+-

+-User

Welcome, Guest.
Please login or register.
 
 
 

Login with your social network

Forgot your password?

+-Stats ezBlock

Members
Total Members: 759
Latest: RefLiverpool
New This Month: 5
New This Week: 4
New Today: 0
Stats
Total Posts: 63240
Total Topics: 4725
Most Online Today: 64
Most Online Ever: 17046
(Mon 29 Mar 2021 19:08)
Users Online
Members: 8
Guests: 58
Total: 66

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 - Leggy

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... 38
31
The wording of the law is key here, which is (bold added by me) ..

preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponentís line of vision

If you freeze it at the time of the shot then Kane isn't directly between the ball and Neto, it is actually an AFC Bournemouth player that blocks his view of the ball.  Kane is definitely in his eyeline, there is no doubt about that, but he hasn't prevented him from being able to see the ball.

Whilst I think allowing the goal is consistent with how this law is normally interpreted, I would point out that there is nothing in the wording of the law you've highlighted that says the only point that matters is the freeze frame from when the shot was taken. The ball passes on the opposite side of Kane to Neto and so for a large amount of the time that the ball was heading towards goal, Kane will have been obstructing Neto's line of vision to it, which will have had an impact on his ability to save it. If anything the law you've highlighted suggests that it should technically have been disallowed.


I watched this again on Ref Watch today and there was a deflection (by a AFCB defender) before the ball passed Kane and Neto was already wrong footed.  I do not think Kane can claim (or be charged with ) having any impact on this goal.

32
General Discussion / Re: Oxford v Bolton - Seb Stockbridge
« on: Mon 17 Apr 2023 10:03 »
Probabaly not DOGSO, but almost certainly Serious Foul Play.

33
General Discussion / Re: M OLIVER: SAINTS V PALACE
« on: Sun 16 Apr 2023 13:03 »
As if Missy bmb would take great delight in our nearest neighbours edging ever closer to being relegated...

Thank you Crystal Palace & Fulham for the help today!

Andy Madley wore blue in our game & we won - coincidence? I think not!

Be interested in non AFCB fans views on Spurs 2nd goal. Kane was about 3 miles offside, the question is was he interfering with the GK line of vision? Cracking strike from Danjuma though regardless.


I think he would have had needed Mr. Tickle's arms to reach the ball and whether (or not) his vision was impeded by Kane would not have mattered to where the ball was going.

edited to fix the quote thingamajigga, bmb

34
https://inews.co.uk/sport/football/foreign-refugees-premier-league-bias-2274422
Has anyone seen this article in todays I Paper - I dont know if this link will work but basically about importing foreign
referees to help the current? crisis in refereeing here in Uk
I for one hopes this will never happen - far too much foreign influence already with owners.managers (many of whom are difficult to understand in interviews) and players

His point is well made, it is not a silver bullet.  Would Premier League fans and teams want La Liga officials given the high level of red cards in Spain.  The moans / complaints / arguments would not go away, they would just have different targets.

35
General Discussion / Re: P TIERNEY: LFC V AFC
« on: Fri 14 Apr 2023 11:22 »
No further action for Hatzadakis

Absolutely ridiculous. Good sport from Hatzadakis apologising but again if this was the other way around, there'd be uproar!
It wouldnít be the other way around though would it? Officials donít approach players aggressively,grabbing their arm do they ? If someone grabs you then naturally you would pull away ,the evidence points to this being what happened, only those with a different agenda will try and turn it into something else.


That is exactly what did not happen in the Man Utd game a few weeks ago.  No card was forthcoming and the general view on here was that this was a tacit encouragement for players to grab match officials ... and here we are.

I suspect the "direct conversation" between player and AR reached a mutually acceptable outcome because the alternative for both was unappealing.  The player would have faced a charge for making the initial contact with the AR and the AR would also have faced a charge for his reaction.  Both have found a piece of carpet sufficiently large enough for this matter to be completely swept under. 

That is good for both of them, but I am not sure it is good for the game as a whole.  If this was followed by a "line in the sand" statement from the FA today setting out what is and what is not acceptable going forward, along with the sanctions that would follow if the line was crossed, then we might be getting somewhere.

Edited to fix the quote thingamajigga, bmb.

36
General Discussion / Re: Allegiance ?
« on: Fri 14 Apr 2023 11:13 »
With Michael Oliver apparently not doing games with bearing near the top of the Premiership because of allegiance to Newcastle, and now James Bell being moved from his Ipswich game as he is Sheffield Wednesday fan, should Keith Stroud who apparently is a Luton fan? be doing and has been doing games with clubs involved in the Championship playoffs?

I suppose the issue is where do you draw the line, but if it is being done in 1 case it should be done in others.

I don't know who - if anyone - Keith Stroud supports, but (given his upbringing and location) Luton Town strikes me as unlikely.  Happy to be proved wrong though .....

37
General Discussion / Re: P TIERNEY: LFC V AFC
« on: Wed 12 Apr 2023 18:27 »
If this happened between 2 players on the pitch would this place be so quick to play down the violent conduct?

If that happened between two players on the field of play, it would not be treated as violent conduct.  That's despite one of the player falling to the ground as if shot - which is what would have happened had it been an Arsenal player and not the AR.

Remember also a Manchester United player adopted a similar action when an AR (unwisely) made contact with him.  Despite calls to do so, the FA ignored this offence and no player punishment ensured.  This does allow some to run an argument that no action should be taken in this case.  It might also be why the Liverpool player felt it was OK to grab the ARs arm.

38
General Discussion / Re: P TIERNEY: LFC V AFC
« on: Tue 11 Apr 2023 18:56 »
Remembering the "Darren Drysdale" incident from a couple of years ago.  DD was suspended from 19 February 2021 to 10 March 2021, and warned as to his future conduct.

If CH is found to have committed the offence as alleged, should his suspension be longer, the same as or shorter than the 20 days imposed on DD?


39
General Discussion / Re: Tottenham v Brighton
« on: Mon 10 Apr 2023 17:55 »
Interesting comments on RefWatch about all 4 controversial incidents, especially the first no-penalty decision.  There was general agreement that it was the wrong decision and VAR should have intervened and advised an OFR.  But as Dermot pointed out, Stuart Attwell gave the 'cutting grass' sign (which he said was quite unusual) making it clear to players and fans he had seen it and it was definitely no penalty.  So what is a VAR supposed to do in those circumstances? In this case, it was a relatively new PL referee on VAR and a FIFA referee onfield.  Attwell seem to have a clear view with a good angle and no obstructing players in his eyeline. I have some sympathy with VAR in the circumstances, less with Stuart Attwell.

Agree.  If you ask Attwell to have an OFR review, you are pretty much calling him wrong - which is very different from being unsighted, or not having the best viewing angle.  Also, the personnel dynamics are at play here - although probably only subconsciously. 

Probably best to consign the "cutting grass" signal to the history books.  Can we have the "proper" advantage signal back in its place?

40
General Discussion / Re: P TIERNEY: LFC V AFC
« on: Mon 10 Apr 2023 11:10 »
The hypocrisy of this stinks.  It reminds me of players who scream and shout, eff and blind at you and then complain when a match official responds in similar terms by saying:  "You cannot talk to me like that" with faux outrage.

I would be perfectly happy for Constantine Hatzidakis to receive the correct punishment if the offence is properly investigated, a fair hearing held and guilt proved to the necessary level of certainty.  At the same time we need to have a "reset" in the way the football players and team officials treat match officials.  The following are all covered by the laws of the game and - from this point forward - should be correctly and consistently sanctioned according to those laws:-
~  Dissent by word or action.
~  Offensive, Insulting and/or Abusive language to a match official - either enforce it or change the law and allow it.
~  Faking serious injury to secure a caution / sending off of an opponent.
~  Crowding a referee to dispute a decision.
~  Asking for a VAR check (pointless in any case as they take place automatically.
~  Fannying around at the award of a penalty kick to delay matters and put the player taking the penalty kick off.
~  Any confrontation or physical contact with a match official (should be a red card followed by a minimum ban of x games - advised up front so the offending player knows the risk.
~ Delaying the restart of play (this used to be a mandatory caution, but go lost in the desire to "manage the game").

If Constantine Hatzidakis cops a lengthy ban but the above comes to pass, then it will have been worth it.  It will also be a miracle, but then it is Easter.

41
General Discussion / Re: P TIERNEY: LFC V AFC
« on: Mon 10 Apr 2023 10:49 »
Overall, I think Tierney has had a fairly good game so far but totally overshadowed by the conduct of Constantine Hatzidakis.

One criticism of Tierney would be dishing out the yellow card to Alexander-Arnold for his (justifiable) protests.


I am sorry, but if it is a caution for dissent then the justification does not come into it.  If the decision is wrong (and I am not saying that in this case it is), then showing dissent by word or action is a cautionable offence.   It might be entirely understandable, but not justified.

42
General Discussion / Re: Goal line technology in the EFL
« on: Sun 09 Apr 2023 10:07 »
This is a sad reflection of the game isnít it?  The lower leagues get the worst officials where mistakes are more likely but will have to just put with it because all the money sloshes around at the top of the game and the smaller clubs must just suck it up.

I understand that the lower leagues have refs who are on the way up but there are also many referees at that level who have been there for ages because they simply arenít good enough to progress to the higher levels and never will be.  I accept that my request for goal line technology is not financially viable but I still maintain that some decisions made by ARs on line decisions are based on guesswork. I have frequently seen officials to run over to check if the ball is in the quadrant at a corner because they canít be certain from a few yards away yet we have ARs making crucial goal line decisions which they could only be certain about if standing directly in line by the corner flag. Officials shouldnít guess - they should be certain.

No one can run as fast as a football is kicked.  Therefore when the shot comes from a distance out, as was the case here, it is absolutely impossible for the assistant to be level with the goal line at the time the ball reaches it.  That means that there is going to be an element of guesswork whatever decision they indicate, they will have been sure in their mind that the ball crossed the line, but unfortunately sometimes our eyes play tricks on us, especially when looking at a ball on or near a line from an angle.

The referee checking the ball is in the quadrant at a corner is different as the referee's normal position at a corner isn't level with either edge of the quadrant.

Excellent point. George, the referee who trained me back in the 1980s recalled an instance when a player bemoaned the fact that he was not "up with play".  George called the player over and said that he was going to boot the ball as far as he could and if the player was not able to catch him he would be cautioned.  The player complained that he could not run as fast as the ball could be kicked.  George winked at him and said:  "Neither can I!" - end of discussion.

Also, I think we get over the fact that officials "shouldn't guess".  100% certainly is rare in many aspect of life - both on and off the football field.  Many decisions have an element of guesswork.  They also have elements of experience, positioning, a good line of sight and refereeing nous.  If we have to be 100% certain on every decision, many would not be made at all.

43
General Discussion / Re: Tottenham v Brighton
« on: Sun 09 Apr 2023 09:56 »
The Mitoma handball disallowed goal looked clear cut in real time, so understandable why Cann would flag, but itís desperately unlucky when looking at the replay.

The non-penalty of Mitoma is just dreadful from both Attwell and VAR, a real shocker and inexplicable. The pull back on Dunk should by definition by a penalty too but we all know PGMOL apply different rules for pulling in the box


The Mitoma "handball" would have been given (if spotted) 100 times out of 100 in the days before they messed with the Handball part of Law 12.  Mitoma used his arm to control the ball.   The point at which the ball impacted his body may or may not have been above the so-called T-shirt line but this is very much as a case of:  "If it looks like a pig, smells like a pig and squeaks like a pig, then it is most certainly a pig."   Darren Cann had a clear view (despite the nonsense comment on MOTD) and was right to flag and (morally - if not purely legally) the right decision was reached.
 
This is another example of how continuously messing with Law has made it into an ass.  We should have left well alone and relied on the judgements of the match officials.  This endless search for clarity where it simply cannot exist is ruining the game and many people simply cannot articulate what is / is a handball offence anymore. 

Same with offside.

44
Select Group 2 / Re: Fri 7th - Mon 10th APR 2023
« on: Fri 07 Apr 2023 18:53 »
In the first half of the Sunderland .v. Hull game, Keith Stroud played three consecutive advantages leading to a Sunderland goal.  Does that count as a refereeing hat-trick?

45
Could 279 be Stan Lover??

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... 38