The View from South Texas -- AFC Sunderland v. Fulham FC

[BarryP]

great report. Agree both were penalties but a case could be made for the Senderos penalty.

the reason it was given, it was not a crowded penalty area, it was a one on one and he needed to keep his hands to himself.

what could ahve been given was an indirect free kick for obstruction. the ;law states  "impeding the progress of an opponent" which he did witout bringing him down or rugby tackling. he "obstructed" his opponent.  oh well.  just saying!

My first thought was obstruction on the Senderos call as well Jarv but I was not clear on how that call inside the box should be awarded. Thanks for the clarification.