Exiled in Texas

If the defender doesn't have control of the ball then it should be a free kick, simple as. The ball must be in playing distance. You don't have to be actively playing the ball (you can just let it run) but you must be able to play it, else it's impeding that opposition

There may be a little something to this, but seeing as we don't seem to turn over players (Buy, Sell. Buy, Sell) i wouldn't say that this is particularly true. If it was we would turn over the players much more rapidly in a revolving door policy. Of course I may look very silly if we sell Cabaye, Ben Arfa and Cisse this window, but we don't seem to do that sort of transaction. Value for money seems to be the plan.....making sure that we are not over paying for players. I approve of that strategy, even if it is a painfull process at times. The challenge is knowing when to give a little, but also knowing that each time you give a little it weakens the next bargaining position.

Ref-Cam makes its debut in the MLS I think this would be excellent, and the chance to see (and better yet hear) the game from the referee view would be a great addition to a broadcast. It would help people understand the referee's view of the game, but it would also be detrimental to a referee if the ref cam captured a view of an incident and the referee missed it/didn't react to it.

Pardew is the perfect example of "Not sure if Gusta"

Sports Direct already own Lillywhites in Piccadilly Circus, and that place is always packed. I would imagine that his Oxford St location will be stocked and managed similar to Lillywhites.

Big Girly Mama

Too funny!!

You're saying that comfortable in the knowledge that we got straight back up and are ok now, who wouldn't go back and throw in an FA Cup as well? The fact is not every relegation goes as smoothly as ours last time. We'd be relying on players like Cabaye doing what the likes of Nolan did last time around, and can we realistically expect players like that to stay? The instrumental players we had last time have all either left us since, will possibly be leaving us this summer (Colo) and have simply got worse since (Jonas), so if it happens again it'll be completely different. I think a lot of fans are underestimating just how bad a relegation can be because of our season in the Championship a few years ago. I asked the question, in hind-sight, because it provided one view into the future (i.e. that we came back up) because everyone seemed to think that once a team is relegated then they never get back up. We though that back in 2009 and that seems to be the thought now. But we did come straight back up, so there is/was a scenario that you can win the cup, get relegated but come straight back up. However, with each scenario, there is the alternate reality.....we stay up in 2009 preserving our PL status (so no cup win) but get relegated in 2010. So was the decision to stay up a worthwhile decision (This is an open question not aimed directly at you Decky).

Was relegation devastating last time?

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.