I was going to write a post bemoaning the decline of educational standards in the British Isles/North Western European Archipeligo* - i.e. people not knowing whats italics are - when I realised that viewing the thread on an iphone it doesn't actually show the quote in italics. So all the posters assuming that qpr-Scotland wrote the whole article, aren't being thick - they're just reading the thread on the kharzee. *Delete as appropriate
By the letter of the law, it was a penalty. Treore did have hold of his top for all of a nano second and unfortunately the ref saw him do it. The problem I have with it is that it was literally just a gentle touch, not a full on grab and pull like you see so often nowadays, but also because regardless of this the ball was flying out of play and Gabby wasn't going to get it, which he more or less admitted in his post match interview. So if that was a penalty, then as Ray Wilkin's said, then we should have 20-30 penalties every game. What does baffle me is that any player would grab hold of someones shirt knowing just how bloody obvious it is. I think this is probably why Warnock is angry as it was a stupid thing to do in the first place. As for the hand balls, first one was stonewall but the second couldn't have been deliberate. But the law is so ambiguous now that I think we should go back to how it was, a ball on the hand is a penalty, unless a players arms are against his side.
Referees are not automatons but have a discretion, based on degree of culpability. In this case, the referee exercised his discretion wrongly, dumbfounding fans and commentators alike.
While I don't disagree that referees aren't automatons and are given a certain amount of discretion in situations, the letter of the law says that shirt pulling in the box is a foul and thus a penalty, there is no level or degree of pulling, just that a shirt pulled is an offence. Treore gave the ref an easy decision, even if it was the softest penalty ever. But I don't agree that all commentators were dumbfounded, all agreed that it was a penalty albeit a very soft one. While referees should use their heads in resolving a situation, when it comes to the law of the game, there shouldn't be any doubt or choice for them to make, otherwise it becomes very hit and miss and is down to one referees personal opinion over another ref. On all fouls there should be zero tolerance so that it cuts out that type of foul in the first place.
Most commentators were surprised when the penalty was given. Even the Villa fans didn't appeal and they were right above it. It's not that clear, even with video evidence. Zero tolerance is commendable in theory but that isn't what is practised at the moment. Referees exercise judgement and discretion on infringements in the box. There is an element of Di Minimis that comes into play - it happens worldwide. Of course, this is subjective. As I understand it, referees are encouraged by their governing body not to make "surprising" decisions. Zero tolerance would lead to surprises surely.
Can't believe the number of dingbats on here who are rubbishing QPR Scotland because they don't recognize the use of Italics to indicate a quote. Even if they can't see the italics it's pretty clear what's being discussed if you actually read it through. Anyhow, the Villa oik that wrote this tomb of ignorance has clearly chosen to ignore the key point which is that there would be dozens of penalties in every game if referees chose to apply the letter of the law rather than making a judgment in penalty area situations. The ref clearly had no problem in applying his 'judgment' is similar circumstances later in the game on so we can only assume the incident looked much worse than it actually was from his angle. The fact that he appears to be the only one in the ground with that particular angle is a worry of course. I have long thought that the solution to this type of situation is to introduce a secondary level of penalty area infringement that does not result in the traditional spot kick. Perhaps a free kick somewhere on the D would be a good compromise where an infringment is deemed to have happened but a clear goalscoring opportunity is not denied. It took FIFA about 100 years to amend the offside law so I don't expect anythign to change soon however.
I don't agree with all of Warnock's comments about the game against Villa but take his point about the shirt pulling. I reckon refs are guilty of double standards regarding contact in the penalty area. Villa were given a penalty for what (on repeated viewing, much the same as other posts) looked utterly harmless - tug backwards on shirt = falling over forwards? Nah, not for me. Switch that to a defender shadowing a ball going out of play from an opposition attacker and then tell me that there isn't any tugging, pushing or shoving. Masters of defending a ball to see it go out for a goal kick include none other than One Size or Big Dan. Have you seen the amount of physical abuse they get from strikers trying to get around them to reach the football? If the Villa penalty is what contact is meant to be then every challenge on a defender should be considered a free kick and the attacking player booked for deliberate foul play. I have to add I DON'T want to see this happen by the way, it is just an example of referees being utterly inconsistent. Sadly I don't think this is the last joker we are going to see in W12, we have yet to be graced by the celebrity refs and they are likely to be even worse.
My apologies Scotland, I didn't notice the initial italics, and didn't realise it was written by a Villa fan. I thought it was all a bit odd
Have to admit I never read it, I sometimes don't when I see a lot of words, knew Scotland was alright though.
As for being one of the supposeded "dingbats" who initially misinterpreted QPR Scotlands opinion the reason for this was due to the length of the article whilst first skim reading it on my phone whilst on the throne in the office it was an easy mistake to make. Seems unlike a lot of people on here I work normal working hours so can't spend my life on this board. As for whether this was a penalty the point raised about consistency is key. Those justifying it based on the "letter of the law" is a weak argument and can be used to justify anything. All tackle's are subjective and the contact in this case was minimal and such that in 99.9% of occassion this would never have been given. Who here genuinely believes that if that was Evra at Old Trafford or Enrique in front of the Kop the penalty would of been given? If the ref can spot a slight tug at high speed then he can spot the first handball by Hutton. The undeniale fact is that we were on the wrong end of bad refereeing decisions. Petrov's tackle on SWP would be given as a straight red far more often than the Traore tug would be given as a penalty. Another barely mentioned tackle that deserved a second yello was Warnocks shoulder smash into the back of Helguson while the ball was still about 30 feet in the air. Seems there are a lot of people doing there best to interpret incidents in a way that suits them as it seems. The amount of negativity directed by Rangers fans towards the manager, the players and the system on this board is depressing. As fans we should be getting behind the team The contact was absolutely minimal and to give a game changing decision like that when countless incidence of shirt tugging go on every game unpunished is plain wrong.
I also thought the tackle on Joey barton was worthy of a Red card, where the player clouted into his shins with his studs.
Apologies for all the confusion guys. I didnt post the link as so often people cant open them so thought italics would make do. Still at least between the accusations and apologies think there's been some decent inputs. Plus I got a compliment from Northolt. If you can say being called "alright" is a compliment that is but I'll take it!
