Am I the only one who can understand why Dowd gave it? It's harsh on Richards, and an unlucky one to concede, but what Dowd has seen is the ball dropping to Agger, him shooting, and Richard's raised hands stopping the ball on the path to the goal. I'd have been more surprised had it not been given, put it that way.
His hand was not raised it was covering his face. Dowd motioned 5 times that his hands were above his head. Probably needs a trip to specsavers...
It was a block that can have been no more than 5 yards from where Agger struck the ball. It clearly hit his foot first, I saw that clear as day first time.
I've seen players get away with punching the damn thing in the penalty area. To say it was "harsh" is an understatement.
Downright ridiculous IMO.
I agree with most of that, it's just our interpretation of things that differ. There's nothing Richards could have done differently really, you can't slide to block something like that without arms going in the air, and he's unlucky that the ball hit them.
Where I disagree is with how clearly the ball hit his foot initially - I didn't see it at the time, and only did on the replay. If I didn't, I can't really have a go at Dowd for being unable to. As I said, I think Dowd has seen a shot heading towards goal, stopped by Richards' raised arm. Whether it deliberately hits the arm or not in that situation I think that should be a penalty. It's all about interpretation of those events though. Grey areas indeed, and whichever way Dowd reacted he'd have been subject to criticism.
As for the Adam foul? Well, that was a stonewaller.