Newcastle United 3 - 2 Chelsea - 02/02/13 - post-match orgasm from page 58

[Shearergol]

I asked earlier in the thread, but has there ever been an example of a player being sent off for attempting an acrobatic clearance?

[cp40]

I asked earlier in the thread, but has there ever been an example of a player being sent off for attempting an acrobatic clearance?

 

dont know, but i rekon it was barley above stomach height anyway if they both stand up straight.

[Guest Howaythetoon]

The Colo/Ba thing was accidental, two committed players going for the same ball, one with his foot and one with his head. They both connected together at the same time almost so should Ba have seen red for catching Colo with his head?! Its ridiculous to even suggest its a foul. Its the equivalent of heads coming together in the penalty box from a corner.

 

Great win btw and a rather decent performance. I spent the first half sat a few rows down from Ashley and the second we stayed in our box the executive box. 1 Arsenal fan with his lass, me and two mates Geordies, a Man Utd fan with his lass, a Geordie, and two Chelsea fans. The two Chelsea fans were top class although some of the stuff they come out with about our club and KK in particular was shocking, totally ignorant media driven type nonsense. They were happy to be told straight about one or two things though to their credit.

 

These two fans, badly want Rafa out because when he was Liverpool manager he said some really bad stuff about them and them as fans and don't care much for Abramovic either who they conceded has helped ruin our game and make it almost impossible for say a NUFC to succeed unless we have our own Abramovic. They were grateful for the trophies etc. but feel they are hollow triumphs as opposed to their cup wins under Gullit/Vialli et al. They rated Hoddle as the man who transformed them and Bates. They also conceded that before Abramovic came along they were an average sized club similar to West Ham. Like I said good lads who had been following their club for over 30 years. They got their tickets from Howard Webb who they are mates with.

[toonpete1892]

Colo's foot was high but it wasn't that high or late (well not unless you use high speed cameras). Ba stooped down to head it and as many have said, he had his chance to score from it. I could understand if the pen was given but a red for a 50/50 ball? No chance.

 

It makes you think why overhead kicks are allowed. The attacking player clearly has his accelerating foot above waist height, normally they are off the ground and therefore aren't in control, and it would take a very brave player of the defending team to stick their head in the way. How many times do you see free kicks given? Most of the time the commentators wank it up, but like yesterday, it is a case of a head and a foot going for a 50/50 ball. Unless there is menace behind it or a late challenge, or against us, just play the fuck on.

[Guest fraser]

Colo's should have been an indirect free kick for dangerous play. Refs don't often give those inside the area though. Either that, or Webb couldn't see just how high his foot was.

 

Agreed. Colo wasn't deliberate, careless or reckless but he played in the catch-all 'dangerous manner' if he infringed the laws at all.

[Exiled in Texas]

Woeful finishing aside I think that's the best all round game I've seen Cisse have. Held it up well, constant running and showing for it and great link up play. Those finishes though, just put your foot through it man.

 

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.

[Guest bimpy474]

Colo's should have been an indirect free kick for dangerous play. Refs don't often give those inside the area though. Either that, or Webb couldn't see just how high his foot was.

 

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.

[Guest]

I thought the rules had changed recently so that only a backpass in the box is an indirect free-kick?

 

Though personally I think that should also be a penalty and yellow card (red-card if preventing a scoring opportunity) for the keeper but that's for another argument.

[Exiled in Texas]

 

Agree it was probably a pen to Chelsea yesterday regarding the Ba incident. However, never in a million years is that a red card. Ba didn't see the boot coming and he had already taken the header. Accidental. If your CB doesn't go in for that challenge they would get absolutely crucified for failing to do so. Accidental boot to the face, but a penalty at best.

 

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.

 

 

[Guest bimpy474]

Colo's should have been an indirect free kick for dangerous play. Refs don't often give those inside the area though. Either that, or Webb couldn't see just how high his foot was.

 

Agreed. Colo wasn't deliberate, careless or reckless but he played in the catch-all 'dangerous manner' if he infringed the laws at all.

 

Doesn't have to be deliberate, reckless or whatever for it to deemed dangerous. He caught Ba in the face after Ba headed the ball, accidentally and anywhere on the pitch bar the penalty area it is a free kick. For some reason that rule doesn't seem to apply in the area, when it should do. My ref's head says penalty, no red card, no yellow but a penalty. In practice, it goes just how Webb gave it.

[Kanj]

Aye - as it went in our favor (Colo) - adding the Krul save, Ba miss, Colo caught him etc and no penalty or indirect FK or w/e, coupled with the fact that it resulted in Ba having to be off substituted (thank God)....based on all of that, couldn't be arsed to sit around and think about a decision going against us or what the talking heads in the media or the Spanish waiter have to say about it unless some retroactive decision was to be made by the FA which as far as I'm concerned and aware, is not happening.

 

 

 

[Guest bimpy474]

I thought the rules had changed recently so that only a backpass in the box is an indirect free-kick?

 

Basically yeah, along with dissent, which ref's don't usually give (but should by the rules) as an indirect free kick.

[Neil]

Aye - as it went in our favor (Colo) - adding the Krul save, Ba miss, Colo caught him etc and no penalty or indirect FK or w/e, coupled with the fact that it resulted in Ba having to be off substituted (thank God)....based on all of that, couldn't be arsed to sit around and think about a decision going against us or what the talking heads in the media or the Spanish waiter have to say about it unless some retroactive decision was to be made by the FA which as far as I'm concerned and aware, is not happening.

 

yes

[Wullie]

Ramires was a definite red. Coloccini, red not a chance, penalty maybe, but I'm just glad there's something for them to feel aggrieved about because of the stonewall red Luiz should have got last year for pulling back, ironically, Ba.

[Guest fraser]

Colo's should have been an indirect free kick for dangerous play. Refs don't often give those inside the area though. Either that, or Webb couldn't see just how high his foot was.

 

Agreed. Colo wasn't deliberate, careless or reckless but he played in the catch-all 'dangerous manner' if he infringed the laws at all.

 

Doesn't have to be deliberate, reckless or whatever for it to deemed dangerous. He caught Ba in the face after Ba headed the ball, accidentally and anywhere on the pitch bar the penalty are it is a free kick. For some reason that rule doesn't seem to apply in the area, when in should do. My ref's head says penalty, no red card, no yellow but a penalty. In practice, it goes just how Webb gave it.

 

Read the Laws of the Game.

[Guest bimpy474]

Colo's should have been an indirect free kick for dangerous play. Refs don't often give those inside the area though. Either that, or Webb couldn't see just how high his foot was.

 

Agreed. Colo wasn't deliberate, careless or reckless but he played in the catch-all 'dangerous manner' if he infringed the laws at all.

 

Doesn't have to be deliberate, reckless or whatever for it to deemed dangerous. He caught Ba in the face after Ba headed the ball, accidentally and anywhere on the pitch bar the penalty are it is a free kick. For some reason that rule doesn't seem to apply in the area, when in should do. My ref's head says penalty, no red card, no yellow but a penalty. In practice, it goes just how Webb gave it.

 

Read the Laws of the Game.

 

Think i do as i ref mate.

 

You are getting two things mixed up, dangerous play when connecting with an opponent, and playing in a dangerous manner (raised foot say that doesn't connect with an opponent). Point one is a direct free kick (penalty if in the area). Point two is an indirect free kick, even in the area.

[Ameritoon]

The Chelsea fans were awful.

 

Genuinely can't remember hearing them once. Even when they scored there was only a momentary lack of overpowering noise from our lot.

 

Funny, because I saw something on twitter saying Chelsea fans out-sang "50,000 Geordies."

 

Didn't notice them on tv, either.

[Exiled in Texas]

Colo's should have been an indirect free kick for dangerous play. Refs don't often give those inside the area though. Either that, or Webb couldn't see just how high his foot was.

 

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.

 

from FA Laws of the game:

An indirect free kick is also awarded to the opposing team if, in the opinion of the referee, a player:

• plays in a dangerous manner

 

If there is contact - then its a foul and a DFK

If here is not contact - then its a IFK

[Guest bimpy474]

Also none of the rules on dangerous play are that strict. They are in the opinion of the ref. Seeing as refs are all different, you will always get different interpretations of any given alleged dangerous play incident.

[Guest bimpy474]

Colo's should have been an indirect free kick for dangerous play. Refs don't often give those inside the area though. Either that, or Webb couldn't see just how high his foot was.

 

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.

 

from FA Laws of the game:

An indirect free kick is also awarded to the opposing team if, in the opinion of the referee, a player:

• plays in a dangerous manner

 

If there is contact - then its a foul and a DFK

If here is not contact - then its a IFK

 

Couple of posts up mate, i cleared it up a bit and said just what you quoted .  I should have made that clearer before.

 

Problem with a lot of this is also in my other post, "in the refs opinion". What one sees another doesn't.

[Exiled in Texas]

 

Think i do as i ref mate.

 

You are getting two things mixed up, dangerous play when connecting with an opponent, and playing in a dangerous manner (raised foot say that doesn't connect with an opponent). Point one is a direct free kick (penalty if in the area). Point two is an indirect free kick, even in the area.

 

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.

[Exiled in Texas]

Problem with a lot of this is also in my other post, "in the refs opinion". What one sees another doesn't.

 

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.

[Guest bimpy474]

 

Think i do as i ref mate.

 

You are getting two things mixed up, dangerous play when connecting with an opponent, and playing in a dangerous manner (raised foot say that doesn't connect with an opponent). Point one is a direct free kick (penalty if in the area). Point two is an indirect free kick, even in the area.

 

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.

 

They use the term "endangering and opponent" now. The thing that i've found is common sense and talk to the players is completely missing when you are taught.

 

You are even instructed to not talk to player too much, well hardly at all. For fear of bias apparently. I take absolutely no notice of that whatsoever, players like to know why i call things the way i have, and i tell them.

[Guest bimpy474]

Problem with a lot of this is also in my other post, "in the refs opinion". What one sees another doesn't.

 

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.

 

Absolutely, take this morning for instance, the game i refereed, a teams striker was through and clashed with other teams GK, now i got my view obstructed and i couldn't give a penalty or not. The team attacking (their capt) was mouthing off it was a pen, i told him, sorry but i couldn't see it. He carried on and on. I went over to the GK and he said he got the ball, the striker who was getting some treatment said the same thing.

 

I called the capt over and got his striker to tell him what happened, now i shouldn't have done that i suppose but i want the kids to learn to show no dissent. And explain that a ref is going to make mistakes, and they don't change their minds. I say that because when i played as a youngster i was always having a go at the ref and it doesn't help the ref have a good game at all.

 

And like you say, all i wanted to do was get the decisions right, and get the players to enjoy playing.

[Exiled in Texas]

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.