Ultimate Football (Soccer) Thread (2011-2012)

[Gravonia]

(Image)

Perhaps not the incomprehensibly poor decision it first seemed? Still difficult to tell if the ball was entirely over the line, but from that the decision is not quite so baffling.

But it's not even touching the line. So the ref just guessed.

PS.

I'd want Cech off and a penalty all day long.

Apparently Redknapp agrees with you.
Looks like I'm in the minority but I'd prefer a bird in the hand.

I think I'll leave it now. MOTD is about to start. Let's see what they say about Young's pen

[Nadkor]

(Image)

Perhaps not the incomprehensibly poor decision it first seemed? Still difficult to tell if the ball was entirely over the line, but from that the decision is not quite so baffling.

But it's not even touching the line. So the ref just guessed.

If you zoom in you can see some of the line under King. A large part of the ball appears to be over the line, but whether it's all of the ball over all of the line is difficult to tell.

PS.

I'd want Cech off and a penalty all day long.

Apparently Redknapp agrees with you.
Looks like I'm in the minority but I'd prefer a bird in the hand.

I guess if it was 1-0 or something then yeah, but at 2-0? Worth taking the gamble, I guess, there's nothing to lose.

[Osarius]

Make sure your mouth is empty when viewing this or you will have to clean your screen

As if the guy hadn't drew enough ire from us.
He's taking tips from Dwight Yorke, clearly. In a few years, he'll leave Man Utd after winning a fuckload of trophies, and end up at Birmingham City, who he'll then claim are a bigger club than us.

That said... He's been conning referees for years, but its more blatant lately, it seems. Before, I'd defend him in terms of "well it was either go flying or take a nasty impact" sometimes, even if I didn't condone his overselling and trademark limp/hobble (which often directly preceded him zipping away from a defender at Usain Bolt speed). Now, even if he were still a Villa player, I'd find it impossible to defend him. Must be that "win at all costs" mentality I keep hearing about at Man Utd.

Worst thing about it all though, is that he doesn't need to dive. He's a brilliant player anyway.

[Hossaim]

It's called contact. It happened. It makes people fall.

Even if it was a dive,it doesn't matter, we were denied an obvious penalty in the 2nd half.

If there was contact it was because Young brought his foot to the defender. Why not just admit he's a cheat?

I fully expect Bale to do something similar in the 2nd half of this game but I'll be man enough to admit it

I haven't seen the game yet but going on your past record I expect your 'obvious' penalty to be bullshit

I can't find a picture but it clearly hit his arm.

[Gravonia]

But it's not even touching the line. So the ref just guessed.

If you zoom in you can see some of the line under King. A large part of the ball appears to be over the line, but whether it's all of the ball over all of the line is difficult to tell.

Ha I was looking for the ball in the wrong place. I can see it now.
I've also seen this which makes it easier

I'll guess I'll let him off a bit

[Gravonia]

If there was contact it was because Young brought his foot to the defender. Why not just admit he's a cheat?

I fully expect Bale to do something similar in the 2nd half of this game but I'll be man enough to admit it

I haven't seen the game yet but going on your past record I expect your 'obvious' penalty to be bullshit

I can't find a picture but it clearly hit his arm.

Sorry Hossaim, I missed the handball on the BBC highlights. I'm not saying it didn't happen but either they didn't show it or more likely I was distracted. Next time eh?....

[Gravonia]

Hmmm, I retrospect some my posts on this thread are getting slightly too aggressive. So in an attempt to dial it down a bit...

Is anyone still taking notice of Hossaim's Fantasy Football table.

My team, much like Spurs is starting to fall away as we get to the end of the season.

Hossaim; your team seems to be getting it's act together recently

[Serrland]

Arne Friedrich to make his first appearance for my beloved Fire in just a few minutes. Every interview I hear from him the more and more I like him. What a great presence to have in the locker room.

[Miasto Lodz]

If you zoom in you can see some of the line under King. A large part of the ball appears to be over the line, but whether it's all of the ball over all of the line is difficult to tell.

Ha I was looking for the ball in the wrong place. I can see it now.
I've also seen this which makes it easier

I'll guess I'll let him off a bit

‏

The rule states the whole of the ball must be over the line. Unless you're Chelsea, then it doesn't Mata.

[I V Stalin]

The red card would be for denying an obvious goalscoring opportunity. Which clearly didn't happen, seeing as Spurs then scored.

Yeah, but I didn't ask about a red card, I asked about a booking for the foul

Because it wasn't a dangerous tackle? It was (obviously) slightly late, but if you gave yellows for every slightly late tackle then every game would end 6 versus 6.

[Osarius]

Yeah, but I didn't ask about a red card, I asked about a booking for the foul

Because it wasn't a dangerous tackle? It was (obviously) slightly late, but if you gave yellows for every slightly late tackle then every game would end 6 versus 6.

7 v 7

If a team is reduced to 6, they automatically lose.

[Utopia FTW]

Because it wasn't a dangerous tackle? It was (obviously) slightly late, but if you gave yellows for every slightly late tackle then every game would end 6 versus 6.

7 v 7

If a team is reduced to 6, they automatically lose.

that happened once to my childhood team.

edit. But we were missing 3 players to begin with.

[Nadkor]

Yeah, but I didn't ask about a red card, I asked about a booking for the foul

Because it wasn't a dangerous tackle?

Yeah, bookings don't need a dangerous tackle, they need a reckless tackle (or unsporting behaviour, of one of a couple of other things). It's entirely possible to be reckless without being dangerous, you just need to not have worried that it might have been dangerous - of course, as with many of the rules of football, the wording doesn't quite match the situations where cards are actually given. Generally going in late on someone and putting them through the air is accepted as a reckless challenge, and a booking. They've been given for much less. Not to mention that cautions given for "unsporting" behaviour pretty much covers anything.

It was (obviously) slightly late, but if you gave yellows for every slightly late tackle then every game would end 6 versus 6.

A late challenge that sends the attacking player flying through the air is doing very well not to be a booking in any other area of the field and in any other circumstance. Indeed, it's often the case that when a goalkeeper concedes a penalty as a result of a late challenge he gets booked, even if it wasn't even a particularly late or reckless challenge, because it's generally comes under that vague and varied phrase "unsporting behaviour". Anywhere else on the pitch where advantage is played if the foul that led to the advantage is a bookable offence then the booking will be given the next time the ball is out of play. Why not in this circumstance?

FIFA's own guidelines say:

If the referee applies advantage during an obvious goal-scoring opportunity and a goal is scored directly, despite the opponent's handling the ball or fouling an opponent, the player cannot be sent off but he may still be cautioned

And then there's a "You Are The Ref" on more or less this this (although obviously not a definitive guide, but they give a fair idea):

1 - Having blown your whistle before the ball hit the back of the net, you now have no choice: award a penalty and send the defender off. If you had delayed your whistle to wait for the outcome of the move, you would have been in a position to award the goal – the defender would then have received a yellow card for unsporting behaviour.

Link

[Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f]

Sadly this weekend saw the death of an Italian player after a heart attack.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ds-newsxml

Damn 25 is too young

[Cromarty]

Sadly this weekend saw the death of an Italian player after a heart attack.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ds-newsxml

Damn 25 is too young

So sad. :[ Condolences to Morosini's family and friends, and to the club and it's supporters.

All Italian football games this weekend are postponed iirc.

In happier news... I've restarted this, because :boredom:

[I V Stalin]

Because it wasn't a dangerous tackle?

Yeah, bookings don't need a dangerous tackle, they need a reckless tackle (or unsporting behaviour, of one of a couple of other things). It's entirely possible to be reckless without being dangerous, you just need to not have worried that it might have been dangerous - of course, as with many of the rules of football, the wording doesn't quite match the situations where cards are actually given. Generally going in late on someone and putting them through the air is accepted as a reckless challenge, and a booking. They've been given for much less. Not to mention that cautions given for "unsporting" behaviour pretty much covers anything.

It was (obviously) slightly late, but if you gave yellows for every slightly late tackle then every game would end 6 versus 6.

A late challenge that sends the attacking player flying through the air is doing very well not to be a booking in any other area of the field and in any other circumstance. Indeed, it's often the case that when a goalkeeper concedes a penalty as a result of a late challenge he gets booked, even if it wasn't even a particularly late or reckless challenge, because it's generally comes under that vague and varied phrase "unsporting behaviour". Anywhere else on the pitch where advantage is played if the foul that led to the advantage is a bookable offence then the booking will be given the next time the ball is out of play. Why not in this circumstance?

Because 'reckless' is defined as "...[acting] with complete disregard to the dangers to, or consequences for, [the player's] opponent", and in a situation where a 'keeper dives at an opponent's feet, it's essentially a 50-50 (most of the time), in which case you end up always booking players who commit fouls in a 50-50 situation. What's more, due to the nature of the 'keeper's challenge, it's fairly likely that the opponent is going to end up "flying through the air" whoever wins the ball. If the 'keeper's actions are 'reckless' then whether he wins the ball or not he is guilty of "[tripping an opponent] in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force". Whether it is part of the laws or not, it seems to be that goalkeepers are given a certain amount of leeway when it comes to diving at the feet of an opponent - i.e. that specific action is not considered "careless, reckless or using excessive force".

Also, the 'Cautions for Unsporting Behaviour' section of Law 12 would seem to indicate that the 'keeper can only be booked if, assuming the challenge wasn't 'reckless', a foul has been committed "for the tactical purpose of interfering with or breaking up a promising attack".

FIFA's own guidelines say:

If the referee applies advantage during an obvious goal-scoring opportunity and a goal is scored directly, despite the opponent's handling the ball or fouling an opponent, the player cannot be sent off but he may still be cautioned

Key word being "may".

And then there's a "You Are The Ref" on more or less this this (although obviously not a definitive guide, but they give a fair idea):
([url=http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/SPORT/Pix/pictures/2010/9/23/1285236002415/You-are-the-Ref-Edgar-Dav-004.jpg]Image)[/url]

1 - Having blown your whistle before the ball hit the back of the net, you now have no choice: award a penalty and send the defender off. If you had delayed your whistle to wait for the outcome of the move, you would have been in a position to award the goal – the defender would then have received a yellow card for unsporting behaviour.

Link

Keith Hackett's wrong then, as you've already pointed out that the player "cannot be sent off but may still be cautioned.

Ultimately it's somewhat of a moot point, as it would only really matter if Cech had been booked for a separate incident at any point. Which he hadn't.

[Nadkor]

FIFA's own guidelines say:

Key word being "may".

And then there's a "You Are The Ref" on more or less this this (although obviously not a definitive guide, but they give a fair idea):
([url=http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/SPORT/Pix/pictures/2010/9/23/1285236002415/You-are-the-Ref-Edgar-Dav-004.jpg]Image)[/url]

Link

Keith Hackett's wrong then, as you've already pointed out that the player "cannot be sent off but may still be cautioned.

I think the problem that you're finding is that you're interpreting "may" in a permissive way rather than how it's actually applied which is generally while it is a permissive phrase it's almost always actually given, as far as I can tell.

Off the top of my head I can think of very few occasions I've seen a 'keeper bring someone down in the box to give away a penalty and not get booked. It certainly feels from memory like they would be a minority of cases. And, well, I'm more inclined to trust Keith Hackett's judgement on it than yours, no offence

Ultimately it's somewhat of a moot point, as it would only really matter if Cech had been booked for a separate incident at any point. Which he hadn't.

Er...you seem to be under a sustained yet incorrect impression that I'm asking in order to find an argument that Cech should have been sent off, rather than purely out of interest.

[I V Stalin]

Key word being "may".


Keith Hackett's wrong then, as you've already pointed out that the player "cannot be sent off but may still be cautioned.

I think the problem that you're finding is that you're interpreting "may" in a permissive way rather than how it's actually applied which is generally while it is a permissive phrase it's almost always actually given, as far as I can tell.

Off the top of my head I can think of very few occasions I've seen a 'keeper bring someone down in the box to give away a penalty and not get booked. It certainly feels from memory like they would be a minority of cases. And, well, I'm more inclined to trust Keith Hackett's judgement on it than yours, no offence

As FIFA's laws contain uses of "must" (e.g. "A player must be sent off if he denies an obvious goalscoring opportunity by holding an opponent") as well as "may", it would appear to be at the referee's discretion whether to book a player or not. And the only examples I can think of where a 'keeper has conceded a penalty for fouling an opponent in the area and not been booked have seen him sent off instead. Doesn't change my point. And I'd trust Hackett's judgement more than my own as well, but what he's said there contradicts the Laws.

Ultimately it's somewhat of a moot point, as it would only really matter if Cech had been booked for a separate incident at any point. Which he hadn't.

Er...you seem to be under a sustained yet incorrect impression that I'm asking in order to find an argument that Cech should have been sent off, rather than purely out of interest.

That wasn't aimed at you, it was an observation that the lack of a yellow for Cech had no consequences in the game itself. I was actually arguing under the assumption that you, like I, gave not a single flying one whether or not Cech actually received a booking.



Also, in unrelated news: for fuck's fucking fuckety-fuck's sake!

EDIT: ok, slightly better.

[Nadkor]

I think the problem that you're finding is that you're interpreting "may" in a permissive way rather than how it's actually applied which is generally while it is a permissive phrase it's almost always actually given, as far as I can tell.

Off the top of my head I can think of very few occasions I've seen a 'keeper bring someone down in the box to give away a penalty and not get booked. It certainly feels from memory like they would be a minority of cases. And, well, I'm more inclined to trust Keith Hackett's judgement on it than yours, no offence

As FIFA's laws contain uses of "must" (e.g. "A player must be sent off if he denies an obvious goalscoring opportunity by holding an opponent") as well as "may", it would appear to be at the referee's discretion whether to book a player or not.

Yeah, but like I actually said...

I think the problem that you're finding is that you're interpreting "may" in a permissive way rather than how it's actually applied which is generally while it is a permissive phrase it's almost always actually given, as far as I can tell.

While the law says "may", it seems to be generally interpreted and applied in reality as a "must".

And the only examples I can think of where a 'keeper has conceded a penalty for fouling an opponent in the area and not been booked have seen him sent off instead. Doesn't change my point. And I'd trust Hackett's judgement more than my own as well, but what he's said there contradicts the Laws.

It might contradict (although this isn't the right word, because Hackett can easily be read as pretty much saying that the referee should exercise his discretion to book the player, not that the law says the referee must book the player) how the law is written, but it doesn't contradict how the law is applied. The two are not necessarily the same thing - interpretation is everything, and accepted practice is ultimately the way in which the effect and application, and therefore the de facto meaning, of the law should be judged.

[Miasto Lodz]

I wonder how it is like to be a Sepp Blatter school graduate?

[Serrland]

Chelsea you magnificent bastards you. That's how you defend. 10-2-1 under Di Matteo. The more I listen to him and such the more I like him.

[Utopia FTW]

All in all a good day. Now both Real and Barca have lost. Good on Bayern and Chelsea.

[Cyborg Holland]

Good on Chelsea...

[Serrland]

The only thing more boring than the Arsenal-Chelski game was Robbie Mustoe calling it. I miss my Macca.

[Krytenia]

Commiserations to Cov and Pompey, congrats to Paulo di Canio.