|
1) Red Card and penalty 2) The goal might possibly be wider then otherwise now and the triangles are probably dangerous if someone whacks into the point. use other goals if you can but it's a park game and carry on if both captains agree 3) It's not the match ball but it's most certainly inciting the crowd. Second yellow if you feel like being a nob end Loving Africa Chaps fucked around with this message at 12:31 on Feb 25, 2011 |
#
?
Feb 25, 2011 12:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 19:45 |
|
|
2) Find out who made the posts and get them on Dragon's Den.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2011 12:22
|
|
|
1. I'd be really reluctant to give a red to the keeper because of some unsporting twat not taking a tap-in. So give a penalty, and only book the keeper because there was still an obvious goalscoring opportunity. If the player that let the ball go out is pushing for a red, give him a booking for unsporting behaviour. 2. If no other pitch is available, and the both sets of players are okay with it, go ahead with the match. 3. Give another yellow for extravagant celebration.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2011 12:29
|
|
|
Dudley posted:1) You played advantage and they blew it. Red card but goal kick. If they don't get any advantage then you call the game back, that's what the point of advantage is!
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2011 12:35
|
|
|
1. I think it should be penalty and red card, but wouldn't be surprised if it was a "play to the whistle" incident which they love throwing in. I'll still go with red card and penalty because I can't see another option. 2. By the rules of the game, don't allow the game to kick-off. In reality, if the captains agree, it's fine. 3. I'd say it's fine, assuming it wasn't really close to someone and right into their face.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2011 12:36
|
|
|
MrL_JaKiri posted:If they don't get any advantage then you call the game back, that's what the point of advantage is! They did get advantage, he had an open goal, it doesn't go on forever. EDIT : Or to put it another way, they wouldn't have pulled it back if he John Terryed it over the bar either.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2011 12:40
|
|
|
Dudley posted:They did get advantage, he had an open goal, it doesn't go on forever. I've seen a ref pull it back for the card but not for the freekick after giving an advantage, like in FIFA.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2011 12:44
|
|
|
Red card the keeper then tell the player he's an idiot for not shooting since the keeper would be getting carded regardless
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2011 12:46
|
|
|
Jose posted:Red card the keeper then tell the player he's an idiot for not shooting since the keeper would be getting carded regardless Not if the goal was given. Remember the Luis Garcia goal against Chelsea in the Champions League? If that goal wasn't given, it would have been a red for Cech, wouldn't it?
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2011 13:05
|
|
|
1) Based on that picture, it's not an automatic red card anyway. Ignoring it, though, I'd say it's still not, as the chance to score wasn't lost. The striker has declined the chance to play advantage. Yellow card to the keeper and award a penalty. 2) There's possibly a safety issue here. If both captains want to play with goals made out of used needles and Kerry Katona's vagina, then that's their perogative, but if you're the referee and you're responsible for the safety of both teams, you should ask for them to be changed. 3) Yellow card for being a reet dickhead, like.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2011 13:16
|
|
|
FullLeatherJacket posted:1) Based on that picture, it's not an automatic red card anyway. Ignoring it, though, I'd say it's still not, as the chance to score wasn't lost. The striker has declined the chance to play advantage. Yellow card to the keeper and award a penalty. Yeah the picture is unhelpful because I wouldn't call that an open goal. It IS a clear scoring chance though, last man or no.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2011 14:32
|
|
|
1. Advantage never materialised, pull play back to the incident and award the penalty. If the player who was fouled was denied a clear goal-scoring opportunity, show the red card to the player who fouled him. 2. Abandon the match, the posts don't meet the requirements set out in the Laws of the Game. The ball could bounce erratically off those triangular posts. 3. The player is inciting the crowd during a goal celebration, show him a 2nd yellow card, followed by a red.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2011 14:54
|
|
|
Dudley posted:Yeah the picture is unhelpful because I wouldn't call that an open goal. It IS a clear scoring chance though, last man or no. 1. The second attacker is offside, so i don't see how there would be any advantage. Regardless, there is another defender in the pic. No red, perhaps maybe a yellow, penalty. 2. Not playable, although it would be great. 3. "Being a dick" verbage needs to be added in the laws of the game. "He was B.A.D." Yellow.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2011 14:57
|
|
|
Dollas posted:3. "Being a dick" verbage needs to be added in the laws of the game. "He was B.A.D." Yellow. 50% of professional footballers would be sent off before ever making it to the coin toss.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2011 15:01
|
|
|
Dudley posted:50% of professional footballers would be sent off before ever making it to the coin toss. Yeah, the match writeup would be great. Cautions: BAD BAD BAD BAD BAD BAD .... Send offs: 2nd caution 2nd caution 2nd caution ... Comments: Uh, match abandoned?
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2011 15:05
|
|
|
1. Pull it back for the penalty. There is a defender on the line, so I'd award a yellow card to the keeper. 2. Abandon the match, you cannot start with triangle posts. Who even makes triangular posts? 3. Second yellow for unsporting behavior/inciting the crowd/general douchebaggery
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2011 16:35
|
|
|
1) Do nothing. You played advantage, the player had an open, easy goal, and messed it up. It's no different than if he had taken the shot and missed.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2011 17:53
|
|
|
s0meb0dy0 posted:1) Do nothing. You played advantage, the player had an open, easy goal, and messed it up. It's no different than if he had taken the shot and missed. "If the referee applies advantage during an obvious goalscoring 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." By the letter of the law, the keeper should be sent off.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2011 18:02
|
|
|
s0meb0dy0 posted:1) Do nothing. You played advantage, the player had an open, easy goal, and messed it up. It's no different than if he had taken the shot and missed. Playing advantage doesn't stop the punishment. Have you never seen this happen in a match before?
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2011 18:18
|
|
|
Damnit you guys and your rules. Play advantage, give a goal kick, and then (yellow) card the keeper.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2011 19:30
|
|
|
Jose posted:Playing advantage doesn't stop the punishment. Have you never seen this happen in a match before? What is the offence? "Denying an obvious goalscoring opportunity". If the ball runs to another striker who has a completely open goal, has a goalscoring opportunity been denied? I also say advantage over, goal kick. God knows what Hackett will think.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2011 22:15
|
|
|
1. Possibly caution for the foul itself, but advantage has been played, so goal kick. The key here is that the other attacker HAD the advantage but CHOSE not to play it. He does not get to make that decision! He deliberately did not take the shot. 2. No game. This was changed in the Laws this season (it used to be advisory regarding the shape of the posts but now it is mandatory). 3. Caution, off he goes. Although this depends on league rules to a degree.... the Premier League wants this sort of thing considered as incitement and therefore classed as Unsporting Behaviour.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2011 22:24
|
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:What is the offence? "Denying an obvious goalscoring opportunity". If the ball runs to another striker who has a completely open goal, has a goalscoring opportunity been denied? yes a goalscoring opportunity has been denied, just because another one followed it doesn't mean the first didn't happen
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2011 23:01
|
|
|
By that line of reasoning the second player could be fouled by that defender on the line, the ball comes back off the post, the original striker taps it in, and then you send off both goalkeeper and defender for denying 2 of the 3 opportunities. I don't think that's what is meant by an opportunity, you can't argue that if not for the 2 fouls you would have scored 3 goals.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2011 10:36
|
|
|
Indeed. The opportunity is not limited to the single player who got disadvantaged, by either a foul or handball. E.g. player takes a shot, defender handles it on the line, then another attacker just taps it in. You CANNOT send off the defender as he did not deny anything: A goal was scored! He would be cautioned, however.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2011 11:27
|
|
|
Scikar posted:By that line of reasoning the second player could be fouled by that defender on the line, the ball comes back off the post, the original striker taps it in, and then you send off both goalkeeper and defender for denying 2 of the 3 opportunities. In that situation you would yellow card the players, not red card them. You only dismiss someone for DOGSO if a goal isn't scored immediately after. Mewcenary posted:You CANNOT send off the defender as he did not deny anything: A goal was scored! You're making the correct conclusion but this argument is profoundly stupid; the defender fouling prevented the opportunity which is still true even if someone taps it in after. It's just that if a goal is scored, DOGSO is no longer a red card offense.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2011 15:02
|
|
|
I can't work out what #2 is trying to get at. The fronts of the goalposts are triangular? What does that mean? I can't tell which angle the picture is from either, in front of goal lookng across the pitch or to the left of the goal looking down it?
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2011 16:33
|
|
|
Hoops posted:The fronts of the goalposts are triangular? What does that mean? It means the triangular bit of the goalpost cross-section is as the front you idiot
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2011 16:39
|
|
|
MrL_JaKiri posted:It means the triangular bit of the goalpost cross-section is as the front you idiot [edit]oh wait now I do. Hoops fucked around with this message at 17:24 on Feb 26, 2011 |
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2011 17:22
|
|
|
Hoops posted:Still not getting it bro sorry Association football goalposts are usually round in cross-section. The ones in the question are, in fact, triangular. What do you do? e: there's a loving picture you nonsense
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2011 17:25
|
|
|
Hoops posted:Still not getting it bro sorry  Do you see how the goalposts facing you are rounded? Now imagine if they were triangular, wide at the base and tapering to a narrow point, like looking at a wedge. It would be dangerous.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2011 17:25
|
|
|
T. Finn posted:
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2011 17:26
|
|
|
I was taking "goalposts" as referring to the entire frame. I had it in my head that the diagram was a side-on shot of the entire goals and they had massive trangle bits sticking out of them onto the pitch and absolutely didn't know what the gently caress. Now I understand why the ref is touching the posts. No idea now why I read it the way I did. Give me a break though I've been ill for like three days.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2011 17:38
|
|
|
Hoops posted:I was taking "goalposts" as referring to the entire frame. I had it in my head that the diagram was a side-on shot of the entire goals and they had massive trangle bits sticking out of them onto the pitch and absolutely didn't know what the gently caress. Your fevered vision is cooler tbh
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2011 17:39
|
|
|
8raz posted:And also influences the direction the ball bounces off them. That's kind of important, but square ones are allowed. It means that balls are funneled into the goals though Hoops posted:I was taking "goalposts" as referring to the entire frame. I had it in my head that the diagram was a side-on shot of the entire goals and they had massive trangle bits sticking out of them onto the pitch and absolutely didn't know what the gently caress. Football, blurnsball style Hoops posted:Now I understand why the ref is touching the posts. No idea now why I read it the way I did. Give me a break though I've been ill for like three days. I have a fever, you have no excuse I'm sweating like a goon
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2011 20:40
|
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:What is the offence? "Denying an obvious goalscoring opportunity". If the ball runs to another striker who has a completely open goal, has a goalscoring opportunity been denied?
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2011 18:15
|
|
|
Hoops posted:I was taking "goalposts" as referring to the entire frame. I had it in my head that the diagram was a side-on shot of the entire goals and they had massive trangle bits sticking out of them onto the pitch and absolutely didn't know what the gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2011 00:00
|
|
|
Hackett: 1) You've rightly delayed to see if an advantage has accrued – the fact that the player has deliberately failed to take that opportunity should not change your thinking. There was no advantage, so award a penalty-kick. However, the player has taken a bizarre gamble: you would only show a red card to the goalkeeper if he denied the first striker an obvious goalscoring opportunity – and there was a defender on the line. Players are best advised to focus on playing, not refereeing. 2) If there is no other pitch available, and the posts cannot be changed, you cannot play the match. Goalposts and crossbars must be square, rectangular, round or elliptical in shape, and must not be dangerous to players. Report the situation to the competition secretary. 3) The player has taken a daft risk. Your decision should be based on whether he has a) delayed the restart or b) incited the crowd. If he has, it is indeed a second yellow card. But if not, issue the player with a clear public rebuke, and restart the game with a kick-off. My instinct in this case would be to stick with a firm rebuke.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2011 01:11
|
|
|
peanut- posted:Hackett: Bovine Delight posted:1. Pull it back for the penalty. There is a defender on the line, so I'd award a yellow card to the keeper. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2011 01:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 19:45 |
|
|
peanut- posted:However, the player has taken a bizarre gamble: you would only show a red card to the goalkeeper if he denied the first striker an obvious goalscoring opportunity – and there was a defender on the line. Players are best advised to focus on playing, not refereeing. If the defender and the keeper are switched, the defender would get a red card every time. Why is a less good defensive position not a red card offense? peanut- posted:Goalposts and crossbars must be square, rectangular, round or elliptical in shape Square or rectangular you say
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2011 01:28
|
|