to make breakfast
c) You are in the mood.
d) There is an emergency
e) You have unexpected visitors ( who better be family)
f) All of the above

A typical Sunday requires a lie-in for most, and 7.45am isn't a lie-in even if it is fine for those at the BBC. Match Of The Day 2 is scheduled for later on at night and the Saturday highlights should be shown then. Yes, if you have a recorder you can set it to tape Saturday's highlights but the likelihood during a occupying Saturday is you will not remember to do so, even in advance on a weekday.

No, I didn't miss Match Of The Day. I recorded it!

Something else I didn't miss this morning was Andy Townsend on TalkSport Radio, discussing the 2nd penalty taken by Arsenal's Robert Pires and suggesting it was an insult to Man City. Having taken one earlier and scored (the decision preceding which I thought was wrong from watching the replay but I will come back to that), Arsenal were granted another when Dennis Bergkamp twisted between Kiki Musampa and Stephen Jordan and Jordan's leg caught the Dutchman. Pires stepped up to take it and then scuffed the ball across the top with his studs to roll it for Thierry Henry to strike. Which is legal, providing the ball turns a full circumstance and the penalty taker does not touch the ball a 2nd time before another player does. MOTD showed a clip of Johan Cruyff and Jesper Olsen exchanging passes when playing for Ajax in 1982, and scoring. But yesterday, Henry wasn't fast enough to react and City got the ball away with David Sommeil taking it down the wing in a promising counter-attack only for Mike Riley to stop play for an in-direct freekick to City! It seemed very bizarre. Darius Vassell equalised with 10mins to go but had the effort ruled out for offside, which was a good decision albeit marginally.

For me, why is such a rule existing in the first place? What is wrong with the conventional placing on the spot and one kick, score or miss (unless rebound)? Does this now mean that teams will consider fooling the keeper by having someone ready to charge in once the ball is tapped by the taker? This is why defending players rush in as the taker kicks the ball, not only to clear any rebounds but to thwart a 'penalty one-two'?? And is it the rule that the ball not turning a full circumference from a penalty kick (or scuff) results in an in-direct freekick to the other side? Or had Henry fouled someone in trying to reach the ball (though I didn't see if he had)?

For Arsenal fans, had Vassell's effort counted, much less City scored another, would you have still applauded the 'penalty one-two', laughed at its attempt or seethed with frustration that what could have possibly sealed a home win turned out to have left your team open to an unnecessary defeat?

For anyone, do you think Pires, or better still Arsenal, had ridiculed Man City by taking the 'penalty one-two', as if they felt they could squander a penalty because they were likely to win or were showing-off? Or does anyone believe Pires and Henry, taken up with the day's presentation of a cannon trophy to Henry for his overall goalscoring achievement that broke Ian Wright's record, wanted to add amusement to the moment that was also significant for being Arsene Wenger's 57th birthday?

As for the first penalty decision, a number of critics are convinced it was, while I am not. I have the comfort of a replay as opposed to Mr Riley's speed of play, and saw Henry sprint and reach the ball, and then his back leg didn't come forward as you would expect of a player looking to go further, instead it stopped half way beside the other leg and then just buckled. It seemed to me Henry went for the drop as James came across for the ball. But in the speed of play it is easily given and James could have not dived but, knowing Henry's speed, just stood tall enough and pressure him away from goal.

After the match, Henry stated that he and Pires wanted to put some entertainment on for the crowd. For me, I want to win and prefer my player kicked the ball straight towards goal from the spot, BUT if it is legal to alternatively kick the ball and it goes in, good enough. While it may look to some as show boating, just as Cryuff and Olsen showed, it can work and no one would complain on the Arsenal side if it had yesterday. The team lead by Henry will have that flamboyant edge, that flair to dare to excite. From the controversial direct freekicks that Henry has taken without the referee's whistle blown to the penalty one-two, I don't doubt that the Frenchman, well Frenchmen, had a little of dare, flair and care added to the need to score. I don't think it was an insult to City, for they could have still won the game. I think it was another unorthodox way of scoring from the Gunners talismen.


RedsMan.