Wullie Posted February 3, 2013 Share Posted February 3, 2013 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest fraser Posted February 3, 2013 Share Posted February 3, 2013 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bimpy474 Posted February 3, 2013 Share Posted February 3, 2013 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ameritoon Posted February 3, 2013 Share Posted February 3, 2013 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exiled in Texas Posted February 3, 2013 Share Posted February 3, 2013 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 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bimpy474 Posted February 3, 2013 Share Posted February 3, 2013 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bimpy474 Posted February 3, 2013 Share Posted February 3, 2013 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exiled in Texas Posted February 3, 2013 Share Posted February 3, 2013 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exiled in Texas Posted February 3, 2013 Share Posted February 3, 2013 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bimpy474 Posted February 3, 2013 Share Posted February 3, 2013 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bimpy474 Posted February 3, 2013 Share Posted February 3, 2013 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exiled in Texas Posted February 3, 2013 Share Posted February 3, 2013 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bimpy474 Posted February 3, 2013 Share Posted February 3, 2013 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. Dunno about being good, although today i got high praise, which was really nice tbh. Problem you have is, a kids game you have mental parents who see things different to the oppositions mental parents. Then you break that down to those not always agreeing with your decisions and some that do. In pro footy you mutliply that by thousand and it's a job that is really..........well, you simply will not get through a game pleasing everyone, or anyone at times. Just call it fair and do your best. Hard for them to accept sometimes but if players left the ref alone (more in amateur footy) he/she would ref so much better without the intimidation that goes on far too often. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted February 3, 2013 Share Posted February 3, 2013 13 games left, realistically think we can expect to pick up points in all of them - maybe Citeh away It hasn't taken people long to start getting carried away again, has it? It's what we do. Wheyyyyy, it's not really getting carried away when you actually look at the fixtures and realise there's only 13 games left. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exiled in Texas Posted February 3, 2013 Share Posted February 3, 2013 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bimpy474 Posted February 3, 2013 Share Posted February 3, 2013 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. On the money mate. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted February 3, 2013 Share Posted February 3, 2013 Ramires tackle should have been a sending off ..... it could have broke Jonas' legs ffs. So yeah f*ck off you twats, we bossed you for the majority of the game so stop blaming the ref for you're own deficiencies. 100%, I was foaming at that. Webb completely bottled it due to the colour of Ramires' shirt. The Colo one was more difficult for him to call. Same here Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incognito Posted February 3, 2013 Share Posted February 3, 2013 If it was a pen, then it would have to be a red card also as Colo was last man. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oakie Doke Posted February 3, 2013 Share Posted February 3, 2013 MOTD didn't even show Ramires' "challenge" did they? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
relámpago blanco Posted February 3, 2013 Share Posted February 3, 2013 MOTD didn't even show Ramires' "challenge" did they? Nope don't want Russians on their ass. Must have played GTA4 recently Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted February 3, 2013 Share Posted February 3, 2013 If it was a pen, then it would have to be a red card also as Colo was last man. Doesn't matter. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shearergol Posted February 3, 2013 Share Posted February 3, 2013 If it was a pen, then it would have to be a red card also as Colo was last man. It didn't prevent a goal though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Interpolic Posted February 3, 2013 Share Posted February 3, 2013 It's surely debatable whether it prevented a goal or not, Ba might have got the header on target but for the impending boot to his face (LOL). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bimpy474 Posted February 3, 2013 Share Posted February 3, 2013 If it was a pen, then it would have to be a red card also as Colo was last man. Not really, Colo kicked Ba after Ba headed it. He didn't prevent Ba making his header more accurate, so it wasn't preventing a goal scoring opportunity. It's really about if the dangerous play was a red, which in most opinions it wasn't as Colo only had eyes for the ball. Still all about opinion mind, never going to agree on this one. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted February 3, 2013 Share Posted February 3, 2013 It's surely debatable whether it prevented a goal or not, Ba might have got the header on target but for the impending boot to his face (LOL). I don't think he saw it coming tbh. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now