Séamus Coleman (D Everton b.1988)

[ArdeeBhoy]

90% certain that was a goal. Who cares anyway? In a meaningless game too.
Did Coleman?

[DannyInvincible]

You have to look at the rules on page 30 it is not my mistaken
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 places
himself between and opponent and the ball for tactical reasons, unless
he is within playing distance"

The latter rule outlines what might be understood as further clarification; it is not a contradiction.

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.

Clear Tay fluck and stop ruining this thread.yous are worse than oul women arguing

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.

[tricky_colour]

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.

[SkStu]

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).

[DannyInvincible]

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.

[tricky_colour]

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).

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.

[tricky_colour]

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.

[DannyInvincible]

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!

[tricky_colour]

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?

[peadar1987]

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.

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 tackle

[tricky_colour]

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 tows 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 claim for a free-kick.

Well main thing that struck me was the difference in attitude between the Kazak player and McCarthy, the Kazak player literally
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.

[tricky_colour]

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 tackle

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,
and that is precisely what he did.

[DannyInvincible]

Well main thing that struck me was the difference in attitude between the Kazak player and McCarthy, the Kazak player literally
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.

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.

[DannyInvincible]

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,
and that is precisely what he did.

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.

[tricky_colour]

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.

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.
It is an example of me being correct, nothing more, nothing less.

[DannyInvincible]

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.

But that would be Roy exhibiting a defeatist mentality.

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:

After his international debut in 1991 against Germany, Giggs did not attend a friendly international until some nine years later, after which he missed a further 18 consecutive friendly games. Manchester United manager Sir Alex Ferguson had a policy of refusing to release the player for friendly games.

It references a 2000 article by Paul Walker in the Independent titled "Ferguson 'protects' Giggs from Wales".

[tricky_colour]

But that would be Roy exhibiting a defeatist mentality.

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".

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.
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

“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.

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.

I expect like Lady Gaga, he was born that way!!

[DannyInvincible]

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.

[tricky_colour]

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.

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.

[DannyInvincible]

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.