Clare League 2007/08

[Buzzer]

Just want to clear something up. Those of us that were at the Bridge v Tulla match Sunday and actually watching it, could see that Mickey did not run onto the pitch and prevent a goal. In fact, the ball was going wide and just as it was on the end line he booted the ball away. I'm no making excuses for him because it was a stupid thing to do even if it was one of the funniest thing i've seen in ages. So if you are going to discuss a matter, the real facts should be made clear first. He is not the only person that made a bad decision on Sunday. The referee made many of them like giving the first goal for Tulla which was obviously offside and sending off a bridge player for handling the ball after it had passed the line for a goal.

[Spudd]

Any fixtures for this weekend then?

[manalishi]

Just want to clear something up. Those of us that were at the Bridge v Tulla match Sunday and actually watching it, could see that Mickey did not run onto the pitch and prevent a goal. In fact, the ball was going wide and just as it was on the end line he booted the ball away. I'm no making excuses for him because it was a stupid thing to do even if it was one of the funniest thing i've seen in ages. So if you are going to discuss a matter, the real facts should be made clear first. He is not the only person that made a bad decision on Sunday. The referee made many of them like giving the first goal for Tulla which was obviously offside and sending off a bridge player for handling the ball after it had passed the line for a goal.

So the ref first gave a goal,then took the players to the halfway line,then brought them back down for a hop ball,then Tulla walked off and all because the bowled Mickey innocently kicked the ball ,which was going wide,off the back line?????

Do you write Bertie Ahearns stories for him?????

[CousinSylDolan]

All fixtures are on www.claresoccer.net. Thats why I dont post them here anymore...

[Buzzer]

thats funny the ref said it was going in....if you think it so easy to referee and get all offside decisions right then you should take it up...a player handling the ball wether its over the line or not is a sending off..simple as..

I never said Mickey was innocent he was far from it. If the ref thinks it was going in well that's another thing he got wrong. I don't think it's easy to referee but if the player who scores a goal when the ball is played in is a yard or two ahead of the defender well that's offside in anyones book. And if he was sending off a player for handling the ball well then he should have gave a penalty instead of a goal.

[papa-j]

you should really have a look at the rule book..the referee was right to send the player off..if the ball was over the line why did player handle it..me thinks he was trying to cheat..which is a red card ..

well hacker hows things. I dont have a rule book but my take is that
player handles the ball but ref gives a goal and not a penalty, then the ref shouldn't send off the player as he has not blown up for a foul.

Is that not the common sense approach?

[Bannerman]

I would agree with Papa-J. If the ball had crossed the line, it's a goal and nothing else. The ball has crossed the goal line, play has ended and it is a goal. The fact that the player who handled the ball to stop it from going over the line could be construed as cheating and could be deemed unsporting behaviour (a cautionable offence).

It would be the same as if the ball had hit the back of the net and a player, other than the keeper, went to pick the ball off the ground in my opinion (except for the possiblity of unsporting behaviour as above).

[Buzzer]

I would agree with Papa-J. If the ball had crossed the line, it's a goal and nothing else. The ball has crossed the goal line, play has ended and it is a goal. The fact that the player who handled the ball to stop it from going over the line could be construed as cheating and could be deemed unsporting behaviour (a cautionable offence).

It would be the same as if the ball had hit the back of the net and a player, other than the keeper, went to pick the ball off the ground in my opinion (except for the possiblity of unsporting behaviour as above).

Thank you Papa-J and Bannerman, at least there is some people around with a grasp of the game of football. If the ref had deemed it as unsporting behaviour then the Bridge would have accepted it.

[old git]

well hacker hows things. I dont have a rule book but my take is that
player handles the ball but ref gives a goal and not a penalty, then the ref shouldn't send off the player as he has not blown up for a foul.

Is that not the common sense approach?

common sense once referee gives goal i cant see how he can send player off then.. if he awarded penalty fair enough ,, seems a very strange & harsh decision

[oldspice]

a player substitute or sustituted player is sent off and shown a red card if he commits any of the following seven offences

offence 4 when he denies the opposing team a goal or an obvious goalscoring oppurtunity by deliberately handling the ball...

i understand that he gave the goal but the fact that the player tried to stop it from crossing the line the ref probably decided that he deliberatly tried to stop it so same punishment should apply..which he is intitled to do...


Lads, Haven't posted for quite a while but have been an interested spectator. I felt I had to give my tuppenceworth on the above, hope ye don't mind. My take on it is that if the ball has crossed the line it is then out of play and the player is entitled to handle it. If the ref has allowed the goal, then obviously, in his opinion, it has crossed the line. The rule Hacker quotes above states the red card should be given if the player DENIES the opposing team a goal or an obvious goalscoring opportunity. Unsuccessfully attempting to deny is not the same thing. I realise there may have been intent involved but attempting to handle the ball is not the same as actual handball. If the ref sent the guy off for handball he should not have allowed the goal. If however, in his view the guy handled the ball on its way into the net, he is perfectly entitled to send him off and allow the goal under the advantage rule. Without the referee's interpretation of events, we can only guess.

[Side Cutter]

welcome back oldspice
I take your point..but unless the referee was on the end line he probably didn't know it was over the line..and maybe in trying the hand ball the player helped it into another area of the net..
as for the fact that he unsucsessfully tried to stop the goal..is that not the same as unsucsessfully trying to kick or hit someone in which case you can still get sent off

Would have to agree hacker.Plus add on that our new friend buzzer is giving his unbiased view of the situation.So buzzer to have seen this as well as you did you are either the player involved or the keeper.Either way you were not doing your job

[oldspice]

welcome back oldspice
I take your point..but unless the referee was on the end line he probably didn't know it was over the line..and maybe in trying the hand ball the player helped it into another area of the net..
as for the fact that he unsucsessfully tried to stop the goal..is that not the same as unsucsessfully trying to kick or hit someone in which case you can still get sent off

Thanks Hacker, won't be posting as often as I used to ... not if I want to continue receiving a paycheck but it's nice to at least contribute.
In my opinion, it's not quite the same. For me the difference lies in the lack of intent to hurt someone. For instance, if I am defending a corner and put my hand up in the air as the ball comes across. If I make contact with the ball whether I mean to or not ... it's a penalty. If however, I miss the ball, again, whether I mean to or not .. then it's play on. In the case of handball, intent does not matter, it's whether you make contact. However, in the case of trying to kick someone, by the laws of the game, intent can crry the same punishment whether you make contact or not.
Bottom line as I said before though is we are commenting on possible scenarios. We don't know why the ref sent him off and as Sidecutter suggested, we probably didn't kick off with the most unbiased viewpoint. Sorry if all that seems a bit jumbled up ... I need some practice.

[Buzzer]

Thanks Hacker, won't be posting as often as I used to ... not if I want to continue receiving a paycheck but it's nice to at least contribute.
In my opinion, it's not quite the same. For me the difference lies in the lack of intent to hurt someone. For instance, if I am defending a corner and put my hand up in the air as the ball comes across. If I make contact with the ball whether I mean to or not ... it's a penalty. If however, I miss the ball, again, whether I mean to or not .. then it's play on. In the case of handball, intent does not matter, it's whether you make contact. However, in the case of trying to kick someone, by the laws of the game, intent can crry the same punishment whether you make contact or not.
Bottom line as I said before though is we are commenting on possible scenarios. We don't know why the ref sent him off and as Sidecutter suggested, we probably didn't kick off with the most unbiased viewpoint. Sorry if all that seems a bit jumbled up ... I need some practice.

I'm not being biased. I'll admit we didn't deserve to win. A draw would probably have been a fair result but the fact of the matter is that he did not prevent a goal and according to the rules you stated Hacker he shouldn't have been sent off as the referee confirmed to the player that he knew he handled it behind the line but had to send him off for attempting to stop a goal. Also Hacker, if an opposing player had done the same thing i would not be shouting for him to be sent off as he wouldn't have obstructed a goal, even if he had caught it. I don't know what was going through Mickeys head at the time and i don't condone what he did. I don't need to have 10 posts before i can have a view that's just stupid. You said all i'm doing is slating referees, so if he made all the correct decisions on Sunday why did Tulla walk off the pitch? You said we have to accept his decisions.

[papa-j]

Would have to agree hacker.Plus add on that our new friend buzzer is giving his unbiased view of the situation.So buzzer to have seen this as well as you did you are either the player involved or the keeper.Either way you were not doing your job

Sidecutter we all know you are agreeing with Hacker so you will get a game

[plasticpitch]

why dont we ask the ref fella... the guy who was running the quiz on the forum... he should enlighten all

[Buzzer]

I don't need to have 10 posts before i can have a view that's just stupid. You said all i'm doing is slating referees, so if he made all the correct decisions on Sunday why did Tulla walk off the pitch? You said we have to accept his decisions.

god chill out the first comment was only a joke..
as for tulla walking off the pitch that was wrong and i'm sure the rules would state that the bridge should get the 3 points(which would be crazy too) or a replay..
unfortunately on match day you have to accept his decisions but you do have a right to appeal after a match to clare league..

as sidecutter asked were you a player or spectator..[/quote]
I was a spectator with a perfect view. I thought Tulla walking off was stupid because they had at least 1 point and a chance to get 3 instead it looks like they will get nothing. I knew straight away the Bridge were going to get the 3 points but that is not the way the Bridge would have liked to get the points. I've seen this kind of thing happen before against the Bridge.

[2legged tackle]

What was said to Mickey at the time, Surely if it was a spur of the moment thing he must have felt a bit stupid, Did anyone say anything to him or what happened? Did the ref say anytin?

[Interested]

Just want to clear something up. Those of us that were at the Bridge v Tulla match Sunday and actually watching it, could see that Mickey did not run onto the pitch and prevent a goal. In fact, the ball was going wide and just as it was on the end line he booted the ball away. I'm no making excuses for him because it was a stupid thing to do even if it was one of the funniest thing i've seen in ages. So if you are going to discuss a matter, the real facts should be made clear first. He is not the only person that made a bad decision on Sunday. The referee made many of them like giving the first goal for Tulla which was obviously offside and sending off a bridge player for handling the ball after it had passed the line for a goal.

OK. Seeing as how we are ref baiting once again and as a former whistle blower on defensive mode lets have a go.
Firstly I was not at the match mentioned and can only go on what has been printed in the posts.
Secondly Buzzer, no one from Tulla has posted yet so we are only getting your version of what happened.
1. Player has to be interfering with play to be deemed offside. Obviously if the player scores he is interfering, but it would be unfair of me to judge the ref without seeing the incident.
2. Player handling the ball to prevent an obvious goal scoring opportunity, straight Red Card. If however like you state the ball was handled over the line, then the goal is awarded without further penalty to the player. But for the ref to give the red card I presume the sent off player attempted to prevent the goal and only aided the ball into the net, this is a sending off and the goal allowed.
3. what was Mickey Whyte or anyone else for that matter doing standing next to the goals on the end line? A recipe for disaster, which came to fruition in this game.

[shelbourne1904]

3. what was Mickey Whyte or anyone else for that matter doing standing next to the goals on the end line? A recipe for disaster, which came to fruition in this game.

That was my first reaction.Then if I said that it might be construed as being ref bashing????But at the same time we dont know when he took up the position??

[Buzzer]

OK. Seeing as how we are ref baiting once again and as a former whistle blower on defensive mode lets have a go.
Firstly I was not at the match mentioned and can only go on what has been printed in the posts.
Secondly Buzzer, no one from Tulla has posted yet so we are only getting your version of what happened.
1. Player has to be interfering with play to be deemed offside. Obviously if the player scores he is interfering, but it would be unfair of me to judge the ref without seeing the incident.
2. Player handling the ball to prevent an obvious goal scoring opportunity, straight Red Card. If however like you state the ball was handled over the line, then the goal is awarded without further penalty to the player. But for the ref to give the red card I presume the sent off player attempted to prevent the goal and only aided the ball into the net, this is a sending off and the goal allowed.
3. what was Mickey Whyte or anyone else for that matter doing standing next to the goals on the end line? A recipe for disaster, which came to fruition in this game.

Mickey felt very stupid and sorry after the game and mentioned that he thought he might get a huge ban. I know it doesn't make up for it but at least he admitted he was wrong. He started standing at the fence beside the goal at the start of the second half. I don't know why he moved from the sideline where the subs were to there but he did. If the defender said it was going to hit the post well then i'll just have to take his word for it but from my view it was just going wide. I saw a lot of players going in after the ball so i don't know if a Tulla player would have got there first.