| Rules 18:33 - Nov 8 with 4014 views | RangersAreBack |
Charlie is denied an excellent goal by a daft rule that not even the Sky pundits were aware of.
Meanwhile Aguero can be offside and control the ball with his hand but the goal stands.
Rules don't appear to apply for the big teams. |  | | |  |
| Rules on 18:38 - Nov 8 with 3223 views | BrianWilliamsBeard |
Might be a daft rule but it is a rule. |  | | |
| Rules on 19:32 - Nov 8 with 3169 views | RangersAreBack |
The point I'm making Beardo is that the ref was inconsistent in his application of the rules. Aguero was offside; that rule was overlooked. Aguero then handled; that rule was ignored. Yet Hart double kicks and the ref has the wherewithal to apply the most obscure rule in the book. [Post edited 8 Nov 2014 19:36]
| | | |
| Rules on 19:46 - Nov 8 with 3110 views | BrazilNutR |
1 rule for the top teams another for the rest. That's the worst possible thing that could happen. rules, bad or great..as long as consistently applied will not cause a problem.
Last week Chelsea hand-balled several times... today, Cahill stopped a shot with his hand... nothing. Last week we were pulled up for Yun handball in the oppo area... today, Aguero used his hand...although he should have been stopped for offside before getting that far... nothing given. Charlie Austin, looked dubious.. but obviously was given as a handball.
Identical fouls, yellow cards not identical.. otherwise both Nasri and Sagna would have been sent off.. both got yellows after identical tackles that warranted yellows for QPR.
inconsistency is killing the game for me.. random inconsistency i could even live with, but big team bias inconsistency is awful.. |  | | |
| Rules on 19:47 - Nov 8 with 3101 views | BrianWilliamsBeard |
| Rules on 19:32 - Nov 8 by RangersAreBack |
The point I'm making Beardo is that the ref was inconsistent in his application of the rules. Aguero was offside; that rule was overlooked. Aguero then handled; that rule was ignored. Yet Hart double kicks and the ref has the wherewithal to apply the most obscure rule in the book. [Post edited 8 Nov 2014 19:36]
|
Can't argue with that.
What really pees me off is the pundits praising the officials for spotting the double kick but not slating them for not seeing the Aguero offside and handball. [Post edited 8 Nov 2014 19:54]
| | | |
| Rules on 20:39 - Nov 8 with 2961 views | ShotKneesHoop |
| Rules on 19:47 - Nov 8 by BrianWilliamsBeard |
Can't argue with that.
What really pees me off is the pundits praising the officials for spotting the double kick but not slating them for not seeing the Aguero offside and handball. [Post edited 8 Nov 2014 19:54]
|
Should that not be an indirect free kick to QPR where Hart kicked the ball twice? That is the logical decision to apply so that sheer lunacy creeps in from now on.
What's to stop a Kuntysh team like Chelscum hanging on for a 1 -0 win win only nine players left on the field from having the keeper waste time in added on time by kicking the ball twice and then re-taking the kick to run the clock down.
Yer couldn't make it up.
Dean has always royally phooooked us whenever he gets the chance. And especially against anyone who's in the top four. |  |
| Why does it feel like R'SWiPe is still on the books? Yer Couldn't Make It Up.Well Done Me! |
| |
| Rules on 20:58 - Nov 8 with 2888 views | BrianWilliamsBeard |
Logic says that is what it should be, unfortunately the rule book says otherwise. | | | |
| Rules on 21:28 - Nov 8 with 2793 views | dachiltern |
A defensive free kick taken from within the 18 yard box is not in play until it leaves the area and unfortunately that assistant got that one thing right. |  | | |
| (No subject) on 21:52 - Nov 8 with 2718 views | QPR_John |
| Rules on 21:28 - Nov 8 by dachiltern |
A defensive free kick taken from within the 18 yard box is not in play until it leaves the area and unfortunately that assistant got that one thing right. |
That is tha rule but is it not time to ask why. A goal kick I can understand but what is special about a free kick. Before somebody comes back with it has always been that way, I know, but this event highlighted the unfairness of it. A player makes a mistake and gets an advantage. Also why no card if kicking the ball twice is a technical infringement. [Post edited 8 Nov 2014 21:55]
| | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Rules on 21:56 - Nov 8 with 2701 views | eastside_r |
Same rule that spared Green's blushes at West Ham. However, I'd much rather both had been allowed. |  | | |
| Rules on 22:04 - Nov 8 with 2674 views | Bigears |
I understand the rule, but it only can be retaken until either someone else touches the ball or it has stopped inside the 18 yard area.
Nether of the above two happened because Hart second kick happened when the ball was moving so it was not dead and no one else had touched it.
So when Hart kicked it the second time it became a in direct free kick to us, where the ref should played the advantage and the goal should have stood.
They got it wrong IMO | | | |
| Rules on 22:12 - Nov 8 with 2637 views | Juzzie |
| Rules on 21:56 - Nov 8 by eastside_r |
Same rule that spared Green's blushes at West Ham. However, I'd much rather both had been allowed. |
West ham situation not the same. Green didn't touch it twice and the west ham player was clearly less than 10 yards from where the free kick was taken. On top of that, that all happened inside the penalty area. Austin was outside the area so should be 'live'.
It's a bizarre rule.
[Post edited 8 Nov 2014 22:15]
|  | | |
| Rules (n/t) on 22:14 - Nov 8 with 2627 views | QPR1882 |
| Rules on 21:28 - Nov 8 by dachiltern |
A defensive free kick taken from within the 18 yard box is not in play until it leaves the area and unfortunately that assistant got that one thing right. |
|  | | |
| Rules on 22:16 - Nov 8 with 2614 views | Bigears |
| Rules on 22:12 - Nov 8 by Juzzie |
West ham situation not the same. Green didn't touch it twice and the west ham player was clearly less than 10 yards from where the free kick was taken. On top of that, that all happened inside the penalty area. Austin was outside the area so should be 'live'.
It's a bizarre rule.
[Post edited 8 Nov 2014 22:15]
|
Correct Juzzie - Hart touching it twice before the ball had stopped witin the pen area meant it was a foul to us, ref should play adv and the goal should have stood.
Two different situations. | | | |
| Rules on 22:19 - Nov 8 with 2602 views | QPR1882 |
| Rules on 21:28 - Nov 8 by dachiltern |
A defensive free kick taken from within the 18 yard box is not in play until it leaves the area and unfortunately that assistant got that one thing right. |
Got it right ????????
So when Arsenal tried a silly penalty the penalty taker was penalised because he touched the ball twice, result free kick
PLEASE EXPLAIN THE DIFFERENCE ????????? | | | |
| Rules on 22:22 - Nov 8 with 2591 views | CiderwithRsie |
| Rules on 19:47 - Nov 8 by BrianWilliamsBeard |
Can't argue with that.
What really pees me off is the pundits praising the officials for spotting the double kick but not slating them for not seeing the Aguero offside and handball. [Post edited 8 Nov 2014 19:54]
|
I think they were embarrassed that they had not understood why the goal was disallowed at the time, so had to go overboard saying he'd got it dead right later.
But the OP's point is sound - the ref can apparently spot an infringement when doing so damages the innocent team, but can't spot a handball when doing so would benefit the innocent team. But guess what, in both cases the beneficiary is the so-called big club.
It's exactly the point made by so many about the penalty at the Stadium of Knuts - it's not that the decision is wrong per se, it's that you know we would never get the benefit of it in a million years. | | | |
| Rules on 22:38 - Nov 8 with 2549 views | eastside_r |
| Rules on 22:12 - Nov 8 by Juzzie |
West ham situation not the same. Green didn't touch it twice and the west ham player was clearly less than 10 yards from where the free kick was taken. On top of that, that all happened inside the penalty area. Austin was outside the area so should be 'live'.
It's a bizarre rule.
[Post edited 8 Nov 2014 22:15]
|
Didn't say it was the same situation, clearly it wasn't. But it is the same rule. | | | |
| Rules on 22:47 - Nov 8 with 2514 views | ShotKneesHoop |
| Rules on 20:58 - Nov 8 by BrianWilliamsBeard |
Logic says that is what it should be, unfortunately the rule book says otherwise. |
When I qualified as a football ref in 1970, (not because I wanted to but because I had to - it was part of my teaching qualifiication) the rule was that the offence was re-started with an indirect free kick to the side that did not create the offence. What year did that change?
Football has rules, cricket has laws.
That's why football changes the rules almost every year on a Seph Blatter whim, such the offside -active inactive bollox for a start, and cricket changes a law once a decade - only because it makes more sense - such as a bowler dislodging the bail in his delivery stride is now a no ball - and not a dead ball. Next year I expect a new rule issued by FIFA that every foul in the first 30 minutes is a yellow card when playing against a top four Premier side.
I just hope Dean left the match early on his own to go to a Jimmy Clitheroe reunion concert in Port Stanley, and he is banned for the next three years. Some hope. | |
| Why does it feel like R'SWiPe is still on the books? Yer Couldn't Make It Up.Well Done Me! |
| |
| Rules on 22:48 - Nov 8 with 2508 views | ShotKneesHoop |
| Rules on 21:28 - Nov 8 by dachiltern |
A defensive free kick taken from within the 18 yard box is not in play until it leaves the area and unfortunately that assistant got that one thing right. |
So how does the game restart? | |
| Why does it feel like R'SWiPe is still on the books? Yer Couldn't Make It Up.Well Done Me! |
| |
| Rules on 22:56 - Nov 8 with 2477 views | dachiltern |
| Rules on 22:48 - Nov 8 by ShotKneesHoop |
So how does the game restart? |
Ball is not in play until it has left the area, therefore as the kick was taken incorrectly before the ball left the area the ball is not in play, hence the restart is back with the original kick and Hartnwas permitted to retake the free kick. | | | |
| Rules on 23:01 - Nov 8 with 2454 views | ShotKneesHoop |
| Rules on 22:56 - Nov 8 by dachiltern |
Ball is not in play until it has left the area, therefore as the kick was taken incorrectly before the ball left the area the ball is not in play, hence the restart is back with the original kick and Hartnwas permitted to retake the free kick. |
It was not a goal kick - it was a free kick.
What year did that tw@t Blatter change the restart rule? It used to go to the other side as an indirect free kick.
Otherwise it's as daft as awarding Qatar the World Cup in the middle of summer. Oh, he's does that as well, has he?
Blatter is almost as corrupt an official as Dean is a ref. | |
| Why does it feel like R'SWiPe is still on the books? Yer Couldn't Make It Up.Well Done Me! |
| |
| Rules on 23:03 - Nov 8 with 2442 views | dachiltern |
| Rules on 23:01 - Nov 8 by ShotKneesHoop |
It was not a goal kick - it was a free kick.
What year did that tw@t Blatter change the restart rule? It used to go to the other side as an indirect free kick.
Otherwise it's as daft as awarding Qatar the World Cup in the middle of summer. Oh, he's does that as well, has he?
Blatter is almost as corrupt an official as Dean is a ref. |
Law has not changed, defensive free kick or goal kick, both the same, ball not in play until it has left the area. | | | |
| Rules on 23:08 - Nov 8 with 2426 views | VancouverHoop |
When was the last time anyone saw an attacking team awarded an indirect free kick in their opponents' penalty area though?
They just aren't given anymore, except in rare cases when the goalkeeper handles the ball illegally. IMHO they should be called. But everything that was once an indirect FK, such as obstruction, (remember obstruction?) is now "illegally impeding progress" and warrants a penalty kick. So, there are too many penalties given, and too many players playing for them. | | | |
| Rules on 23:24 - Nov 8 with 2399 views | stansleftfoot |
| Rules on 23:08 - Nov 8 by VancouverHoop |
When was the last time anyone saw an attacking team awarded an indirect free kick in their opponents' penalty area though?
They just aren't given anymore, except in rare cases when the goalkeeper handles the ball illegally. IMHO they should be called. But everything that was once an indirect FK, such as obstruction, (remember obstruction?) is now "illegally impeding progress" and warrants a penalty kick. So, there are too many penalties given, and too many players playing for them. |
There is no difference between an attacking or defensive free kick whether it's in the penalty area or not, other than they become direct or indirect....the point is that the ball only comes into play once its been kicked....ONCE....not hard really...its like passing a free kick to yourself!
The relentless stupidity of footballers and fans.....Ernie Howe.... Coventry City FC 1972...or so! | | | |
| Rules on 23:34 - Nov 8 with 2368 views | toemasher |
Match of the day sycophants drooling over agueros goal but almost embarrassed to agree it was offside and handball?? |  | | |
| Rules on 23:44 - Nov 8 with 2347 views | KernowRanger |
| Rules on 23:34 - Nov 8 by toemasher |
Match of the day sycophants drooling over agueros goal but almost embarrassed to agree it was offside and handball?? |
Phil Neville has cleared it all up for us. "A little bit offside and a little bit of a handball" but nice finish so should have counted. |  | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
