|
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Leggy
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 46
1
« on: Today at 07:39 am »
It's in the LOTG guys
Law 10.3
Penalties (penalty shoot-out) are taken after the match has ended and unless otherwise stated, the relevant Laws of the Game apply. A player who has been sent off during the match is not permitted to take part; warnings and cautions issued to players and team officials during the match are not carried forward into penalties (penalty shoot-out).
Another example of the Law being an ass. A player can receive a yellow card during the match and a second yellow card after the game has ended, this would be a second yellow card and a red. But there is an amnesty during a penalty shoot out? This means that a player can commit an offence during a penalty shoot out that is punished differently. Its a nonsense and a further unnecessary complication of the Laws.
2
« on: Sun 14 Apr 2024 10:45 »
A tale of two penalties ....
First one is a daft decision but - given the nonsense wording of the Law surrounding handball these days - one that can be defended.
Second one depends on whether the foul was a "single contact" or "ongoing contact". If it was given for a "single contact" (i.e. a trip), then that took place marginally outside the penalty area and the VAR intervention was correct. If it was given for "ongoing contact" (i.e. holding a player over a distance as both moved towards goal) then it can be argued that the ongoing contact started outside the penalty area and ended inside the penalty area. One can only assume that - in his conversation with the VAR - Mr. Harrington advised that it was for the former.
3
« on: Sat 13 Apr 2024 17:59 »
Surely the point here should be who sends letters these days?
Speaking as a Postie, plenty of people still do, but they are a dying art.
Letters take time and the content needs to be carefully considered. Emails, texts, etc. can be pretty instant and are not always the better for it.
In a roundabout way, I was meaning surely an organisation like the FA/EFL/PGMOL/whoever would be dealing with digital communication over such matters.
Undoubtedly
But if the FA/EFL/PGMOL/whoever are engaged in apology communications (in whatever form) when mistakes are admitted, are the clubs. their managers, coaches and players equally engaged in apology communications when they incorrectly traduce a match official?
4
« on: Sat 13 Apr 2024 17:26 »
Surely the point here should be who sends letters these days?
Speaking as a Postie, plenty of people still do, but they are a dying art. Letters take time and the content needs to be carefully considered. Emails, texts, etc. can be pretty instant and are not always the better for it.
5
« on: Thu 11 Apr 2024 18:35 »
Did anyone see the incident Tuchel is referring to here?
Gabriel picked up a goal kick after the Ref had blown the whistle.
According to Tuchel the Ref said it was a childish mistake and won't give such a penalty in the CL quarter final.
Clip here https://x.com/ollieholt22/status/1777820785408717017?s=46
Assuming that was what he was told does that mean that the referee would have given a penalty for it in a "less important" game?
Also why are people treating it as a simple mistake as there have been well publicised incidents where the referee's whistle has been the definitive start or stop of play when subsequent goals scored have or have not been allowed to stand?
I am sorry, but you cannot trust anything that a manager / coach claims that a referee said to them. As a body of men (and women) they would sell their grand-mother for a throw -in and none of them are above telling porkies if it suits them.
6
« on: Thu 11 Apr 2024 18:32 »
Who would want a win a game on a penalty from that ?
Every team in the land, I am afraid. And they would all be absolutely outraged to lose a game on a penalty from that.
Precisely. Simulation in all its forms (diving for a penalty and feigning serious injury when barely touched) is a clear example of the hypocrisy in top level football.
When it happens there is outrage and indignation from the opposing manager and most of the fans. However, every team does it (to a greater or lesser extent). It is acting in a way to gain a decision to which they are not entitled to. There is a shorter, one-word definition beginning with ch....
The outrage and indignation needs not to be directed at the referee but to fellow coaches who encourage this behaviour. Indeed, they almost certainly rehearse it in training. If you choose to live by the sword ......
It is taught in professional academies, I've seen it first hand. If you coach someone at 11 years old to go down if they feel even the slightest contact, or to go down if they don't think they will be able to get a shot away, they will do it and they will carry on doing it for the rest of their playing career. It isn't right, but it is way too far gone to do anything about it without drastic action.
I vote for drastic action to be implemented forthwith!
7
« on: Thu 11 Apr 2024 18:29 »
A good discussion around whether the Swansea GK is in control of the ball when he puts the ball onto Ennis' head before the Stoke striker scores. Can you have control if you're in the release and hit it off an unaware opponent? It's surely a mistake from the GK or just another grey aware given Ennis isn't challenging for the ball?!
Poor from Stroud not to dismiss Paterson as the end of the half approached as well. Paterson delays the restart but escapes sanction then 60 seconds later flies into a poor challenge on Burger. Got booked for the latter, but that really should have been a second yellow if applying the laws to the letter.
I do not think we can assume that - had Paterson been cautioned for delaying the restart of play - he would have committed the second cautionable offence. He may have done, he may not have done. The game would have taken a different path. It is fair to criticise the referee for failing to administer a caution, but not to extrapolate what might have subsequently happened.
8
« on: Wed 10 Apr 2024 18:42 »
Who would want a win a game on a penalty from that ?
Every team in the land, I am afraid. And they would all be absolutely outraged to lose a game on a penalty from that.
Precisely. Simulation in all its forms (diving for a penalty and feigning serious injury when barely touched) is a clear example of the hypocrisy in top level football. When it happens there is outrage and indignation from the opposing manager and most of the fans. However, every team does it (to a greater or lesser extent). It is acting in a way to gain a decision to which they are not entitled to. There is a shorter, one-word definition beginning with ch.... The outrage and indignation needs not to be directed at the referee but to fellow coaches who encourage this behaviour. Indeed, they almost certainly rehearse it in training. If you choose to live by the sword ......
9
« on: Mon 08 Apr 2024 18:45 »
I didnt think there was contact at first viewing and thought Elliott went looking for contact or tried to initiate it, at best it was soft but based similar decisions have been given this season by this referee so there is a consistency.
Tbf I think everyone thought it was a penalty at the time
Including the Man United players, who did not complain (a rarity in this day and age).
10
« on: Sun 07 Apr 2024 11:55 »
I have seen this incident once and, for what its worth:
The player in an offside position is right on front of the goal-keeper and is blocking his view of where the ball is going, who is going to play it and where they are going to put it. That sounds like the classic definition of a player interfering with an opponent.
But, the goal-keeper had no chance of stopping the ball entering the goal; given it went in, low-down into the right hand corner of the goal. That sounds like the classic definition of a player in an offside position not impacting play.
But, if the player had not been in that particular offside position the goal-keeper would have had a clear view of where the ball was going both before and after the goal-scorer headed it into the net. Given that clear view, the goal-keeper may have been able to anticipate the header and make an attempt at a save. That puts us back towards the classic definition of a player interfering with an opponent.
This is an excellent example of the desire to define offside with 100% clarity ties everyone up in knots and creates more problems than it solves. (ditto handball).
Having seen it once and typed the above I am still no nearer deciding whether the "goal" should have been chalked off or not. What I am 100% sure of, though, it that Gary O'Neill's comment along the lines of "anyone who thinks that is offside does not understand football" is arrogant in the extreme and - if not sanctionable - an attempt to demean people that always do their best to enhance a game of football by refereeing to the best of their ability and without fear or favour.
Any mistakes made by Premier League referees (and Assistants, Fourth Officials and VARs) are outweighed x ten each week by players and coaches. Perhaps if Gary O'Neill and others like him concentrated on reducing the errors within their control and left the match officials alone (some thing that pretty much happens in every other professional sport) the game would be better off.
11
« on: Sun 31 Mar 2024 19:05 »
I am sure David Coote is a very good referee. Without a fair degree of talent no referee (not even one who might have benefited from being a County FA employee) can make it to the top of the pyramid.
But (you knew there was a but), every time I see him in operation something just does not look right. His decision making appears to have elements of:
~ guesswork;
~ yielding to the loudest appeal;
~ seeking the route of least inconvenience.
That does not make any or all of them wrong, but it does mean that they rarely inspire confidence. It also often looks as if he is over-anxious - compare with the demeanour of Simon Hooper who looks to be enjoying himself. I know its a tough gig, but if one cannot enjoy refereeing in the Premier League perhaps it might be better all round to do something else?
This is a personal opinion based on what I can see on the TV. Being there in real life and/or having personal knowledge of Mr. Coote's state of mind may prove to be different.
12
« on: Fri 29 Mar 2024 18:44 »
How can it be a penalty and a DOGSO with double jeopardy? God knows what Choudhury was doing for the first one but I’m not convinced at all with the second one.
Pulling shorts can hardly be described as attempting to play the ball, quite straightforward pen and red.
He might be attempting to play a ball, but certainly not the football!
13
« on: Wed 27 Mar 2024 18:50 »
2 match ban and £5000 fine - that will hardly pay for a few token posters, a slick video over the summer and some yellow arm bands for u18 refs. When are the FA going to show some teeth and actually sanction this in any kind of meaningful way. You would expect 2 matches, if he did that from the touch line. To aggressively and repeatedly confront on the field (whilst not listed to even officially be there) and carry on afterwards is far more serious. Some things never change!
Less of a deterrent more of an invitation to abuse a match referee repeatedly and disgustingly. Lets hope other do not take up the opportunity, but this will noting to dissuade them.
14
« on: Tue 19 Mar 2024 19:04 »
I get that Webb explained it, and it might be the correct decision by the book. However, I do believe that situations like that should see the offside take precedence. It just doesn’t seem right or logical.
Referees can't determine decisions on what they feel is right or logical though, they have to apply the laws, and there is zero way the laws supported this being offside.
Every time you make such a statement I feel the need to mention the 6 second Law for goalkeeper possession which on occasions can be stretched pretty much indefinitely without sanction.
I get that, but penalising longer than 6 seconds would need a global initiative to force all referees to enforce it. And that may well happen if the 8 second trials planned for next season are successful. The thinking seems to be that referees would be required to count down the final 5 seconds by showing and lowering a finger at a time, so it would mean that it has to be enforced. Time will tell.
But that is very different to penalising someone for offside when there is no possible way, no matter how you interpret the current offsides laws, that they committed an offside offence.
"Time will tell" - I see what you did there!! The "six second" rule is almost universally ignored because the sanction (an attacking indirect free-kick very close to the goal) is an absolute nightmare to correctly arrange, manage and execute. Most referees just don't want the hassle to turn a deaf ear (if you see what I mean). The proposed sanction for the "eight second rule" will at least remove the chaos; but I do fear that the time between the goal-keeper taking control of the ball and the referee starting the "visual" five-second countdown will quickly stretch beyond three seconds. At the risk of repeating a cliche .... time will tell!
15
« on: Sun 17 Mar 2024 11:26 »
Was it really such an issue that both teams had similar socks, where their shirts and shorts were in both cases distinctly different? I've seen far worse in (e.g. Sunderland v Newcastle in the FA Cup this year), where for other reasons there is more of a clash.
See Rustyref's comment above ...... if two players stretch for the ball and it goes out of play you really do need different coloured socks (or "stockings" as they were described when I was a trainee referee!) to determine who got the last touch. Shorts can be the same colour, but not shirts nor socks.
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 46
|
Home
Forum
Search
Contact
Login
Register
Show Posts