Printable View
Do ex-professional footballers not even know the rules? Last night on Match of the Day, way after my bedtime, I heard Didi Hamann say that the sending off wasn't even a foul because the Swansea player got the ball. I haven't looked round to see if it's on Youtube as yet but when a player shows his studs with a lunge towards the ball it is a foul for dangerous play every day of the week even though the ball is touched. The "I played the ball" argument went out the door in the 1990s.
GAH!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by OwlsFan
This is one of the things you'll see me rail against every time I hear it. Drives me up the wall. Also "showing studs" is as bad of a makey-uppy reference to the rule. But I accept what you are attempting to do there.
I think the red card was harsh in the extreme but agree regarding the stupidity of the "he got the ball" argument. I don't think it was a dangerous tackle though, he was well in control of what he was doing.
Couple of handball penalty decisions lately too. What is the actual rule because they keep saying "it wasn't deliberate"? Does it have to be deliberate all of a sudden? Whatever happened to gaining an unfair advantage or having your hand in an unnatural position? For what it's worth, I think the referees got the two I'm referring to correct. The first was Tottenham's late penalty to rescue a draw in the F.A. Cup against Leicester. I don't think the Leicester player necessarily meant to handle it, but even after coming into contact with the ball he seemed to push it away from Danny Rose, and would have definitely gained an unfair advantage. I'd have been annoyed if my team didn't get a penalty for it. The second one was Manchester United's penalty in the first few minutes against Newcastle. Again, the defender may not necessarily have meant to handle it, but his hands were all over the shop and it was always likely they would come into contact with the ball, such was his carelessness.
Stelling and McAnally gave out yards about the handball decision when they first saw it in the same game and then had to eat humble pie.
In the old days it had to be deliberate. Now it's if your hands are in an unusual position plus a few other vague ones. Nightmare for refs having a split second to determine these matters with cameras and pundits breathing (or a camera can't breathe) down their necks.
I thought it was a foul and a possible yellow.Quote:
Originally Posted by DeLorean
One bugbear of mine is the current zero-tolerance of any aggression, like a slap or a tiny nudge with the forehead. I hate hearing "you can't raise your hands anymore" even if it's true. When the rule was introduced I presume it was to stamp out people hitting each other. Now I think it just makes the game look weak and it also has had more unintended consequence, namely players hamming up any minor slap or push etc.
Refs should be allowed discretion at least to be able to show a yellow. Mandatory red has been a disaster.
Yeah, I wouldn't disagree with that. His foot ended up being a small bit high, but more because of the bounce of the ball rather than any malicious intent.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuttgart88
Definitely agree with the zero-tolerance post also, common sense is always the best approach. There should some leeway when it comes a bit of aggression, especially in a heat of the moment situation. People will mostly agree on what a 'real' red card offence looks like, no point in overreacting to the petty stuff. The referees are really put in an awkward position, but they rarely get criticised for applying common sense, even if it does contradict the letter of the law. Amongst the pundits and general public that is, probably a different story when it comes to their infamous assessors.
I suppose it has stopped the brawls like you see in rugby if players know any sort of hand raising gets red. "A tiny nudge with a forehead" - do you want refs to now have to arbitrate whether it was a tiny nudge or a reasonable nudge or a full blown Glasgow kiss ? With the players rolling round in all three instances, it will be another nightmare for the ref. I think the zero tolerance is for a reason.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuttgart88
The Swansea player was intent on winning the ball but was reckless in the use of his foot with studs showing in close proximity of the opposition players kneecap.Quote:
Originally Posted by DeLorean
The reckless use, was at least a foul for sure.
I'd say it was the Sunderland player's somersault and feigned agony, simulating getting clobbered by the raised studs, which persuaded the ref that it was a red card challenge.
Yeah I think reckless is way too strong a word though, slightly careless maybe.
You're sliding Del, you have already agreed with Stutts' "a foul or a yellow card", which in description terms is already a proven 100% careless challenge which could be deemed a reckless compulsory yellow card challenge.Quote:
Originally Posted by DeLorean
A "slightly careless maybe" description is not worthy of note by the ref.
Have another look to refresh memory and unfortunately for Naughton the refs line of view just happens to be the most damning.
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x3m...nderland_sport
I agreed that it was a foul and a 'possible' yellow card, meaning a free kick and a yellow is the maximum punishment that should have been applied. Reckless would mean that Naughton acted with a total disregard for his opponent, I don't think he did. That wording is just too severe in my opinion, I associate it more with a wild lunge.Quote:
Originally Posted by geysir
Yellows are dished out for relatively minor offences all the time, and free kicks certainly are. It would have been no major issue if he had been booked, but I don't think it would have been all that noteworthy if he wasn't either. All fairly subjective.Quote:
Originally Posted by geysir
It was red in this Naughton example because the ref was fooled by the Sunderland player's dramatic simulation of contact being made.
No doubt.
Actually Del, you may be glad to hear I've now come to the agreement that it was just a slightly careless maybe challenge, but totally legal challenge.
Having the studs up is not regarded as a football crime in a challenge if it is executed perfectly and I'd have to say now that Naughton executed it perfectly with no risk to the other player.
Somewhere there is an interpretation that (taking that challenge as an example) if the studs are up and cause the other player to lose the ball/lose the challenge for safety reasons, then the studs up are deemed dangerous, even if he got the ball and didn't touch the other player.
Here, Naughton pick-pocketed the ball with a deft studs-up flick which held no risk of doing damage. The sunderland player did not lose the ball out of fear that the studs would have crashed into his knee cap.
Naughton's type of challenge would more fall under the overhead kick, which is allowed in some circumstances but deemed dangerous in others.
Framing that :)Quote:
Originally Posted by geysir
Thought this was quite funny from F365.
Quote:
The official statement
One of the most difficult aspects of refereeing is that each incident is only seen once, in real-time, often from a distance. Decisions are then replayed multiple times after the incident in order to victimise said referee with the benefit of glorious hindsight.
And so to Graham Poll in the Daily Mail and Mark Halsey in The Sun, former referees wheeled out to discuss Michael Oliver’s performance in Bournemouth vs Arsenal and paid to do so. Nice work if you can get it. At least with the benefit of infinite replays, they can agree:
‘Michael Oliver got two key decisions wrong – especially the red card for Bournemouth captain Simon Francis. The challenge was not dangerous and it did not endanger the player’s safety. It was a challenge worthy of a yellow card’ – Halsey.Oh. All we’re asking for is consistency.
‘Oliver finished the game with another correct call as he dismissed Simon Francis for an over-the-top challenge on Ramsey. Overall a very composed display – well done, Michael’ – Poll.
I hate those backstage ref things. They have Howard Webb on BT, and all he does is echo the commentators.
Except when it's Robbie Savage. :)
Howard knows best though, he refereed a World Cup final after all...
http://www.gifbin.com/bin/072010/127...bi_-alonso.gif
That passage only highlights a flaw in the argument that technology can eradicate refereeing errors. Under the rules, a referee makes a subjective decision, a "consideration". It's not the same as the ball is/is not over the line, a player has a foot in touch/doesn't have a foot in touch, a pass is forward/not forward. I didn't see the World Club Cup and would liked to have seen how technology was used. The Dutch experiment was interesting, a referee watch the game on telly having 15 seconds to alert the ref to an obvious mistake. By all accounts it improved things but did not result in perfection. I'm still not convinced technology will correctly differentiate things like a dive versus evading a dangerous tackle.Quote:
Originally Posted by DeLorean
The McClean non-penalty in Lille may have been correctly upheld due to the defender getting a good toe to the ball, enough to justify the subsequent collision with McClean. Howard Webb stood by the ref's decision while we all raged. But it probably took more than 15 seconds to see it.
Anyway, last night: the red card was harsh, the penalty award was bang on (daft challenge by Zhaka) and I thought Bellerin was clearly pushed over. I think Bellerin looked a bit complacent though, which is probably what influenced the ref.