Exiled in Texas

Most do, and that would make it a foul (and DFK) not impeding/obstruction (and a IFK)

Let me phrase it another way....Would you rather: Have stayed in the Premier League in 2009? or Take the relegation in 2009 but have won the FA Cup right before we dropped?

Obstruction (or technically impeding) means that there is no foul because there is not physical contact. The lack of physical contact makes this a technical infringement which is an IFK. Had there been physical contact then it would have been a DFK and that in that location it would have been a penalty. I must be missing something. How can you be obstructed if there is no physical contact? If I'm going somewhere and you want to stop me, you're going to have to do it physically. I'm assuming of course that you would not stoop so low as to threaten to sully my reputation, thereby causing me to lose control of the ball, for that would be frowned upon even in the colonies, egad. It means moving into the path of the opponent to force them to slow down or change direction to get around you. Players are entitled to their own position on the field, but they cannot move into the path of the opponent with the sole intent of blocking their path (implied here is that the ball is not within playing distance) But the key difference between the referee giving a DFK or an IFK is whether there is contact (a foul).

Obstruction (or technically impeding) means that there is no foul because there is not physical contact. The lack of physical contact makes this a technical infringement which is an IFK. Had there been physical contact then it would have been a DFK and that in that location it would have been a penalty.

Yep - huge controversy. TV had to go back and see the referee warning the GK on several occasions before they put away the pitchforks and torches. Hence why referees will be very lenient on this one. Must be extremely blatent and be occuring frequently before it would get called.

It's happened a few times over the years... All depends how quick the ref blows the whistle... As he can't give goal if he has blew for penalty... A referee would love to play the right advantage here and let the goal be scored. All depends on the "whistle to mouth" time. As LFEE says, once the referee blows to stop play, he cannot play advantage anymore.

Corners must be taken from the side that the ball went out on, but Goal Kicks can be taken from either side. The rule states that they can be taken from anywhere in the goal area - the requirement to take it from the side that it went out on is a myth.

You're confusing the offense of "handling" with Denying an Obvious Goal Scoring Oppportunity by Handling. A simple occurence of Handling the ball is only a direct free kick. Does not have to be a Yellow card, unless there is some other reason to give a misconduct. Usually the yellow would be given for Unsporting Behaviour but there is no requirement to give a yellow card for handling. The more serious offense is Denying an Obvious Goal Scoring Oppportunity by Handling (DOGSO-H in the referee vernacular) and this states that the player must be dismissed if they deny a goal or an obvious goal scoring opportunity by deliberately handling the ball. Here the referee must be very sure that the opposing player would have scored if they player had not handled the ball. If they believe that, then the player must be dismissed.

Nah, it was scrapped ages ago. Now the same rules apply as for example throw ins or free kicks, ie no set time limit. Incorrect - The 6 second rule still exists in the LOTG. Rarely, if ever called, because of the fact that it results in an IFK from within the penalty area....and referee's don't want to call those.

Thomas Mueller wearing his socks so low. Pull them up, damnit!!

It's not really FFP that's the issue here. That's aimed at clubs who want to jump a strata and become a mega-club (Chelsea, Citeh or PSG). For Sunderland (and even or us a few years ago) the issue is more about financial viability. Can they continue with the existing cost/revenue balance, and will the owner keep propping them up.

Back to Nani - Interesting comments from Graham Poll about the referee. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2289282/This-terrible-trend-demonising-referees-like-Cuneyt-Cakir-stop-Graham-Poll.html

A good predictor might be Arsenal...they look to be on the outside looking in now. Are they really a top 4 team now? What's going to happen there if they finish 5/6 this season and next.

It's not necessarily all about a complete collapse at Man Utd, but even a slight dip in form could let other teams in and push them out. Think Chelsea last year....who would have thought that they would have dropped out of the top 4 (albeit only for one season). What happens when you get a resurgence of Arsenal and Liverpool, and add them to Spurs, Chelsea and Citeh - now there are six teams chasing the top 4 spots. As soon as Fergie is gone, then the replacement manager will have to deliver the same level of performance or they will be immediately hounded out (A la Chelsea or Liverpool)

Commentators that say "This referee has clearly never played the game at this level, but I have.....blah blah blah". Quite probably correct.....also probably correct is that the commentator has never refereed at this level, so actually you are only qualified to talk about playing the game, and not refereeing the game.

The assumption that a referee should not make a decision that will "change the game". Blah, Blah...referee should not have sent off Nani because it changed the game...blah blah. You can argue that it didn;t deserve a Red card based on the actual challenge.....but expecting that the the player NOT be sent off because it would change the game is rediculous.

The plane was a soviet era propeller Antonov-24. Built between 1959 and 1979.

Do Kieron Dyer and the goldfishbowl miss!! hahahaha

Fernandes is a part owner of QPR...how will be just walk away? Unless he can get someone else to buy his shares then he is stuck with them. 'Arry can walk away because he is an employee and can just cut his ties to the club. But an owner would have to find someone to to buy his shares in the club.

Would love to have the chance to listen to a top level referee like Webb. Shame I'm across the pond.

sorry - I have wandered off track. Screw Chelsea - we won!!!!!!

Strangely....In the penalty area, take a shot, then get cleaned out with a late challenge.....most players will have a quick gripe and then get up and play on. In the field, make a cross/pass, then get cleaned out with a late challenge.....and players will get up swinging. Late tackles seems to be a much bigger problem in the field rather than the penalty area where players expect a greater amount of physical contact. Despite there being no basis for it in the Laws of The Game.....there is definitely a different tollerance level inside the penalty area than outside due to the much greater likleyhood of the decision resulting in a goal.

Because.....in the opinion of the referee.....there was no foul.

Why is it so funny to Andy Carroll?

I firmly believe that the reason for the No-Call was that Webb (and the AR) were unsighted, and didn't see the contact. they only saw the aftermath after play had stopped. So now they know that "something" happened but they didn't see exactly what. And therefore they cannot really determine what to do next, other than patch up Ba and take the goal kick. Now, if Webb had see the contact....what were his options....this is the decision process that must take place. First - decide if if was a foul (did Colocini kick BA in the face), or was it incidental contact (foot and head came together and both were legal challenges for the ball without either being in an unreasonable place. If it's a foul then it has to be a Penalty (regardless of whether the header was taken or not becuase the ball was still in play when the foul was committed). If incidental contact, then move on with the GK - no foul so no card. If its a foul, then the next question is whether to card/or not. The referee must decide if the foul was "Careless, Reckless or with Excessive Force". Careless fouls show a lack of attention or consideration. They are not sanctioned with a caution. Reckless fouls mean the player has acted with a complete disregard of the danger or consequences to the opponent. They must be cautioned. Excessive force means that the player has far exceeded the necessary use of force. They must be sent off. Based on this - it is probably a yellow card for reckless (didn't mean to kick him in the face but didn't try not to either) , rather than red for Excessive Force (couldn't have gently kicked him in the face and been legal challenge) Lastly, did the challenge deny a Goal Scoring Opportunity which a send off offense? No, the challenge came after the header/shot on goal so the opportunity was not denied. So the options available to Webb: 1 - No foul 2 - Foul - Penalty 3 - Foul - Penalty and Caution for Unsporting Behaviour (Reckless foul) 4 - Foul - Penalty and Sent Off - (Foul with Excessive force)