You Are The Ref - You Are The Ref - Coax The Eagle To Safet

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Sports Argument Stadium > The Ray Parlour > You Are The Ref - You Are The Ref - Coax The Eagle To Safet

MrL_JaKiri: Sep 23, 2003; A bracing glass of carrot juice!

Tsaedje posted:

I'd give a yellow for unsportsmanlike behaviour. It's no different than kicking the ball out of the keeper's hand when he's about to drop kick it.

No it isn't (also that latter thing was not illegal either for ages, there was a phoenix from the flames where george best scored like that but it was disallowed for no reason)

# ¿ Jan 14, 2011 19:08

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 19, 2024 16:07

MrL_JaKiri: Sep 23, 2003; A bracing glass of carrot juice!

1. Not a goal. You can't completely stop in a run up to a penalty.
2. [Will think about later]
3. Tell them to get playing, give the captain a yellow card for dissent if he refuses.

# ¿ Jan 19, 2011 19:25

MrL_JaKiri: Sep 23, 2003; A bracing glass of carrot juice!

SteadfastMeat posted:

1) Book the defender, free kick. If the defender is Gary Neville punch him in the head again

I reckon he gets sent off for two bookable offenses (coming back onto the pitch without permission and tripping the opponent)

SteadfastMeat posted:

2) Yeah? As long as they're covering opposite ends of the pitch it's okay, right?

Except then the ref will have to run the opposite corner to opposite corner as well, and that risks a greater gently caress up for the desire not to be muddy. Have them run the same bits.

SteadfastMeat posted:

3) It's a backpass, that's a penalty right?

Indirect free kick

# ¿ Jan 21, 2011 03:47

MrL_JaKiri: Sep 23, 2003; A bracing glass of carrot juice!

Alas no Dowie

You can have Phil Brown though

or Steve Bruce!

or Ricky Sbragia for some reason

# ¿ Jan 22, 2011 11:33

MrL_JaKiri: Sep 23, 2003; A bracing glass of carrot juice!

FullLeatherJacket posted:

Note that Hackett considers #3 a red card, but not the one where he's 20 yards back on a open net.

He dumb.

Having read lots of them back to back last night, there are some decisions (like the taking your shirt off one) that he just flip flops over, giving different answers every time it comes up.

Hackett more like Hack..ett. Erm.

# ¿ Jan 22, 2011 18:39

MrL_JaKiri: Sep 23, 2003; A bracing glass of carrot juice!

You can red card substitutes.

# ¿ Feb 4, 2011 11:45

MrL_JaKiri: Sep 23, 2003; A bracing glass of carrot juice!

As trin said, leaving the field in #2 is completely a non-issue. The point of the rule is to stop twattish behaviour, not to disrupt someone just playing football.

# ¿ Feb 11, 2011 18:11

MrL_JaKiri: Sep 23, 2003; A bracing glass of carrot juice!

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

MrL_JaKiri: Sep 23, 2003; A bracing glass of carrot juice!

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

MrL_JaKiri: Sep 23, 2003; A bracing glass of carrot juice!

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

MrL_JaKiri: Sep 23, 2003; A bracing glass of carrot juice!

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: Sep 23, 2003; A bracing glass of carrot juice!

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

MrL_JaKiri: Sep 23, 2003; A bracing glass of carrot juice!

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

MrL_JaKiri: Sep 23, 2003; A bracing glass of carrot juice!

pik_d posted:

Oh also tell the ball boy to stop being a oval office and let the guy use the towel.

They're not allowed to, it's why Delap has a retarded towel-shirt.

Dollas posted:

2. This is a total coincidence, the thrower has turrets

What calibre?

# ¿ Apr 8, 2011 04:24

MrL_JaKiri: Sep 23, 2003; A bracing glass of carrot juice!

It's not DOGSO, a goal was scored. This comes up about once a month.

# ¿ Aug 20, 2011 08:15

MrL_JaKiri: Sep 23, 2003; A bracing glass of carrot juice!

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 :v:

# ¿ Aug 20, 2011 20:00

MrL_JaKiri: Sep 23, 2003; A bracing glass of carrot juice!

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'.

Except it doesn't break it down into separate instances the way you're claiming it is. To use another example from YATR, consider a striker who is fouled just as he's about to tap the ball in and the other striker lets it run out of play to make sure it's a red card. That's not a DOGSO because there was still a OGSO in the run of play.

# ¿ Aug 21, 2011 01:17

MrL_JaKiri: Sep 23, 2003; A bracing glass of carrot juice!

1. Nothing, live with it.
2. It's fine.
3. IFK from where the encroachment happened. The rules are there to stop easy rebounds as much as anything else so why wouldn't that not be allowed :downs:

# ¿ Oct 14, 2011 08:37

MrL_JaKiri: Sep 23, 2003; A bracing glass of carrot juice!

foobardog posted:

e: I'm actually not so sure if the penalty should be retaken or not in 3. If the penalty kick resulted in a goal with an attacking player breaking the rules, it is a retake. But perhaps since the penalty kick failed to be a goal, went into play and then became a goal, it should be an indirect free kick since the penalty was not a goal?

Yes. If an attacker is encroaching on a penalty and it is missed then it isn't retaken, whether it is touched by the encroaching player or not. You've already had your chance.

# ¿ Oct 14, 2011 20:32

MrL_JaKiri: Sep 23, 2003; A bracing glass of carrot juice!

Giovanni_Sinclair posted:

2)Keeper has the ball so it's a goal kick

I see

# ¿ Nov 20, 2011 10:32

MrL_JaKiri: Sep 23, 2003; A bracing glass of carrot juice!

Scikar posted:

But it turns out that's wrong, and it's been on YATR before.

If anything that's a guarantee he'll call it the other way this time. He's not the most consistent.

# ¿ Nov 26, 2011 14:39

MrL_JaKiri: Sep 23, 2003; A bracing glass of carrot juice!

Aromatic Stretch posted:

I think 3 is a goal, I remember a ball deflecting off a balloon and going into the net being a goal once before

Sunderland Liverpool, and that was the wrong decision

# ¿ Apr 12, 2012 23:10

MrL_JaKiri: Sep 23, 2003; A bracing glass of carrot juice!

HinderedUseless posted:

for 1) doesn't the PL have a rule where only the captain can address the ref?

# ¿ Apr 24, 2012 01:02

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 19, 2024 16:07

MrL_JaKiri: Sep 23, 2003; A bracing glass of carrot juice!

I think he assumed it came from American football because

Lamont Cranston posted:

The offense one-times it on net from the corner kick

is not something that people say about football and I had no idea what it meant (and even with the clarifying post above I can only assume you mean a volley)

# ¿ May 5, 2012 20:23

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Sports Argument Stadium > The Ray Parlour > You Are The Ref - You Are The Ref - Coax The Eagle To Safet