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

[Exiled in Texas]

It seems to me the ball was there to be won after it rebounded into the air from Krul, and as such both players were entitled to go for it, and I think that's what the ref thought too.

Also, in trying to win the ball first, Ba ducked his head into the clearance attempt by Colo, and you can't give a pen every time a striker puts his head in where boots are flying.  Its a calculated risk by strikers, sometimes they score, other times they lose their teeth, in this case Ba came off worse, end of story.

 

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.

[Wilson]

We're talking about the best ref in the world man, he got it right,  and Nigel De Jong is just 100% committed, not Hong Kong Phoey.

[henke]

a) The ball was there to be won, if Colo hadn't of went for it and allowed Ba a free header he'd have been slated. And rightly so.

 

b) Last December Chelsea should have been down to ten men very early on, if that had have happened i'm sure we'd have won that game. You win some, you lose some so fuck off you soft southern bed wetters.

[GuyP]

Possible Giggs, but did anyone listen to 606? Alan Green "I've seen it, Coloccini knew what he was doing...". Alan Green is just the latest of the Keys/Gray type pundits knocking about. He puts himself up on a pedestal with occasional self-deprecation so he cant be accused of being arrogant. He just sounds like a bitter old man sometimes. Coloccini's eyes were never off the ball if i recall correctly?

 

Maybe a pen like, never a red

[Guest Brazilianbob]

It seems to me the ball was there to be won after it rebounded into the air from Krul, and as such both players were entitled to go for it, and I think that's what the ref thought too.

Also, in trying to win the ball first, Ba ducked his head into the clearance attempt by Colo, and you can't give a pen every time a striker puts his head in where boots are flying.  Its a calculated risk by strikers, sometimes they score, other times they lose their teeth, in this case Ba came off worse, end of story.

 

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.

 

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. 

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Possible Giggs, but did anyone listen to 606? Alan Green "I've seen it, Coloccini knew what he was doing...". Alan Green is just the latest of the Keys/Gray type pundits knocking about. He puts himself up on a pedestal with occasional self-deprecation so he cant be accused of being arrogant. He just sounds like a bitter old man sometimes. Coloccini's eyes were never off the ball if i recall correctly?

 

Maybe a pen like, never a red

 

Alan Green is one of the worst things in the world. Tragedy for 606, because generally it's a good way to listen to the post-match reaction. But when he's doing it it's unlistenable.

[Jack Flash]

NUFCTV haven't got Sissoko Sissokoing Cole in the highlights

[Ikon]

They didn't have enough FPS in the camera they used so they had to cut that part out

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Yes.

 

The discussion about the Colo thing is tiresome TBH, we deserved to win that game.

[Ash]

It's nothing like it tbh, for various reasons.

[Jimburst]

I haven't really thought about the ins and outs of the Colo-Ba thing, maybe because there's nothing that can be done about it anyway. The main question for me is always 'have we been lucky there?' and the answer is no. We were the better team for the most part and were definitely deserving of the win.

 

If any Chelsea fans want to over-analyse anything, maybe they should analyse their spending, and ask how they didn't blow us out the water.

 

I reckon it could easily have been a foul, but never a red, fwiw.

[Ash]

It's nothing like it tbh, for various reasons.

elaborate? Same exact mechanism, one's in the area the other isn't? If Jonas put his head in there would he not have hurt himself? it's exactly the same.

 

Well for a start, Cole gets the ball and as pointed out, Jonas doesn't even go for it. As has been mentioned, it's clear why it could have been a penalty against Colo. If anyone thinks that's a free kick for what Cole did then they need to stop watching football.

[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).

[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.