Exiled in Texas

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)

And the answer is "Jonas doesn't go for it" From FIFA This basically means that the player must shy away from the challenge to be adversley affected.

All the decisions and guidance regarding LoTG starts off at FIFA level, which is fed down to the national association and then down and down until it gets to the grass roots referee, so I cannot say what the direction is at the Premier League level. I would imagine that they operate a a different tolerance level for things than I do down at the youth/Sunday league level (and I'm living in US so following USSF direction, but I did check the FA for anything specific and it's not defined). Like everything....it comes down to the referees decision. It's up to the referee to decide what consitutes Dangerous play (or even a foul or intentional handling), and that will come from there training sessions, review sessions and assessments. All the FIFA grade referees, and the Premier League referees will have constant reviews of decisions and situations and discuss events and how they were/should be ruled. Refereeing is never a black/white situation (pardon the pun). While the Laws of The Game are clear......it's always the referees opinion that determines what has happened (which is that hard part) - and then they use the LoTG to determine how to proceed (what restart, what caution etc).

The instruction from my referee associations about this is to consider the waist level as the dividing line. Head below the wait level, and its Dangerous play. Feet higher than the waist and its dangerous play. In this example Colo's foot was way higher than waist level. I don't think that Webb didn't give a penalty for any reason except that he didn't see Colocini's foot contact with Ba's face (and neither did the AR) as both were shielded from view by the two players.

[Pendant] dangerous play means no contact.....this was a foul [/pedant] But still a penalty if Webb had had a better visual angle on the contact.

And lastly, no matter how much the players, fans, parents hate me and want to blame for for a loss. I know that I made less mistakes in the game than they did. It wasn't me who shot wide when the goal was begging, it wasn't me who couldn't trap the ball, it wasn't me who missed the challenge and let them through on goal (think Terry for the winning goal), it wasn't me who couldn't make the pass and it wasn't me who got caught in possession. They just want to blame someone because they don't want to accept any blame personally. And parents especaily want to blame someone rather than blame their young princess.

Sounds like you're good referee. I try to remember that it's their game, not the referees. I try to referee the game that they are trying to play, when they stop trying to play the game, that's when I step in. And talking to the players can go a long way to letting them know what I saw and why I am calling what I am. They won't like everything that I call but they might (if they are smart) understand why.

For sure. The referee crew are the only three people in the stadium who don't care who wins and are impartial. You cannot be impartial when you're rooting for your team, which is why you cannot referee your team. The referees want only one thing......to get the decisions right with the view that they have.

You're right about the contact with the opponent being the difference between DFK and IFK. But the term Dangerous Play doesn't exist in LoTG.

You need to brush up on the rules Cronk, dangerous play is always a direct free kick. Despite it's name, a penalty is a direct free kick. A ref will have never given a indirect free kick for dangerous play, not unless he doesn't know the ruling. I think you are wrong here Bimpy with the term "dangerous play". Direct Free Kicks are awarded for a physical foul, Indirect Free Kicks are awarded for a technical violation of the laws where there is no foul called. Dangerous play is the term used when a player is unable to make a legitimate play for the ball because an opponent is playing in a dangerous manner and it would be unsafe to make that play. This is usually where a player has the foot up high and he opponent cannot safely challenge for the ball and pulls out of the challenge. If there is contact - then its a foul and a DFK If here is not contact - then its a IFK

Should have been a penalty but Webb probably didn't see the contact as he was further up field and was shielded from view. Even if Webb had seen it, It should not have been a Red card (max yellow). It wasn't violent conduct (red) just a reckless play (yellow) and it didn't deny a goal scoring opportunity because Ba's header was already away.

Great move by Cisse for the 3rd goal. Received the ball in the center of the field, great move to trap the ball, keep it close and then turn upfield for the pass to Gouffran.

Watching Goufran and Sissoko's celebration to Jonas's goal, and then Sissoko's celebration with the bench to the winner I'd say there was no problem with the overseas lads.

That's one of the worst things i've ever seen. This is better http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v207/pmrye/Viveletoon.jpg

Rijkaard - seeing as he is now available

Not sure if it is ambition.....or desperation.

Welcome back Bimpy - we missed you (and the tales of your missus).