Fatwax

This came up in one of those 'You Are the Ref' features in a paper only last week. Keith Hackett was quite definite. If you play advantage after a foul, and then a second foul is committed, the ref doesn't have to go back to the first foul. Yes I know. There's a difference between losing advantage and being fouled. From what I saw, I didn't see the fall in the box as a foul more Heskey falling over far too easily. I saw that as a loss of advantage, not a foul.

I'd have to see it again but to my memory even though it wasn't in the box it was still last man so Bassong would have got the red card. Heskey was fouled outside of the box in the lead up as flagged by the assistant referee, but the play was allowed to continue due to the advantage. When Heskey fell the advantage was lost so play should have been brought back to the original foul. The reason this didn't happen was because the ref saw the fall from Heskey as a continuation of the original foul and not a loss of advantage, therefore a penalty was given. There you go Mowen.

How wasn't ours a penalty? Kirkland missed the ball and punched Carroll in the head! If that's not classed as a penalty then I'm stumped as to what is. cos it didn't seem anywhere near enough to impede the player and the keeper was going for the ball. other way round and you wouldn't say it was a pen. It doesn't matter if he was getting the ball or not. Keepers get away with stuff like all the time. Think that was the only good thing Dean did all match. Keepers get a free-kick for the slightest touch from a corner or whatever, and then he comes charging out, misses the ball, and punches a player in the head and expects to get away with it. didn't punch him.more of a swipe, and had the ball fell to carroll i very much doubt he'd have gone down. Now you're just being picky. A direct free kick is awarded to the opposing team if a player strikes or attempts to strike an opposing player. Kirkland didn't deliberately set out to hit him, but he did and was punished for it according to the letter of the law. thats like saying if any contact is made before contact with the ball then it's a free kick Isn't that pretty much the exact definition of a free-kick? watch a football match...thats covers almost every fair tackle No it's not. A fair tackle is when the balls taken first. A free-kick is when a defender goes through the player and then gets to the ball. so no nudges from the side,no using an arm or hand to fend someone off ? None of them are classed as 'a tackle'. When you attempt to tackle the ball but make contact with the player before the ball that's a direct free kick. how many times does the arm or hand make first contact with the opposing player during a tackle/tussle and it isn't a free kick,or the hips or knees ? i always think if a player uses his arms etc it's a free kick if it impedes the opposition...if not call it's basketball for feet. Yes but in this case the arm was being used to go for the ball as opposed to a foot. The hand missed the ball, hit the players face and impeded him. Penalty just as much as it would be if it were a foot missing the ball taking the player and impeding him. i see it more as the player makes an attempt for the ball,misses and touches the opposing player but nowhere near enough to impede him....however there was contact. i'd say no pen unless i see it again and think it impeded him. which i haven't saw on three watches. The penalty wasn't for impeding him, it was for striking him. It sounds picky, but there it is. was it ? then he should've been sent off for striking an opponent. (don't watch any corners ...your head will explode) Ahhh well actually it wasn't a red card as it wasn't deliberate and wasn't considered serious foul play or violent conduct. It was however classed as unsporting behaviour, hence the yellow card.

How wasn't ours a penalty? Kirkland missed the ball and punched Carroll in the head! If that's not classed as a penalty then I'm stumped as to what is. cos it didn't seem anywhere near enough to impede the player and the keeper was going for the ball. other way round and you wouldn't say it was a pen. It doesn't matter if he was getting the ball or not. Keepers get away with stuff like all the time. Think that was the only good thing Dean did all match. Keepers get a free-kick for the slightest touch from a corner or whatever, and then he comes charging out, misses the ball, and punches a player in the head and expects to get away with it. didn't punch him.more of a swipe, and had the ball fell to carroll i very much doubt he'd have gone down. Now you're just being picky. A direct free kick is awarded to the opposing team if a player strikes or attempts to strike an opposing player. Kirkland didn't deliberately set out to hit him, but he did and was punished for it according to the letter of the law. thats like saying if any contact is made before contact with the ball then it's a free kick Isn't that pretty much the exact definition of a free-kick? watch a football match...thats covers almost every fair tackle No it's not. A fair tackle is when the balls taken first. A free-kick is when a defender goes through the player and then gets to the ball. so no nudges from the side,no using an arm or hand to fend someone off ? None of them are classed as 'a tackle'. When you attempt to tackle the ball but make contact with the player before the ball that's a direct free kick. how many times does the arm or hand make first contact with the opposing player during a tackle/tussle and it isn't a free kick,or the hips or knees ? i always think if a player uses his arms etc it's a free kick if it impedes the opposition...if not call it's basketball for feet. Yes but in this case the arm was being used to go for the ball as opposed to a foot. The hand missed the ball, hit the players face and impeded him. Penalty just as much as it would be if it were a foot missing the ball taking the player and impeding him. i see it more as the player makes an attempt for the ball,misses and touches the opposing player but nowhere near enough to impede him....however there was contact. i'd say no pen unless i see it again and think it impeded him. which i haven't saw on three watches. The penalty wasn't for impeding him, it was for striking him. It sounds picky, but there it is.

How wasn't ours a penalty? Kirkland missed the ball and punched Carroll in the head! If that's not classed as a penalty then I'm stumped as to what is. cos it didn't seem anywhere near enough to impede the player and the keeper was going for the ball. other way round and you wouldn't say it was a pen. It doesn't matter if he was getting the ball or not. Keepers get away with stuff like all the time. Think that was the only good thing Dean did all match. Keepers get a free-kick for the slightest touch from a corner or whatever, and then he comes charging out, misses the ball, and punches a player in the head and expects to get away with it. didn't punch him.more of a swipe, and had the ball fell to carroll i very much doubt he'd have gone down. Now you're just being picky. A direct free kick is awarded to the opposing team if a player strikes or attempts to strike an opposing player. Kirkland didn't deliberately set out to hit him, but he did and was punished for it according to the letter of the law. thats like saying if any contact is made before contact with the ball then it's a free kick Isn't that pretty much the exact definition of a free-kick? watch a football match...thats covers almost every fair tackle No it's not. A fair tackle is when the balls taken first. A free-kick is when a defender goes through the player and then gets to the ball. so no nudges from the side,no using an arm or hand to fend someone off ? None of them are classed as 'a tackle'. When you attempt to tackle the ball but make contact with the player before the ball that's a direct free kick. how many times does the arm or hand make first contact with the opposing player during a tackle/tussle and it isn't a free kick,or the hips or knees ? i always think if a player uses his arms etc it's a free kick if it impedes the opposition...if not call it's basketball for feet. The only time you'd get a free kick for use of the arms, hands etc. on another player is if you're impeding them - and even then it's only an indirect freekick. The arms would only come into play when actually tackling another player in order to push through on a tackle or to maintain balance.. a foul with the arms and a foul with the legs are two different subjects and talking about use of the hips and all that is just being picky. It's not common practice to go into a slide tackle hips-first.

How wasn't ours a penalty? Kirkland missed the ball and punched Carroll in the head! If that's not classed as a penalty then I'm stumped as to what is. cos it didn't seem anywhere near enough to impede the player and the keeper was going for the ball. other way round and you wouldn't say it was a pen. It doesn't matter if he was getting the ball or not. Keepers get away with stuff like all the time. Think that was the only good thing Dean did all match. Keepers get a free-kick for the slightest touch from a corner or whatever, and then he comes charging out, misses the ball, and punches a player in the head and expects to get away with it. didn't punch him.more of a swipe, and had the ball fell to carroll i very much doubt he'd have gone down. Now you're just being picky. A direct free kick is awarded to the opposing team if a player strikes or attempts to strike an opposing player. Kirkland didn't deliberately set out to hit him, but he did and was punished for it according to the letter of the law. thats like saying if any contact is made before contact with the ball then it's a free kick Isn't that pretty much the exact definition of a free-kick? watch a football match...thats covers almost every fair tackle No it's not. A fair tackle is when the balls taken first. A free-kick is when a defender goes through the player and then gets to the ball. so no nudges from the side,no using an arm or hand to fend someone off ? None of them are classed as 'a tackle'. When you attempt to tackle the ball but make contact with the player before the ball that's a direct free kick.

How wasn't ours a penalty? Kirkland missed the ball and punched Carroll in the head! If that's not classed as a penalty then I'm stumped as to what is. cos it didn't seem anywhere near enough to impede the player and the keeper was going for the ball. other way round and you wouldn't say it was a pen. It doesn't matter if he was getting the ball or not. Keepers get away with stuff like all the time. Think that was the only good thing Dean did all match. Keepers get a free-kick for the slightest touch from a corner or whatever, and then he comes charging out, misses the ball, and punches a player in the head and expects to get away with it. didn't punch him.more of a swipe, and had the ball fell to carroll i very much doubt he'd have gone down. Now you're just being picky. A direct free kick is awarded to the opposing team if a player strikes or attempts to strike an opposing player. Kirkland didn't deliberately set out to hit him, but he did and was punished for it according to the letter of the law. thats like saying if any contact is made before contact with the ball then it's a free kick No it's not. It was a strike, whether deliberate or not, because of the use of the hand. Just because a keeper is allowed to handle a ball doesn't mean he's allowed to go through somebody's face to get it.

How wasn't ours a penalty? Kirkland missed the ball and punched Carroll in the head! If that's not classed as a penalty then I'm stumped as to what is. cos it didn't seem anywhere near enough to impede the player and the keeper was going for the ball. other way round and you wouldn't say it was a pen. It doesn't matter if he was getting the ball or not. Keepers get away with stuff like all the time. Think that was the only good thing Dean did all match. Keepers get a free-kick for the slightest touch from a corner or whatever, and then he comes charging out, misses the ball, and punches a player in the head and expects to get away with it. didn't punch him.more of a swipe, and had the ball fell to carroll i very much doubt he'd have gone down. Now you're just being picky. A direct free kick is awarded to the opposing team if a player strikes or attempts to strike an opposing player. Kirkland didn't deliberately set out to hit him, but he did and was punished for it according to the letter of the law.

How wasn't ours a penalty? Kirkland missed the ball and punched Carroll in the head! If that's not classed as a penalty then I'm stumped as to what is. cos it didn't seem anywhere near enough to impede the player and the keeper was going for the ball. other way round and you wouldn't say it was a pen. He got the man not the ball and if you strike a player in the head it's a foul.

And as for onion bag, you're the only onion bag around here Lawerson. You absolute cunt of a man.

Is MOTD fucking kidding me? Nothing but Taylors' record against us mentioned? Fucking joke. Absolute fucking joke.

No doubt you'd have put on your favourite defender Cacapa, because he keeps a cool head under pressure and it's never his fault when he drops a bollock.

Out of interest is anyone here a qualified referee? Genuine question, like. I am and some of the decisions you see on TV at that level are absolutely shocking but then again at the time with no replays or specific angles to re-view the foul it's really hard to get every decision right. I've refereed infront of crowds of a few hundred before and that was really high pressure being in the centre for that so I can't imagine how much there'd be for a prem match. I can kinda understand when bad decisions happen because I've been in that position at a match and at the end of the day we're all human and therefore open to mistakes. After saying all this though, some of the decisions today were utterly baffling and can't be defended.

Gonzalez..

I deserve that. Egg on my face.

tribalfootball says that we're willing to off N'Zogbia for Sakho.

I read the other day that Zaki is playing. Straight from the potato heads' mouth.

He's a nutter and crocked. Brilliant striker but he's too much fuss. I'd have preferred it if we hadn't have got Barton for the same reasons. People like that don't change. Saying that though, I think we'd all be tempted to go at Riise with a golfclub.

I've read on a few French forums that we've actually put a bid in. Whether we have or not, we'll soon see.

Aye, I remember that. Said he'd carry him back

That's wrong, surely? We're in the 2008/09 season..

We looked great against Stoke in the first half until 3 players were shunted out of position and by the end of the game we had 6 defenders playing. He also played in the middle against Coventry and wasn't as effective.

According to my uncle a paper in Moscow is running the story that we're interested in Vagner Love.. there was a similar story to this in June. He lives there by the way.

I don't reckon that Viduka will start.. I don't think he's capable of starting. If Duke does start I wonder if we'll see Xisco magically appear on the bench.. Kinnear seems to like 2 strikers on the bench.

Probably playing just behind Owen, so a 5 man midfield.