Show Posts

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 - ARF

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7
1
General Discussion / Re: Jon Mosa
« on: Fri 24 Sep 2021 23:09 »
You cannot simply penalise everything.  'Holding' in and of itself, is not a foul.
While I sympathise with the view that you can't penalise everything, your statement that "'Holding' in and of itself, is not a foul" is contradicted by the Laws of the Game which state:

A direct free kick is awarded if a player commits any of the following offences:

a handball offence (except for the goalkeeper within their penalty area)
holds an opponent
impedes an opponent with contact
bites or spits at someone on the team lists or a match official
throws an object at the ball, an opponent or a match official, or makes contact with the ball with a held object

However, the LotG glossary would counter your point, as it states that:
A holding offence occurs only when a player’s contact with an opponent’s body
or equipment impedes the opponent’s movement

2
General Discussion / Re: Tony Harrington- Luton V Swansea
« on: Mon 20 Sep 2021 13:03 »
I would more than likely go red if I saw this happen in real time during one of my games, although with the benefit of being able to watch the replay and think it over, I'm thinking no red.

The Swansea player is in the wrong for doing what he did, and has put himself in harm's way by kicking the ball away just as the Luton player is about to kick it. I'm seeing it in a similar light to playing in a dangerous manner - an action that threatens injury to someone (including the player themself).

That being said, I think I'd have to agree that the Luton player's actions in continuing to attempt taking the free kick despite being able to see the Swansea player walking towards it can be deemed reckless. Given that the amount of force in the kick would have be perfectly legitimate for the purpose of taking the free kick, I'm not sure that I'd agree that he "exceeded the necessary use of force".

TL;DR - I'm happy with a caution for each of them.

3
I messed up again.  It was meant to be a polite disagree GingerReferee, not dislike. Apologies.  But how you see the 3rd Ronaldo appeal as a dive defeats me.  Referees (and VAR) still have to treat each case on its merits whatever a player's alleged reputation.

No problem. For me he's going down expecting the contact that never came

Just because he’s already going down doesn’t mean it isn’t a penalty?
While it doesn't necessarily mean it can't be a penalty (I gave a foul on Saturday where the attacker tripped over the ball, yet as he was falling the defender kicked him in the ribs!), in this case I think it's a very clear act of simulation by Ronaldo. This isn't a situation where the attacker is having to take evasive action to avoid getting hurt - he's simply pretended to have been tripped to try and win a penalty.

4
69' - clear penalty IMO. Defender dives in and wipes out the attacker.

77' - no penalty the right call there I think. Attacker sees the leg come out and jumps/falls into it.

85' - as far as I can see, the very slight holding by the defender does not impede the attacker's movement at all - he merely feels the minor contact on his arm and throws himself to the floor.

90+1' - it is a 100% dive by the attacker - very definitely goes down before any contact between him and the defender. Ironically, had he not dived the defender would have probably fouled him!

90+2' - very clear handball, surprised it wasn't given in real time, but at least VAR has correctly intervened.

5
General Discussion / Re: C PAWSON - Leeds v Liverpool
« on: Wed 15 Sep 2021 09:57 »
On the basis that he wasn't going to award a free kick in the first place (as play continued) why didn't he go to the monitor to check before deciding it was a RC?
Presuming that the fourth official has told him it's a red. If he leaves it to VAR to check then he would get marked down for a missed KMD.

I hope you're not saying he was more concerned with his marks than getting the right decision ?
No, I'm saying that if it's left to VAR to check and turns out to be a red then he would get marked down for a missed KMD. Which is a moot point as one of the officials has correctly informed the referee that it was a sending off offence with no VAR involvement necessary.

Of course, after having gone red before VAR looked at it, if it had subsequently turn out to be the wrong decision then he'd also have been marked down for it. Making your comment about worrying about his mark redundant.

6
General Discussion / Re: C PAWSON - Leeds v Liverpool
« on: Tue 14 Sep 2021 08:15 »
On the basis that he wasn't going to award a free kick in the first place (as play continued) why didn't he go to the monitor to check before deciding it was a RC?
Presuming that the fourth official has told him it's a red. If he leaves it to VAR to check then he would get marked down for a missed KMD.

7
General Discussion / Re: C PAWSON - Leeds v Liverpool
« on: Mon 13 Sep 2021 10:21 »
It's a lunge, from behind, off the ground. This isn't your normal 'trailing leg' foul - there's nothing to absorb any of the momentum, you've got the full force of the challenge being transferred into the back of Elliott's leg/ankle (which unfortunately for him was bearing nearly all of his weight).

8
General Discussion / Re: Tanzania v Madagascar
« on: Thu 09 Sep 2021 11:01 »
Nope!

Think the earliest penalty I've given was after about 50-55 seconds - don't think the defending team had even touched the ball at that point! That same game also had the best own goal I have ever seen - a defender tried to bicycle kick the ball out for a corner, and put it right in the top corner. It was a thing of beauty.

9
General Discussion / Re: Shrewsbury v Gillingham SAM ALLISON
« on: Sat 04 Sep 2021 07:38 »
Can i offer this coaching advice. I would have liked the referee to seperate the teams far better. Rugby Union referees do this really well. Then in this occasion call the players to you and issue cards once all the information has been written down so the referee and assistants are aware of who is on a 2nd. This also creates time for players to calm down.
While I agree in principle, it's much easier to do in rugby as the majority of the players will be separated anyway as that's how the teams line up formation-wise. And let's face it, football players simply do not listen to the officials like rugby players do.

10
General Discussion / Re: Shrewsbury v Gillingham SAM ALLISON
« on: Fri 03 Sep 2021 13:35 »
and with any luck will not rise any further, ,although as in life it’s not only cream thar rises to the top.
Completely unnecessary comments, sounds almost as if you have an issue with Mr Allison on a personal level. Not the type of things that should be being posted on here IMO.

11
A poor first half performance from the officials in my view. Never a penalty in a million years and a clear red to Ronaldo not giving… the assistant waiting nearly five minutes to put up a flag for a goal kick… the yellow card to Aaron Connolly was another poor call…
A clear red

So you're allowed strike out at a player and get away with it? Can you quote me that law?
See Rustyref's reply above. However, unless you can take off the rose-tinted (or should that be emerald-tinted?) glasses, having any kind of debate about any of this with you would appear to be a complete waste of my time IMO.

12
A poor first half performance from the officials in my view. Never a penalty in a million years and a clear red to Ronaldo not giving… the assistant waiting nearly five minutes to put up a flag for a goal kick… the yellow card to Aaron Connolly was another poor call…
A clear red

13
General Discussion / Re: Mike Dean Wolves v Man United
« on: Mon 30 Aug 2021 15:51 »
Look at the photo and both players’ studs are high, one could argue it was by luck that Neves played the ball away from Pogba.

And from the video pogba barely touches his leg. So how can it be endangering a safety of an opponent (which is vague anyway) when the contact is minimal?? As I said on my earlier post, watch Neves’s reaction he plays on walks 3 yards and then falls over? Actions of an injured player?
A tackle can be endangering an opponent's safety without making any contact, so that argument doesn't really hold up here.

So what is the point in the rules as they are and being deemed a contact sport if you can endanger your opponent without even making a tackle??
What on earth are you talking about?

The tackle is high, he misses the ball and makes contact with Neves' shin, and the speed/force behind the tackle makes it at least reckless IMO. The minimal amount of contact does not negate any of that.

If he had jumped in two-footed at speed but made no contact whatsoever we would still rightly expect him to be sent off - why is this tackle being treated any differently?

14
General Discussion / Re: Mike Dean Wolves v Man United
« on: Sun 29 Aug 2021 21:39 »
Look at the photo and both players’ studs are high, one could argue it was by luck that Neves played the ball away from Pogba.

And from the video pogba barely touches his leg. So how can it be endangering a safety of an opponent (which is vague anyway) when the contact is minimal?? As I said on my earlier post, watch Neves’s reaction he plays on walks 3 yards and then falls over? Actions of an injured player?
A tackle can be endangering an opponent's safety without making any contact, so that argument doesn't really hold up here.

15
General Discussion / Re: A TAYLOR - Liverpool v Chelsea
« on: Sun 29 Aug 2021 10:32 »
Law is quite clear that if it hits a part of the body and it hits the arm it’s not handball.
Try working from this year's LotG and not last year's.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7