I have been applying No.3 to my own career with varying degrees of success since 2003.
Most of it has applied at some point or another except for the fame bit.
2 Aug 2023
81
-
Not saying the referees are 'wrong' on this one...but there is a problem with the interpretation of the laws of the game, for me.
Rangers have just have a goal ruled out, because their player was adjudged to have unfairly dispossessed the celtic defender, to turn over the ball.
The Celtic player is turning on the ball away from the challenge. The rangers player gets his foot between the celtic player and the ball. The celtic player kicks his foot and falls over. The rangers player has played neither the man, nor the ball. The celtic player, for me, has instigated contact. I would argue that you should be allowed to use your strength and physicality to position yourself anywhere on the pitch. Playing the man would obviously be a different thing...but positioning yourself (or even a foot) between man and ball should be entirely legitimate.
Anyway...goal ruled out, free kick to the defender.
For me, and for the continuation of the game as a physical contact sport, very much not right.
-
I agree… but I’m not entirely sure what you do in situations where the man in possession has already committed to the swing of his leg. Very difficult to stop in those circumstances - is that just hard luck?
-
I guess if you can't stop yourself kicking someone, then you aren't in control, and it's legit you're committing a foul?
No, I'm not convinced either ....
-
Except the guy who did the kicking was the guy who got awarded the free kick.
-
I would say so. If there is no intent, contact will happen sometimes. I actually think it's a danger to the game to eliminate all contact - or say that contact justifies a foul. It's a total nonsense.
You are definitely out of control when you commit to kicking a ball. Have a swing at a ball, and as your foot is about to strike it abort the connection. Not. Possible.
What fucking idiot, who knows nothing about football, ever made that a test for a foul action?
Some examples of out of control:
You jump for a header. Now stop yourself from falling back to the ground.
You run. Mid stride, while both feet are off the ground, try changing direction.To remain in control at all times, you need to have a constant contact with the ground, sufficient to be able to totally control your movements.
That's walking football.
-
Interesting incident along these lines in the third minute at anfield. Applying the laws of the game equally, liverpool should have had a penalty...but score from the resulting corner anyway.
-
Robertson heads the ball....falls on cash.
No penalty given.
-
Penalty last week for minimal contact
Not s penalty this week for minimal contact
United on the right side of both decisions.
-
Nah. Danilo stuck his leg into the path of a player running at him. Havertz chucked himself over a tackle that wasn’t made. I don’t think the degree of contact really matters, does it?
I’d be annoyed not to be awarded the one against us, and pissing myself laughing if we got awarded the one Arsenal weren’t.
-
Which just goes to demonstrate the actual problem. It doesn't matter how long you take, how many angles you provide, if the people making the decisions don't understand what it is they are looking at, you are still going to get the same old shit.
-
I’m not sure releasing that particular audio helps the refs much. The VAR had pretty much decided it was a penalty before weirdly changing his mind without much reason. Smelt a bit not fancying giving the visiting team an injury time penalty at Old Trafford rather than anything to do with the laws.
-
Perhaps they didn't want to put their mate, the ref, under the pressure of having to make the right decision?
He'd probably had a full on week.
-
Their justification seems broadly similar to mine - an accidental collision of two players, neither of whom were playing the ball, that didn't in any way affect the outcome of the passage of play. But it sounds like the ref was pretty adamant on his reading so VAR didn't overrule him - after all, it's VAR's job to help the referee with things he hasn't seen, but if the ref tells them clearly what he's seen and why he's made the decision he has, and there's nothing on the video to say differently, then that's that. It's not for VAR to say "yeah but we think your decision is wrong so please re-consider it".
-
Which is fine in theory, until refs see an incident like that and think, “I won’t give that because it’ll be a bit controversial, but I’m sure VAR will let me know if I’ve got it wrong”
