Printable View
Ironically enough though, if he had tried to play football first in the clip above the fresh air kick wouldn't have happened. I think he had just enough space to control the ball instead of wildly hoofing it with his weaker foot.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kingdom
Are those "rules" FIFA-approved or do they merely act as an interpretational guideline for a local football governing body (or the Long Island Junior Soccer League for under-15 boys, in other words)?Quote:
Originally Posted by tricky_colour
I think that is based on FIFA rules, this is what it says on the FIFA siteQuote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
This is from the FIFA site:-
http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/afde...t_en_47379.pdf
The key point in it seems to be being within playing distance of the ball and I would say much of his shove onQuote:
29 Impeding the Progress of an Opponent
Impeding the progress of an opponent means moving into the path of the opponent to obstruct,
block, slow down or force a change of direction by an opponent when the ball is not within playing distance of either player.
All players have a right to their position on the field of play, being in the way of an opponent is not the same as
moving into the way of an opponent
30 Impeding the Progress of an Opponent Shielding the ball is permitted.
A player who places himself between an opponent and the ball for tactical reasons has not committed an offence
as long as the ball is kept in playing distance and the player does not hold off the opponent with his arms or
body. If the ball is within playing distance, the player may be fairly charged by an opponent.
Coleman was outside playing distance. Hence it is an offence.
Colman should have had an indirect free kick.
The key point Tricky, is that Coleman would have had a better chance if he had tried to control the ball instead of hoofing it. He was punished for it. 'Hoofing bad, control good', is the new mantra.
Brilliant goal though, unlike the mickey mouse one, Germany got after Stokes lost possession.
But, Tricky, the Kazakh didn't move into Coleman's path.
I do not see it as a mistake at all, he was in space and had the time to recover the situation if he missed his clearance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kingdom
However because he was fouled in an of the ball incident he could not recover.
The only error is on the part of the ref, he missed the off the ball shove on Coleman.
Yes he did "Impeding is forcing a change of direction by an opponent then the ball is not within playing distance of either player."Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
Initially both Coleman and the ball are in the dark green stripe of the grass The no 21's initial challenge on Coleman may be
fair, but he continues to drive Coleman away into the light green stripe of grass.
He does not have to move into Coleman's path all he has to do is force a change of direction or obstruct and I think he does that.
You could argue his initial challenge is a legal changing direction as he is in within playing distance.
However I am not even sure that he is within playing distance as he leans into Coleman.
I know it is a very fine point though and it is complicate, for example if he forces a change in Coleman's direction
within legal distance is maintaining that change legal, you could argue if Coleman tries to get back on line
and in the direction of the ball he is fouling the no 21.
Maybe you can argue the no 21 is legally shielding the ball after his initial challenge within distance.
However the two rule seem to contradict one another page 29 and 30.
It seems you can place yourself into the path or a player but you cannot move into the path of the player
is there a difference between move yourself and place yourself?
But that is a bit of an aside as you can argue Colman's path has changed.
I guess the ref took the easy option of awarding the goal rather than try and explain why a foul had been committed!!!
However again both 29 and 30 say within playing distance and IMO the no 21 continues to shield the ball when
not within playing distance.
To me he places himself between Coleman and the ball for tactical reason ie so his colleague Borat the Magnificent
can whack it into the top corner without Coleman challenging and that is a foul as he was not within playing distance at
the time. So I almost changed my mind there, I thought he was allowed to shield as long as he didn't use his arms,
but he can't use his arms either within or without playing distance.
I mean I know when I used to play I would quite often place myself between the opponent and the ball to let
a ball run out of play (in my favour), however I always felt a bit of a cheat because I knew I was doing this deliberately to
obstruct the player getting to the ball, however I always got away with it.
Obviously I made it look like I was not deliberately obstructing although I knew I was, I just pretended I was a bit slow.
Its a bit of a fine point though, it is more about intention.
Perhaps need to be thrashed out in the European court of human rights!!!
dear god
That show on Sky Sports, Barclays Premier League World, are doing a piece on Coleman's Irish football background next week. They are also following some dedicated Irish Liverpool fans from Dublin to a match at Anfield, or something along those lines.
Sky Sports 3
Thursday, 24th October @ 18:30
They are indeed following them!Quote:
Originally Posted by DeLorean
There is no contradiction evident in the rules quoted, nor, from them, is there any indication that the ref should have awarded us a free-kick. You've either misread them or don't understand them. The fact you've abbreviated the stated rule, leaving out a vital element of information, and passed your edited statement off as a direct quote lifted from the rule-book, albeit with a spelling error included, by no means helps your case. I don't know if that was intentional or simply a case of you failing to grasp the significance of the sliced information. FIFA don't include unnecessary waffle in their rules; every word serves a purpose and has a meaning.Quote:
Originally Posted by tricky_colour
I was a bit stuck for time posting in work earlier, but "moving into the path of the opponent to obstruct, block, slow down or force a change of direction by an opponent" is an essential aspect of obstructing an opposition player. Therefore, Tricky, I don't know why you saw fit to disregard that element from what is merely your mistaken personal interpretation outlined at the beginning of your post. The Kazakh player didn't move into Coleman's path. At no point was Coleman even facing his opponent when the two bodies came together, primarily as a result of momentum. Besides, the ball was easily within playing distance of Coleman at the moment the players connected.
You have to look at the rules on page 30 it is not my mistakenQuote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
interpretation of the rule on page 29 it is the correct reading of the rule
on page 30.
http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/afde...t_en_47379.pdf
The two rules do seem to contradict one another. However he is not within playing distance
and he is between Coleman and the ball for tactical reasons, there is no mention of path
in the rule hence it is a clear cut case of obstruction and a free kick should be awarded.
So reword that slightly and it is "a player commits an offence if he placesQuote:
Shielding the ball is permitted.
A player who places himself between an opponent and
the ball for tactical reasons has not committed an offence
as long as the ball is kept in playing distance and the
player does not hold off the opponent with his arms or
body.
If the ball is within playing distance, the player may be
fairly charged by an opponent.
himself between and opponent and the ball for tactical reasons, unless
he is within playing distance"
Finally one person realsies the goal should never have stood!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by EAFC_rdfl
Clear Tay fluck and stop ruining this thread.yous are worse than oul women arguingQuote:
Originally Posted by tricky_colour
http://i.imgur.com/x19otv0.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by tricky_colour
Clearly the Kazak player used his body to block Colman when the ball was not with in playing distance.Quote:
"Impeding the Progress of an Opponent" is an "Indirect Kick Foul" in soccer (see "Fouls, Indirect Kick, Impeding The Progress Of An Opponent"). This used to be called "obstruction". Generally, a player cannot use his body to impede another player's movements, even if it is not deliberate. This can be called if a player is not within "playing distance" of the ball (i.e., 3 feet) and block's an opponent's movement or screens an opponent from the ball. However, if a player is within playing distance & able to play the ball (meaning not laying on the ground), the player can legally screen an opponent from the ball. (You usually see this when a ball is going out of bounds & the player whose team will get the throw-in screens the opponent so the opponent can't save the ball). The rule also applies to "innocently" impeding the goalkeeper by standing in front of him when he has the ball.
OK it made no distance on this occasion, but people need to aware of the rules of the game, it might cost us qualification.
Seems some of the refs need to read up on the rules as should some of the soccer 'experts', the pundits and journalists,
none of whom seem to have spotted this obvious infringement. I mean you can forgive the odd barstooler for being
ignorant of the laws of the game, but when people are being paid to be experts on the game they should at least know the basics.
Actually, rather than whinging about this, perhaps a better way forward would be to take the positives out
of this unfortunate incident.
Now that we can see that refs, for one reason or another will allow players to get away with obstruction
it seems to me that we should use this to our advantage and obstruct opposition players to keep or
gain possession of the ball whenever possible. I think this may be something StSku was alluding to in his rather
obtuse post, but to be honest, I am not too sure what his point was, if indeed he had one.
Considering our last goal was illegal in that Stokes kicked the ball from out of play i think you can leave this one go....
My point is that I think it is time for us all to put the miscarriage of justice that befell Coleman and the Republic of Ireland team on Tuesday night behind us, irrespective of whether or not your interpretation of a rule is accurate. A strict interpretation of every rule is not to the benefit of the game unless you want a college of umpires throwing flags to stop play for every minor and major infraction in the game like NFL or something. And even then, infractions are missed.Quote:
Originally Posted by tricky_colour
But thank you for isolating my playful post as obtuse and ignoring others including one that accuses you of ruining the thread, acting like a woman and asking you to remove yourself from the thread... :)
90% certain that was a goal. Who cares anyway? In a meaningless game too.
Did Coleman?
The latter rule outlines what might be understood as further clarification; it is not a contradiction.Quote:
Originally Posted by tricky_colour
And the ball was within playing distance of both when the two came together, so there was no foul in accordance with rule 30. The ball was within a foot of both players when the bodies connected. There was no foul under rule 29 either due to the fact that the Kazakh player did not move into the path of Coleman. I'm not sure why this is so difficult to comprehend.
Ha, well, we are discussing a footballing incident in which Coleman was directly involved. I understand that satisifes the intended purpose of this thread. I think I shall desist, however; I can't make the rules any clearer for Tricky than they already are, unfortunately.Quote:
Originally Posted by EAFC_rdfl
I know of no rule in football which allows off the ball contact, even if accidental.
If anyone knows different, feel free to post it.
The Kazahkstan player should switch to the NFL where his playing style will be legal.
So are you campaigning for a strict application of every rule in the book? In my opinion a certain amount of off the ball contact is inevitable and, if reasonable, is tolerated (as it should be) as it is recognized that it is a contact sport both on and off the ball (e.g. jostling for position on a corner).Quote:
Originally Posted by tricky_colour
Sweet Jaysus, Tricky! The contact wasn't off-the-ball. As you can see from the three different angles below, the ball was within playing distance of both players at the point of contact. In fact, the ball cannot be seen in the middle freeze-frame due to its immediate position on the other side of the two players.
http://i218.photobucket.com/albums/c...ps0e6f66f2.png
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkStu
It is only inevitable because the rule are not enforced.
You see loads of pushing shoving and shirt pulling and they get away with it because the referee does not have the bottle to enforce the rules.
If I were the ref I'd enforce the rules, even if that meant I was only person left on the pitch by half time!!!
However by the end of the season most of the player would be be still be on the pitch because they would have twigged cheating will not be tolerated.
Tolerating cheating is one of the reasons our players can't play football properly, you don't need to when you can cheat instead
plus it is difficult to play when you are constantly being fouled and the offending player allowed to get away with it.
There are people on here always banging on about how continental players are more skilled than ours
and about what is the solution, is it the coaching etc.. perhaps the solution is simple enough, zero tolerance of cheating.
Whilst we are at it ( will leave the current point aside for the moment) it might be worth noting that the player
who pushes Coleman out of the way also pushed McCarthy out of the way prior to that.
McCarthy seems to be tootling about in the midfield at this point, he is still tootling about after that when it looks to me
that he is closer to the ball than the player who slams it into the back of the net.
OK it was a meaningless match, but for someone like Roy Keane for example that would have made
no different to his competitiveness in the game.
I doubt he would have been pushed out of the way in the first place and I expect he would have been
first to the loose ball, even in training, never mind a 'meaningless' international. No game of football
is meaningless in his book.
Roy Keane dos not think, "is this a friendly or not?" he has already made the tackle. That is one of the reasons
he was one of the best players of his time, and one of the reasons some of our players won't be.
You're lapsing into self-parody now.
He lightly places his hands on a slumbering McCarthy's back for a split second - gaining no apparent advantage in doing so - as he makes his way around McCarthy before running toward the ball after Coleman's fluffed it. You're seriously not trying to claim that was a foul too? If anything, you'd have hoped it would have kept McCarthy on his toes and sprung him into some defensive action!
Not that it's necessarily indicative of anything certain, but you'll also notice that neither of the two Irish players make a claim for a free-kick. Obviously, they've not been in the team long enough with Robbie yet for him to have taught them the art of arm-waving!
http://i41.tinypic.com/sgms5t.jpg
http://i43.tinypic.com/2ihnuyh.jpg
http://i40.tinypic.com/11v1s77.jpg
Note in the last picture McCarthy's position looks like he should be first to the ball there,
the guy who strikes the ball is not in the frame as I only noticed this aspect of the incident form these
pictures when I was thinking why doesn't McCarthy get the ball?
Yeah, Roy Keane would have pulled out of the friendly on some flimsy pretext, so he wouldn't have even had the opportunity to pull out of the tackleQuote:
Originally Posted by tricky_colour
Well main thing that struck me was the difference in attitude between the Kazak player and McCarthy, the Kazak player literallyQuote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
has to push dawdling McCarthy out of the way in order to get to the ball! He starts off be hind him, pushes him out of the
way, and gets to the ball before him (McCarthy never gets to the ball).
You could actually say McCarthy is being clever here, obstructing the Kazak player deliberately, but it certainly is not deliberate,
the game is passing him by at this stage, he has merely wandered into the path of the Kazak player, and you could well argue
he obstructed the Kazak player at this point (albeit without knowing it), however the ref would be right to play advantage.
However there seems to be some ambiguity in the rule which seem contradict themselves.
One rule refers to blocking a player for tactical reasons, however clearly McCarthy's block is clearly not tactical, he has no awareness of what
is happening around him, he is merely wandering around the pitch in the same manner in which someone might absently
mindedly wander into the path of a bus whilst strolling around town.
However the other rule on obstruction makes no mention of intend so he seems to be guilty of obstruction there.
The ref however allows play to continue, so the question is can the Kazak player push the obstructing player out of
his way?
Another unclear aspect of the rule is " moving into the path of the opponent to obstruct, block..."
does this mean intentional movement? It is unclear if there has to be intent or not.
In McCarthy's defense, I think he could well argue that that the Kazaks were only able to win the ball
buy obstructing Coleman, so his lolling about in the midfield is irrelevant.
Hence my criticism of his play is not actually valid (on this occasion ;)).
And I am not suggesting the Kazak fouled McCarthy I am suggesting the McCarthy obstructed
the Kazak, whether the Kazak committed a foul at this point seems to be a grey area as I am
already working on unclear rules. However I doubt it will say in the rules that you can push a player
out of your way (outside playing distance), granted it was not much of a push, McCarthy was
letting him through anyway.
I can't really speak for Roy, but I think his attitude was if you are not in it to win it you might as well stay at home,Quote:
Originally Posted by peadar1987
and that is precisely what he did.
http://doblelol.com/uploads/12/awesome-funny-gifs.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by tricky_colour
Both rules implicate intent as a necessary component of fouling by impeding the progress of an opponent (at least implicitly). There was no foul on McCarthy and there was no foul by McCarthy.
Eh? That doesn't even make sense. Didn't you more-or-less say he had a winning attitude? A prime example of deluded revisionism/apologism, that.Quote:
Originally Posted by tricky_colour
Yes I did, and that is why he went home, he realised he was surrounded by people who had no intention of achieving anything beyond a decent tan.Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
It is an example of me being correct, nothing more, nothing less.
But that would be Roy exhibiting a defeatist mentality. :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by tricky_colour
Anyway, enough of the mythical, romantic guff; it's not even logical. Roy consistently missed friendlies because his club, Manchester United, weren't too keen on the idea and the risk they presented in terms of their players potentially picking up injuries in what they viewed as meaningless fixtures. Roy was evidently happy to toe the club's line and, as a result, overplay injury concerns when international friendly breaks came round.
Also note Ryan Giggs' friendly record for Wales. In a 16-year-long senior international career, he picked up only 64 senior caps. The following line from his Wiki article is interesting:
It references a 2000 article by Paul Walker in the Independent titled "Ferguson 'protects' Giggs from Wales".Quote:
Originally Posted by Wikipedia
Well again I can't really speak for Roy, although I will (lol), he might argue that the team were already defeated by their poor preparation.Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
He might also argue that the ROI friendlies were a waste of time, and he was being pressured by Fergie it seems.
Certainly Roy, as you point out, did more for his country than Giggs.
I am sure there are a few stories about about Roy's fierce attitude even in training, I think there maybe one from Nial Quinn,
I am not too sure if I remember it correctly but I think it may have revolved around whether it was better to be on Roy's
side in training matches or the opposition. ie was it better to be on the receiving end of a crunching tackle if you were in
the opposing team, or a tongue lashing (or possible punch in the face) for not playing well enough, if you were on his side!!
I mean articles like this are typical of Roy's attitude:-
http://www.eadt.co.uk/sport/ipswich-...eane_1_2314215
Without his attitude he may well have been just a mediocre player, however I don't know if you can learn an attitude like that.Quote:
“He was a winner, he was 110% in everything he did, not just in games on a Saturday but in training as well. That was his character and I picked up on a lot of that.
I expect like Lady Gaga, he was born that way!!
I'm not doubting Roy's competitive attitude; in my opinion, he was one of our greatest ever players and dragged us to the World Cup in 2002.
I was, however, casting doubt over your deluded assertion as to why he pulled out of so many friendlies, which you're continuing to peddle. Not only was it rooted in that over-simplistic and clichéd Roy-could-do-no-wrong fantasy, it didn't even make logical sense. Indeed, you ought to stop speaking for Roy and assuming his past intentions, especially when the facts simply don't support your contentions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
I am not speaking for him, just saying he might make that argument, however the reality is he didn't, he just said he was injured.
I cannot really dispute that as I am not in a position to do so, unless you have medical evidence to prove otherwise I think
you have to accept that he was injured. Personally I do not think he would fake injury.
I'm not necessarily saying he faked injury. It's possible to cite or even over-emphasise what might be a genuine injury concern without faking an actual injury. Lots of players do it.