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

[Exiled in Texas]

Its all very well referees associations pontificating about the rules and regulations and setting a rule of thumb as waist height for dangerous play, but is that across the board, i.e. all ref associations or just yours.  Also, how many times do we see referees disallow a glorious goal where the forward has executed an overhead kick or a bicycle kick whilst the defender tries to clear it with his head.  Rarely, if at all is the answer.  It's a mans game not a non-contact game of five a side. 

 

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).

[Shays Given Tim Flowers]

Irrespective of what the letter of the law says common sense prevailed on Saturday with Colo. Also, fuck Chelsea.

[Guest bimpy474]

Its all very well referees associations pontificating about the rules and regulations and setting a rule of thumb as waist height for dangerous play, but is that across the board, i.e. all ref associations or just yours.  Also, how many times do we see referees disallow a glorious goal where the forward has executed an overhead kick or a bicycle kick whilst the defender tries to clear it with his head.  Rarely, if at all is the answer.  It's a mans game not a non-contact game of five a side. 

 

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).

 

That's the bit that lets us down a bit, the FA's refusal to fast track ex pros. We have ref's who have never played and i'm 100% convinced that A ref who has played would be a better ref for it.

I think i read the game and get decisions better because i've played since i was 5 and still do.

[Exiled in Texas]

I pulled this from the game. (yes I'm aware I'm a sad c***)

 

But is this not exactly the same as Colo, except Jonas doesn't go for it?

http://img38.imageshack.us/img38/1628/screenshot20130204at163.png

 

And the answer is "Jonas doesn't go for it"

 

From FIFA

Playing in a dangerous manner is defined as any action that, while trying to play the ball, threatens injury to someone (including the player themselves).

 

It is committed with an opponent nearby and prevents the opponent from playing the ball through fear of injury.

 

The action only becomes an offense when the opponent is adversley affected.

 

This basically means that the player must shy away from the challenge to be adversley affected.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Isn't that exactly what Jonas is doing?

[Mole_Toonfan]

Chelsea fans can bitch all they want i really couldn't care less a the end of the day they lost....

 

http://i.imgur.com/XvBuFk9.gif

[RR15]

Marco Gabbiadini rattled on total sport

[KDT]

Marco Gabbiadini rattled on total sport

 

He's going on like a stereotypical RTG poster.

[James]

Penalty?

 

No because Ba had got a shot in completely unimpeded, and allowing a second effort would not have been fair.

 

Red card?

 

No because it was an intended block and Ba moved towards the foot.

 

Solution?

 

Yellow card. Acknowledge that it was reckless but play the advantage

[Exiled in Texas]

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)

[Exiled in Texas]

Not so sure tbh. I played in Sunday League recently and The ball bounced to me in the area I managed to get a foot to it to direct it goal wards, immediately after this the keeper cleaned me out. In the end the ball was cleared off the line. Foul/penalty/red card? I got none of those

 

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

[Guest bimpy474]

Penalty?

 

No because Ba had got a shot in completely unimpeded, and allowing a second effort would not have been fair.

 

Red card?

 

No because it was an intended block and Ba moved towards the foot.

 

Solution?

 

Yellow card. Acknowledge that it was reckless but play the advantage

 

There was no advantage, Colo kicked him after Ba headed it, he didn't prevent him or part prevent his header, therefore there was no advantage to give.

 

It's a question of dangerous play, which it was, but it was completely accidental. The main issue is whether it's a pen, sending off, yellow etc.

 

For me it's a pen, and not that's it. No yellow as it was accidental.

[Guest bimpy474]

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)

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)

 

Not so sure tbh. I played in Sunday League recently and The ball bounced to me in the area I managed to get a foot to it to direct it goal wards, immediately after this the keeper cleaned me out. In the end the ball was cleared off the line. Foul/penalty/red card? I got none of those

 

You should have been given a penalty, but for some reason they are never given in the area when a player has a shot, and i say this as a ref who has done the same thing. It oddity that is hard to explain.

[Guest bimpy474]

Not so sure tbh. I played in Sunday League recently and The ball bounced to me in the area I managed to get a foot to it to direct it goal wards, immediately after this the keeper cleaned me out. In the end the ball was cleared off the line. Foul/penalty/red card? I got none of those

 

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

 

Exactly, it's overlooked a bit, all that's discussed is in the opinion of the ref, which will give a different result most of the time.

[Exiled in Texas]

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.

[Kanj]

I really enjoyed this thread when it was all about the wankfest that was this match.

[Exiled in Texas]

sorry - I have wandered off track.

 

Screw Chelsea - we won!!!!!!

[Guest bimpy474]

I really enjoyed this thread when it was all about the wankfest that was this match.

 

Sorry mate, just run by us the rules for the match thread against Tottenham just incase anything out of the ordinary happens.

 

And i feel i must apologise again for spoiling your internet experience. 

[Neil]

I've got to say, since the Reading game - and that was a pretty damn low point - things could hardly have gone any better. Even something like Remy, someone Redknapp "poached" from under your noses, now apparently being out for the rest of the season.

[Mattoon]

Forgot what a bunch of deplorable pissflaps their supporters were until I read their match thred. Ultimately the argument about the tackle is inconsequential, it was accidental and any punishment would have been harsh. Could it/would it have changed the game? Possibly, but it didn't, there was no card, no penalty and we were good for our win.

 

Ashamed to admit, I read the sun today, for the first time in over a year, surprisingly a good read, didn't dwell on any "contentious" decisions and rightly praised us for our win, took nothing away from our play and served to rightly praise Sissoko for his motm performance, leading with the headline £42.8 million less than Torres, now surely he should be worth twice as much!

 

I rarely blame the ref for decisions as you win some and you lose some.

[Guest bimpy474]

Spot on Matt, decisions aside we were the better team and apart from their two cracking goals they never reallty threatened (Ba chance ok).

 

We played better football and counter attacked brilliantly.

 

[Mole_Toonfan]

I mentioned this before but i took such enjoyment seeing how high our fullbacks were up the pitch.

 

For quite a few reasons actually, firstly it forces our opposition backwards and helps maintain pressure and secondly with a lot of a teams only playing with 1 forwards these days its a bit of a waste having 4 defenders back at all times.

 

I hope its a sign with things to come as if Santon and Debuchy are given that license they can be very dangerous.

 

 

[Mattoon]

Such an antonym of recent performances and at a point we usually collapse on ourselves we came out fighting, glorious to watch. This performance was reminiscent of the second half of last year and long may it continue (hopefully)!

[Kanj]

I really enjoyed this thread when it was all about the wankfest that was this match.

 

Sorry mate, just run by us the rules for the match thread against Tottenham just incase anything out of the ordinary happens.

 

And i feel i must apologise again for spoiling your internet experience. 

 

Bimpy man, you know I enjoy your posts on this forum.

 

I'm no rule police - just felt like you all beat the living p*ss out of the dead horse with the Colo decision. You and some other posters have some fantastic knowledge of the rules based on your experience as refs, etc.

 

I just like to point out - it went in our favor, there are no retroactive decisions, Ba came off and didn't hurt us later, we won, and Moussa is mint.

 

Besides, your Mrs Bimpy posts have MADE my internet experience at times - even on the lowest of days supporting this club.

[Guest bimpy474]

I really enjoyed this thread when it was all about the wankfest that was this match.

 

Sorry mate, just run by us the rules for the match thread against Tottenham just incase anything out of the ordinary happens.

 

And i feel i must apologise again for spoiling your internet experience. 

 

Bimpy man, you know I enjoy your posts on this forum.

 

I'm no rule police - just felt like you all beat the living p*ss out of the dead horse with the Colo decision. You and some other posters have some fantastic knowledge of the rules based on your experience as refs, etc.

 

I just like to point out - it went in our favor, there are no retroactive decisions, Ba came off and didn't hurt us later, we won, and Moussa is mint.

 

Besides, your Mrs Bimpy posts have MADE my internet experience at times - even on the lowest of days supporting this club.

 

You should also know by know that i meant that tongue in cheek mate......i love whatever people put on here. Including you of course 

 

You plonker