Football The 2009/2010 Season Thread

[Ch3tan]

How you win the ball is important, and he took a slice of the player as well as the ball. Some you get, some you don't. We've had enough decisions go against us this season, about time one went our way.

I'm not arguing that it was given in the first place, the ref's view made it a penalty. But does it not concern you that the ref cannot admit it was the wrong call after seeing the replay?

 

[Turamber]

I'm not arguing that it was given in the first place, the ref's view made it a penalty. But does it not concern you that the ref cannot admit it was the wrong call after seeing the replay?

Would you care to admit that most penalties United get at home are not really penalties?

 

[Ch3tan]

Sigh Turamber, way to miss the point.

 

[Corran]

Sigh Turamber, way to miss the point.

Turamber always misses the point and tries to make it about "the big 4" and referee decisions in relation to them.

He probably deny that Evra was fouled yesterday for the first penalty

In relation to todays penalty.
The referee would always have to give that as a penalty in the game. He was in no position to see the touch on the ball FIRST. Remember, if you win the ball, and then take the player it is NOT a foul... unless it was a reckless challenge. If you have to go through the player to get the ball it is a foul. Neither of these were the case, he won the ball cleanly and then the player was contacted.
If this was a penalty in the rules, then 99% of the tackles made in the box are penalties.

BUt, as said before. The challenge did not really change teh direction of the ball, and as such it would always look like a clear penalty to the referee. Completely understandable why it was given and as such no blame on the ref

 

[Turamber]

The Blues defender took man and ball. Moreover the ball was only knocked into Gabby's path, so if he hadn't been fouled by the trailing leg he'd have moved onto the ball in a goal scoring position.

Clear penalty. Stop letting Andy Gray form your football opinions for you. I don't know what you'd do if you actually went to a game, my gosh, having to make up your own opinions! OMG!

 

[soze]

The Blues defender took man and ball. Moreover the ball was only knocked into Gabby's path, so if he hadn't been fouled by the trailing leg he'd have moved onto the ball in a goal scoring position.

Clear penalty. Stop letting Andy Gray form your football opinions for you. I don't know what you'd do if you actually went to a game, my gosh, having to make up your own opinions! OMG!

He took the ball then the man it was a very good well timed challenge. The ref is a coward rather than stand up and say rightly that it was a penalty from where he was standing, but now he has seen it that it was a good challenge. IMO anyway.

 

[Gray]

Fulham 1-0

Worst backpass to Howard ever, from Baines. pfff

 

[georgie]

In relation to todays penalty.
The referee would always have to give that as a penalty in the game. He was in no position to see the touch on the ball FIRST. Remember, if you win the ball, and then take the player it is NOT a foul... unless it was a reckless challenge. If you have to go through the player to get the ball it is a foul. Neither of these were the case, he won the ball cleanly and then the player was contacted.

Not only reckless:

in a manner considered by the referee to be
careless, reckless or using excessive force:

I can only assume the referee thought it was one of the above.


That said, personally I think it wasn't a foul. Looked like a good challenge to me.

I'm of the opinion that as long as you get the ball first then you can send the player 6 ft up in the air. It's a man's game ffs.

[Edit]

Just reading through some more of the rules and came across this one regarding substitutions:

If a player who is about to be replaced refuses to leave the field of play,
play continues

Has anyone ever seen that?

[/Edit]

 

[Corran]

Clear penalty. Stop letting Andy Gray form your football opinions for you. I don't know what you'd do if you actually went to a game, my gosh, having to make up your own opinions! OMG!

Sorry turamber... from playing football at a decent level i dont need any commentator to tell me a thing. Infact I didnt even have commentary on for the map so clueless as to what they said.

Simple fact, won the ball cleanly, then he continued and contacted the man. If the player came from the side and got ball, the man will fly to the ground, is not a foul. This is the same. He played the ball and it went out for a corner. THat is what should have happened IF the ref had a decent view.

This is different to a goalkeeper getting a touch to the ball and then raising his hand to take a player down. That is 2 events. This is one tackle, one winning the ball first and then not changing your direction to be sure to stop the player.

Remember, football is a CONTACT sport. Just because you want this to mean that opponents contact is hand holding with your players does not make it the case.

Going to a match does not mean you know about football. Can guarentee that at least 90% of people that attend matches are actually clueless about football rules. Just sit and listen to people at a game (i do that alot) and you will know that is the way things are

Not only reckless:



I can only assume the referee thought it was one of the above.


That said, personally I think it wasn't a foul. Looked like a good challenge to me.

I'm of the opinion that as long as you get the ball first then you can send the player 6 ft up in the air. It's a man's game ffs.

My "reckless" was meant to cover careless and reckless. Excessive force wasnt necessary to mention as that is something completely unnecessary for conversation having

 

[Corran]

Bah, as expected chelsea take the lead. Nice play by Drogba, and they have kinda dominated this game as predicted

edit:

oO how is that 2nd goal allowed? a 2 footed challenge out on another player would be a minimum of a booking, possibly a red card depending on the referee... yet on a goalkeeper it is allowed.
Cant believe that when a goalkeeper should be protected they are not, but when they shouldnt be they are (ie when they try catch a ball in the air and someone tries to head it they get a freekick)

 

[megadave]

bit of a grey area i guess, when he went in sorensen was a good couple yards away

 

[Vladamir]

Not to mention Bennett has been letting practically anything go so far

 

[megadave]

that should have been a freekick imo, not a penalty

 

[Corran]

bit of a grey area i guess, when he went in sorensen was a good couple yards away

Well the keeper was always going to try get to it again, so that in my mind is a dangerous challenge. Lungy, 2 footed, studs leading. Straight red on another player.

Bennett has been AWFUL today. Started with the foul on Lampard on the edge of the box, contained the dangerous 2 footed challenge, Ended with giving a strange penalty decision (think it was just outside the box personally but not watched replays.)

With that said, from the 1st minute it was clear that chelsea were going to destroy stoke. And think it going to be a massive win that means they easily will be winners if it goes to goal difference

 

[Vladamir]

Foul started outside and continued in the box, not sure what the rules say on that account.

Sorenson straight to hospital with a suspected broken elbow, nasty stuff.

 

[Corran]

Foul started outside and continued in the box, not sure what the rules say on that account.

Strictly speaking, freekick. But like I argued with Man Utd and Valencia a couple weeks ago, it depends if it was seperate fouls. Valencia was fouled on 2 seperate occassions (pull outside, broke free, advantage, pull inside, went down), was the foul one continuous motion, or was it seperate offenses.

Even if seperate offenses, I thought he was just outside the box (ie the leg held was outside the box, and he threw himself into the box. But maybe i will watch replays at half time. Not sure if can be bothered as game is over.

 

[Gray]

EVERTONNNNNNN

:england:

penalty in last minute

 

[Embattle]

Stoke never really bothered me and Liverpool wouldn't if we were playing at the bridge but we aren't thus next weeks game is harder.

 

[Corran]

The more I see the 2nd goal, the more I see Kalou should have been sent off.

If the keeper had managed to dive a foot further that would have been straight in his head, that is very dangerous to allow. If a stoke player does that on a chelsea player I do not expect to see a foul given, even if a players leg is broken! Afteral Bennett set the standard for the game now.

That was alot more dangerous and reckless then what shawcross done to Ramsey (which i still say was only a yellow card offense, and that the injury made it a red on a coward ref (they all give red if a serious injury is caused, even if it wasnt worthy of red)

edit:
Penalty... hmm tough, but probably should be a freekick on edge of box. Once again, i can see why it was given as penalty. Defender rolled over Kalou's legs once in the box whic made sure he went down. Never understand why defenders do that when the guy couldnt score from position and there was plenty players back. Less chance to score if dont give penalty.

..
Well done to Everton, you beat the reserve team

 

[megadave]

I can already hear Pulis moaning. Before the game he moaned about how one of our players went off the wrong side of the field in a previous game.

 

[Corran]

I can already hear Pulis moaning. Before the game he moaned about how one of our players went off the wrong side of the field in a previous game.

A dangerous challenge broke his goalkeepers elbow (if they suspect it then i expect it is because it easy to diagnose without x-ray). It went without punishment, and further it went with allowing a goal to stand. Really cant blame him for having a major issue with that.

Curious as to if he be able to push for action to be taken by the FA. If they dont punish it then I dread to see how things will go if happens again.

 

[soze]

Ref after the Shawcross tackle on Ramsey said he got a red because it was a tackle that bough about serious injury (not a dangerous tackle per say but because the leg got broke the rule said he had to go). So if the Stoke guys arm is broke surely that's more proof of inconsistencies.

 

[Corran]

Ref after the Shawcross tackle on Ramsey said he got a red because it was a tackle that bough about serious injury (not a dangerous tackle per say but because the leg got broke the rule said he had to go). So if the Stoke guys arm is broke surely that's more proof of inconsistencies.

never seen a rule that states that. If that the case then it is clear red card. Seems to me that the ref is making things up.

For instance. If a player goes up for a header, gets nudged slightly, lands on his arm and has a compound break (ie bone breaches the skin). Under what the ref said in the Ramsey incident, a challenge that wouldnt even get a yellow card normally will instantly become a red card.

That does not make sense. lol

 

[Embattle]

The more I see the 2nd goal, the more I see Kalou should have been sent off.

If the keeper had managed to dive a foot further that would have been straight in his head, that is very dangerous to allow. If a stoke player does that on a chelsea player I do not expect to see a foul given, even if a players leg is broken! Afteral Bennett set the standard for the game now.

So instead of an actual you are now talking about if.

4-0

 

[Corran]

So instead of an actual you are now talking about if.

Actual.. it should be a straight red on what happened tbh. Just given an example of exactly how dangerous it COULD have been. but just pick that bit out if you wish and ignore the fact it was dangerous

And blah, wish i managed to get Kalou in my fantasy team for this week. Was already set up for next week as removed rooney. But was too late for this week
THink i will change it to maluda though for next match though tbh

 

[Embattle]

Actual.. it should be a straight red on what happened tbh. Just given an example of exactly how dangerous it COULD have been. but just pick that bit out if you wish and ignore the fact it was dangerous

And blah, wish i managed to get Kalou in my fantasy team for this week. Was already set up for next week as removed rooney. But was too late for this week

Well I'll see it tonight and you'll excuse me if at the moment with out much noise about it on the radio I tend to think you are over egging it.

 

[Corran]

Well I'll see it tonight and you'll excuse me if at the moment with out much noise about it on the radio I tend to think you are over egging it.

Radio commentary is a joke, always laugh when watch the match after listening to it on the radio.

But, the half time pundits actually agree with me in that goal should not have been allowed to stand, and if it was a challenge on an outfield player he would have seen red. So going by that, a challenge on a goalkeeper should be a red.

Remember, jumping off the ground, 2 footed and leading with studs is always deemed a reckless AND dangerous challenge and a red card will follow 99% of the time.

But if you not seen it, you cant comment on it as you stated.

edit:
good finish by Lampard

 

[Embattle]

Perhaps the goal shouldn't but did they say anything about a red card etc. It don't matter either way since it wouldn't of changed the outcome of the game.

5-0

 

[soze]

never seen a rule that states that. If that the case then it is clear red card. Seems to me that the ref is making things up.

For instance. If a player goes up for a header, gets nudged slightly, lands on his arm and has a compound break (ie bone breaches the skin). Under what the ref said in the Ramsey incident, a challenge that wouldnt even get a yellow card normally will instantly become a red card.

That does not make sense. lol

From what i remember the ref was asked if he sent Shawcross off because he though he meant to hurt him. And the ref said no it was because the tackle caused the injury so he "had" to send him off.

I wonder if any foul that brings about serious injury rather than a coming together that caused the injury.

 

[Embattle]

The Ramsey one to me was nothing more than impulse after the fact.

6-0