|
1) Striker needs to not be a pussy. Maybe mention it in your report because it could be something a team hopes to get away with for as long as possible, like Stevenage taking injury breaks in the 23rd minute of all their games. 2) If the keeper was off his line before the penalty was struck, retake, but make it very clear to the keeper that you will be the arbiter of whether the ball is in the correct place. If the ball was already kicked, gently caress him. 3) Can't touch the ball twice, yellow card for trying a trick to circumvent the laws
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2011 18:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 08:01 |
|
|
2. Run away. Keeper is a zombie.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2011 19:01
|
|
|
Guess you guys couldn't Hackett concerning the first call:Keith Hackett's verdict posted:1) Order a retake. The law is clear on issues like this: the referee must "stop the match because of outside interference of any kind". This announcement clearly distracted the player and altered the course of the game. You should talk to the stadium manager, remind him that future PA announcements must be made during a stoppage, and report the incident to the authorities after the game. Of course, if you thought the striker was actually having you on and making excuses, you would play on as normal. Max Seymour wins the shirt.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2011 12:12
|
|
|
AAAH! It's Friday!
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2011 18:41
|
|
|
1) Make your own mind up. Be a man. 2) Goal and red card for intentional handball occasioning the denial of a goalscoring opportunity. 3) Second yellow for dangerous play due to being a spacker.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2011 18:45
|
|
|
1. Same thing as the concussion helmets, if it's safe it's safe. 2. Yellow and a goal. Didn't DOGSO because it went in. 3. Second yellow.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2011 18:49
|
|
|
1) make up my own mind. But being a neck injury there's no way I'm risking it. Not coming on. 2) goal and a talk with the defender. Hadn't blown yet so I can play advantage, and thus no dogso. 3) if I felt it was reckless (probably would) it's yellow and off. If it was a complete accident and the striker shoulders no blame then just a fk.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2011 18:51
|
|
|
1) punch gary neville in the face 2) punch gary neville in the face 3) make a well informed critical post on an internet forum analyzing gary neville's commentary
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2011 18:53
|
|
|
1. If it properly padded, he can play. 2. Goal, Caution for unsporting behavior. 3. Stop play, have the injured player attended to/removed, restart with dropped ball.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2011 19:02
|
|
|
1. If padding is good, and there's little chance of it being a choking hazard, and the physio is really fine with it, then I guess it's OK. Somehow I doubt all of that is true. Though I'd really want a real honest to God doctor who isn't going to have a possible perverse interest like the physio to tell me it's not a bad idea. 2. Goal, yellow, tell the defender he's pretty clever. 3. If it is somehow not reckless, free kick. It's likely reckless, so second yellow, sending off. foobardog fucked around with this message at 19:58 on Aug 19, 2011 |
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2011 19:56
|
|
|
foobardog posted:3. If it is somehow not reckless, free kick. It's likely reckless, so second yellow, sending off. Surely if it's not reckless then it's not a foul at all. The scenario states that it was unintentional, so unless it was unnecessarily dangerous (reckless), then it's not a foul. I reckon it would be a case of stopping play so the injured player can be seen to (the vlood would necessitate this?) and restart with a dropped ball.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2011 20:03
|
|
|
The consensus in the comment section on The Guardian is that #3 isn't a foul at all, but am I unreasonable for expecting someone to be in control of their own foot at all times? If a defender goes for the ball and comes up with a cleat full of ankle instead, it's a foul, why would this be any different?
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2011 20:11
|
|
|
Mickolution posted:Surely if it's not reckless then it's not a foul at all. The scenario states that it was unintentional, so unless it was unnecessarily dangerous (reckless), then it's not a foul. I reckon it would be a case of stopping play so the injured player can be seen to (the vlood would necessitate this?) and restart with a dropped ball. Checking the Laws, there seems to be a distinction made for what gets a direct free kick versus an indirect free kick. Directs get given for doing an offense in a way that is "careless, reckless or using excessive force", while indirects can be given for "play[ing] in a dangerous manner". Cautions seem to require "unsporting behaviour". So I guess no card is on the table unless you consider the showboating to be at the level of unsporting. It could be a direct or an indirect based on recklessness. And I guess it's arguable if it's playing in a dangerous manner, but I definitely think so.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2011 20:19
|
|
|
MC Fruit Stripe posted:The consensus in the comment section on The Guardian is that #3 isn't a foul at all, but am I unreasonable for expecting someone to be in control of their own foot at all times? If a defender goes for the ball and comes up with a cleat full of ankle instead, it's a foul, why would this be any different? That's the case for defenders, but not necessarily for attackers. Imagine a scenario where a striker is coming onto a ball with the intention of blasting it as hard as he could. A defender makes a clean sliding tackle from the side and clears the ball away but the attacker had already begun his kick and catches the defender as he slides, injuring him. That's never a foul. This is different, I know, because it wasn't a challenge, but I think the same principal applies with regards to having control of your foot.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2011 21:00
|
|
|
Trying a backheel when you don't know where the ball is or what's behind you is at minimum careless and a free kick. If he caught the defender with his studs then I'd call it reckless too and make it yellow card. If you try to clear a ball by kicking it at head height and you catch someone in the face because you didn't see him, it's still a foul and you're still guilty of dangerous play. One similar to 2) came up before once already (deliberate handball by one defender preventing a goal, second defender boots it into his own goal to prevent the red card). Hackett's verdict was goal AND red card because the first defender still committed DOGSO, an own goal doesn't negate it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2011 21:19
|
|
|
Players can and do get second yellows for overhead kicks which are a genuine attempt to get a shot on goal, but the referee deems that other players were close enough in attendance for it to be dangerous to try it. For me the thing here is about the foot being at knee height, which is a bit elaborate for my tastes with a defender nearby.Scikar posted:One similar to 2) came up before once already (deliberate handball by one defender preventing a goal, second defender boots it into his own goal to prevent the red card). Hackett's verdict was goal AND red card because the first defender still committed DOGSO, an own goal doesn't negate it. I agree, if the defender caught the ball and dropped it because it was a bit wet it'd be a red, and the ref isn't expected to be a mindreader. Psybro fucked around with this message at 21:25 on Aug 19, 2011 |
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2011 21:23
|
|
|
I don't know if it's really quantified in the rules but my instinct is to look at intent. If the last defender chasing a striker as he bears down on goal takes a swipe at his legs in a deliberate attempt to bring him down and stop him scoring, he should be sent off regardless of whether or not the striker stays on his feet and scores anyway. The times the defender should be let off the hook are when he makes a fair attempt for the ball and fails, in that case it shouldn't a red if the attackers still score. Since handball by definition must be deliberate then it should always be a red card even if the attackers still score anyway.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2011 21:42
|
|
|
1. Absolutely not. Neck injury aside, it's an obvious choking hazard. 2. Instinctively reaches up for it? What kind of outfield player's first instinct is 'gently caress me, I better catch this'? Goal and a red for DOGSO. 3. Strictly speaking, it's a free kick to the red team, as it's not a reckless challenge, and there's (apparently) no intent. I wouldn't surprised however, if this is somehow a second yellow and off.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2011 22:54
|
|
|
1. Get off the pitch. Neck injuries should be off the pitch and probably to a hospital. What the gently caress kind of physio is on that team? 2. Red card for DOGSO and a the goal counts. 3. If you backheal like that, completely miss and draw blood on someones thigh, its a yellow card for dangerous play. Second yellow and you are off.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2011 23:30
|
|
|
Psybro posted:
Ice cold.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2011 01:05
|
|
|
Mickolution posted:That's the case for defenders, but not necessarily for attackers. Imagine a scenario where a striker is coming onto a ball with the intention of blasting it as hard as he could. A defender makes a clean sliding tackle from the side and clears the ball away but the attacker had already begun his kick and catches the defender as he slides, injuring him. That's never a foul. This is different, I know, because it wasn't a challenge, but I think the same principal applies with regards to having control of your foot.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2011 02:03
|
|
|
I'm assuming the full name of this column is "You Are The Ref in the evo-stik premier league because gently caress me these players are terrible and thick"
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2011 03:09
|
|
|
Question: If you're giving out a red card for an offence in the penalty area, doesn't that mean that you have to award a penalty? So how can it be a goal and a red?
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2011 04:58
|
|
|
Pigma_Micron posted:Question: If you're giving out a red card for an offence in the penalty area, doesn't that mean that you have to award a penalty? So how can it be a goal and a red? You could play advantage and still hand out a red for aggressive tackles or something. In this case though, giving both a red and a goal would be absurd. The defender is obviously not denying a clear goalscoring opportunity when a goal is scored, people.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2011 07:54
|
|
|
He denied an obvious goal-scoring opportunity, and then scored an own goal. Two seperate actions.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2011 08:07
|
|
|
It's not DOGSO, a goal was scored. This comes up about once a month.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2011 08:15
|
|
|
1. Don't let him play. Report the physio to whatever Mickey Mouse regulatory body physiotherapists have, because there's no loving way someone injured enough to wear a neck brace is safe to play sport. Demonstrate this by putting the player in a headlock and making him cry. 2. Be sporting about it. No DOGSO, as a goal was scored. The defender didn't do it deliberately and it didn't affect play, so it's a goal and the defender goes free. 3. Second yellow for the striker and send him off. Also contact the local authority to have him sterilised for incredible stupidity, so that there's no risk of his producing progeny.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2011 09:44
|
|
|
Popehoist posted:He denied an obvious goal-scoring opportunity, and then scored an own goal. Two seperate actions. Yes, the key word is 'opportunity'. The opposition player lost his, regardless of the defender's subsequent choice.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2011 11:58
|
|
|
Psybro posted:Yes, the key word is 'opportunity'. The opposition player lost his, regardless of the defender's subsequent choice. A player is clean through goal, gets tackled illegally by the keeper, only for the ball to run free and be tapped in by another player. According to your logic, the ref should award the goal and send off the keeper. Have you ever seen a football game?
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2011 14:09
|
|
|
Would like to point out that the exact wording here is "denies a goal or obvious goal-scoring opportunity by deliberate handball", italics mine.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2011 14:17
|
|
|
1. Tell the opponent to gently caress off. Book him if he keeps whining. Allow the player to play on the grounds that the medical staff have deemed it safe. 2. Goal and book the defender for unsporting behaviour. Whether it was instinctive or not, he deliberately tried to stop the ball. 3. Book him for dangerous play. Send the dopey oval office off.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2011 18:38
|
|
|
Green Eyed Loco-Man posted:A player is clean through goal, gets tackled illegally by the keeper, only for the ball to run free and be tapped in by another player. According to your logic, the ref should award the goal and send off the keeper. Have you ever seen a football game? In that situation, advantage has been allowed to the scoring team. Here, there is no advantage to them, only the action of the defender himself, who has already transgressed the rules with a red card offense. By your logic I could hack someone down in the area, boot the ball in and throw a wobbly if the ref dare send me off. Can anyone seriously claim if this scenario happened to their team, they would be completely fine with opposition player escaping an individual sanction? Seriously, you ask if I've ever seen a football game like I've missed all of those football games where somebody handled on the line in front of the ref and wasn't sent off for it? Psybro fucked around with this message at 19:37 on Aug 20, 2011 |
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2011 19:31
|
|
|
Psybro posted:By your logic I could hack someone down in the area, boot the ball in and throw a wobbly if the ref dare send me off. You shouldn't be sent off in that situation by the laws of the game (assuming by "hack" you mean something non-violent, hacking implies it's a red card offense without the denial of a goal), correct. Just because you think it's silly doesn't mean that the laws change. And were you watching the women's world cup 
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2011 20:00
|
|
|
Psybro posted:In that situation, advantage has been allowed to the scoring team. Here, there is no advantage to them, only the action of the defender himself, who has already transgressed the rules with a red card offense. Handballing is a non-violent act, it's only a red because it denies a goal (which it doesn't in the example provided). A situation similar to this actually did happen during a world cup game once. A defender kept the ball of the line with his hand and the guy next to him decided red+penalty and likely goal isn't worth it and quickly tapped the ball into his own net before the ref could whistle. Goal stood, no card. I'll see if I can track the specific game I'm referring to.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2011 20:15
|
|
|
MrL_JaKiri posted:Just because you think it's silly doesn't mean that the laws change. Aside from the fact officials characteristically ignore certain points of law, including Hackett himself in his own answers, I still think the question hinges on whether or not you're viewing the offence and the goal as two separate instances, leading to a sanction and/or a goal being allowed. I think both are defensible within the law as worded. It's then down to individual interpretation, but I think the red/goal scenario is the most likely decision by most match officials. People are drawn in by the fact it says in the question that the defender's action is instinctive, which is information unavailable to the officials and should therefore be disregarded. I didn't watch the Women's World Cup because I wanted a break from football and incorrectly thought Copa America would be enough on its own.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2011 20:16
|
|
|
Psybro posted:People are drawn in by the fact it says in the question that the defender's action is instinctive, which is information unavailable to the officials and should therefore be disregarded. I don't see anyone making that argument. It's very simple = hands didn't prevent the goal, so no red card. Take Luis Suarez' infamous "save" vs. Ghana. Imagine he had only managed to deflect it without preventing the ball from going on, do you think the referee would/should have still shown him the red? That seems like a completely absurd situation to me.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2011 20:22
|
|
|
Green Eyed Loco-Man posted:Take Luis Suarez' infamous "save" vs. Ghana. Imagine he had only managed to deflect it without preventing the ball from going on, do you think the referee would/should have still shown him the red? That seems like a completely absurd situation to me. I would say no in that situation because he was unsuccessful. In this one, the player was successful, but then changed their mind. I've thought of another one: what if, instead of catching the ball, our hero punched the ball away, volleyball-style, but unfortunately for him it rebounded straight off a late-arriving defender and in. Still a goal, no red?
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2011 21:07
|
|
|
Psybro posted:I've thought of another one: what if, instead of catching the ball, our hero punched the ball away, volleyball-style, but unfortunately for him it rebounded straight off a late-arriving defender and in. Still a goal, no red? Grasshopper, the offence is denying a goal by deliberate handball. How can you send someone off for denying a goal if a goal has not actually been denied?
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2011 23:07
|
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:Grasshopper, the offence is denying a goal by deliberate handball. How can you send someone off for denying a goal if a goal has not actually been denied? In both cases, a goal was denied, then a second action occurred resulting in a goal. By your own admission the wording of the law says 'goal or goalscoring opportunity'. The wording is vague enough to justify either decision. I come down on the side of the interpretation which discourages potential abuse.] I expect Hackett will come out and agree with you, but he doesn't know poo poo. Psybro fucked around with this message at 00:43 on Aug 21, 2011 |
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2011 00:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 08:01 |
|
|
Psybro posted:In both cases, a goal was denied, then a second action occurred resulting in a goal. By your own admission the wording of the law says 'goal or goalscoring opportunity'. The wording is vague enough to justify either decision. I come down on the side of the interpretation which discourages potential abuse.] What is this "potential abuse" you speak of? Who is being harmed by a player failing to avoid conceding a goal by committing a non-violent foul? What could possibly be the benefit of giving a red card? The only reasoning I can see is if you regard the handball completely in a vacuum and ignore the fact that it didn't end up denying a goal (or a goalscoring opportunity) in the end, but then why would you want to do that?
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2011 01:08
|
|