Goon Garbage
- Thread starter deedub93
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
https://www.skysports.com/football/...elli-picks-up-gunners-fourth-red-card-of-2022
So wants to influence officials rather than stop his players cheating
So wants to influence officials rather than stop his players cheating
Notice that Dermot Gallagher doesn't address the Wolves complaints, only those of Arsenal.
Sky also omitted one of them from their highlights entirely.
The Xhaka own goal should've stood, going by previous decisions, including at least one that went against us.
Wolves had a player in an offside position, but he didn't make any contact with the ball.
That's exactly what happened for Liverpool's 2nd goal v Palace last week. What's the difference?
I think that both should be chalked off. Somehow only one was.
You must log in or register to see media
You must log in or register to see media
The own goal decision looks correct. The Wolves player interfered with Xhaka's sight of the ball.
And what makes it any different to Firmino attempting to head it against Palace?
Nothing....that was the wrong decision. Incompetent officials leads to inconsistencies
A quote from 1 of BT pundits last night
'Former Gunners defender Martin Keown on BT Sport thought it was unfair on Martinelli as he did not know he was going to be booked for the first foul.
He said: "It's within the laws of the game but I thought it was pedantic from the referee.
"There's a moral issue with what the referee has done. It doesn't feel sporting.
Committing 2 bookable offences in quick succession is the non sporting element nothing to do with the ref he just correctly enforced the laws (which for Oliver and a team in red is unusual) maybe Martinelli should reflect on this but all the time people like his manager and biased ex-players are coming out with this **** he will just think that it was OK and that he was not to blame.
'Former Gunners defender Martin Keown on BT Sport thought it was unfair on Martinelli as he did not know he was going to be booked for the first foul.
He said: "It's within the laws of the game but I thought it was pedantic from the referee.
"There's a moral issue with what the referee has done. It doesn't feel sporting.
Committing 2 bookable offences in quick succession is the non sporting element nothing to do with the ref he just correctly enforced the laws (which for Oliver and a team in red is unusual) maybe Martinelli should reflect on this but all the time people like his manager and biased ex-players are coming out with this **** he will just think that it was OK and that he was not to blame.
Bollocks, if you don’t want to be sent off for committing 2 yellow card offences then don’t commit them, even if they’re borderline. It’s the risk you run. The circumstance was unusual but it’s on the player.
Both offences were unsporting, too.
Attempting to prevent a quick throw-in and a deliberate foul to prevent an attack.
What the **** would Keown know about sportsmanship, though? Monkeyheaded twat.
Should stick to being on the cover of Time magazine:
You must log in or register to see images
While they were both clearly bookable fouls, the FA's own rules state that if the ref plays advantage from a foul that would normally be a yellow (if he'd stopped the game), the ref can then only award a yellow card (when play finally stops) for that foul if that foul prevented a goalscoring opportunity. For anything less than a clear goal opportunity, no yellow should actually be be given.
Their rules.
Stupid rules. But they still have it written down.
But Martinelli shouldn't have been booked for the push on Podence based on that rule, just the chase back push on Chiquinha. But I'm not complaining that he was, the stupid prick. He deserved it.
"If the referee plays the advantage for an offence for which a caution/sending-off would have been issued had play been stopped, this caution/sending-off must be issued when the ball is next out of play. However, if the offence was denying the opposing team an obvious goal-scoring opportunity, the player is cautioned for unsporting behaviour; if the offence was interfering with or stopping a promising attack, the player is not cautioned."
I mean I think/assume that's what that garbled paragraph means. Does it? It's like it's written by a drunk forum member.
I don’t think that’s what it says. I think what it says is that if, say, a player tries to commit a foul to stop a breakaway, then the ref can either stop the game and card the player OR play advantage. The player can still be carded if it would have been an obvious goal scoring opportunity, or for dangerous play, I assume.
I don’t think that law says anything about the potential double jeopardy of a player committing a foul, advantage being played, and that same player committing another foul. There may be other laws about that in the advantage laws, I don’t know.
The first offence wasn't interfering with or stopping a promising attack, so he can be cautioned twice.
The initial yellow was for failing to respect the required distance on a throw-in.
Law 12 explicitly addresses the situation:
"Where two separate cautionable offences are committed (even in close proximity), they should result in two cautions, for example if a player enters the field of play without the required permission and commits a reckless tackle or stops a promising attack with a foul/handball, etc."
https://www.thefa.com/football-rule.../football-11-11/law-12---fouls-and-misconduct
But what does this bit mean then?
However, if the offence was denying the opposing team an obvious goal-scoring opportunity, the player is cautioned for unsporting behaviour; if the offence was interfering with or stopping a promising attack, the player is not cautioned.
However, if the offence was denying the opposing team an obvious goal-scoring opportunity, the player is cautioned for unsporting behaviour; if the offence was interfering with or stopping a promising attack, the player is not cautioned.
The wording of this is for two separate fouls without an 'advantage' being given after the first though. Isn't it?? All a bit hazy
This has got to be the case or a player would get a free shot at a reckless foul while the advantage was being played.
If the offence is intended to stop a promising attack and the ref plays advantage, then no booking.
The offence that the ref played advantage on was failing to respect distance on a throw-in.
It's the usual sloppy thinking and wording from the Lawmakers but what it is trying to do is downgrade a red card to a yellow and a yellow to nothing if the foul didn't work so advantage accrued. But it only applies to the two specific offences mentioned. By implication a goal must have been scored in the first event or the referee would have brought play back
A lot of the laws are written in a way that allows plenty of interpretation.
I understand that, as good officials would be able to use that to run games sensibly.
We don't have that though, so it just ends up being wildly inconsistent and unpredictable.
Martinelli deserved to get sent off, but Oliver did something that other refs tend not to do.
He applied the rules, both as they're written and how they're intended to work.
You'll probably see someone escape a similar fate on the weekend.