| Rules 18:33 - Nov 8 with 4029 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 23:46 - Nov 8 with 868 views | Juzzie |
| 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?? |
Sky Sports presenter at the end of the game (watching recording) says "Man City dropped 2 points".
Please remind me which part of the game City were in the lead?
Getting tired of the media sucking up to the big teams. |  | | |
| Rules on 00:00 - Nov 9 with 843 views | CiderwithRsie |
| 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?? |
Also drooling over how great it was that Dean could spot Hart's two touches even though there were two players in the way.
Neve occurs to them that he *couldn't* see the first touch and just took Hart's word for it. Luckily for Dean, Hart was telling the truth.
But when Aguero is miles in front of Dean he won't take Green's word for it that Aguero handled.
"Great bit of skill" from Aguero, so we'd better not look to hard at whether there's an infringement. But a great finish from Charlie somehow doesn't have the same effect at the other end.
Funny that.
Aaah feck 'em. Refs and "big team" w*nkers and media sycophants have always been the enemy. We've got a team we can get behind and some real heroes again. They're gonna tear someone a new one pretty damn soon. |  | | |
| Rules on 03:22 - Nov 9 with 785 views | RangersAreBack |
| 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. |
Green didn't double kick the ball and the ball didn't leave the area. | | | |
| Rules on 03:28 - Nov 9 with 783 views | RangersAreBack |
| 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]
|
The suggestion from the MOTD pundits was almost that it didn't warrant any further inspection because Aguero was only "a little bit offside" and it was "a little handball" and besides "Aguero has such lovely balance".
Funny how the ref could see the double kick from 50 yards away but couldn't spot a clear and obvious offside and handball. | | | |
| Rules on 08:16 - Nov 9 with 745 views | jonno |
The referee can allow play to continue when there is an infringement by one team if it is to the advantage of the opposing team for play to continue. It's called the advantage rule. The referee should have allowed play to continue as there was an obvious advantage for us in it doing do, and awarded the goal. |  | | |
| Rules on 08:47 - Nov 9 with 705 views | HAYESBOY |
At the time I could see he kicked it twice but couldn't understand why we were not awarded a free kick. I did not know the rule about the ball having to leave the area to be live.
The lino actually gave it. He told Dean through the radio.
Unfortunately for us the correct decision was reached as per the rules.
Think the rule of an indirect free kick should apply all over the pitch.
The ref has no leeway to play advantage because as soon as he touched it twice in the area from the free kick the ball was dead.
That rule does need changing.
Great finish though from Charlie. |  |
| Smells like a trout farm in here |
| |
| Rules on 08:50 - Nov 9 with 703 views | ShotKneesHoop |
Punishment:
If the kicker, after taking the free-kick, plays the ball a second time before it has been touched or played by another player, an IFK shall be taken by a player of the opposing team from the spot where the infringement occurred, unless the offense is committed by a player in his opponent's goal-area, in which case, the free-kick shall be taken from any point within the goal-area.
The rule is an arse and so is the ref :
Dean =
C an't
U nderstand
N eutral
T asks |  |
| Why does it feel like R'SWiPe is still on the books? Yer Couldn't Make It Up.Well Done Me! |
| |
| Rules on 13:22 - Nov 9 with 639 views | Doughnut |
When refereeing a match involving one of the 'big 5', the first rule, should the minnow score, is to Veto the goal immediately. Then think of some technicality to back up your decision, while all hell breaks loose. Dean was at the other side of the pitch and had his vision totally blocked by other players. Must have spotted the 'double-touch' with his bionic eye, or used 'The Force' to sense it. Must have been a hell of a brown envelope.What a joke! |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Rules on 13:27 - Nov 9 with 636 views | BasingstokeR |
Great finish from Austin there, but surely this has highlighted that particular rule needs changing. It's not the same situation as Rob Green and Enner Valencia. |  | | |
| (No subject) on 13:30 - Nov 9 with 633 views | PinnerPaul |
| (No subject) on 21:52 - Nov 8 by QPR_John |
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]
|
Rob Green made a mistake at West Ham, same "rule", its a law btw, saved us conceding a third goal. | | | |
| (No subject) on 13:34 - Nov 9 with 629 views | HAYESBOY |
| (No subject) on 13:30 - Nov 9 by PinnerPaul |
Rob Green made a mistake at West Ham, same "rule", its a law btw, saved us conceding a third goal. |
Thought that was because the player hadn't retreated 10 yards? | |
| Smells like a trout farm in here |
| |
| Rules on 13:34 - Nov 9 with 628 views | PinnerPaul |
| Rules on 22:19 - Nov 8 by QPR1882 |
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 ????????? |
Completely different scenario for a start!
Penalty, ball is in play when it is kicked, if kicker kicks it again before it touches another player its a free kick.
Gaol kick or defensive free kick ball not in play until it leaves the area, so it can't be a free kick to attacking side if there is a double touch. | | | |
| (No subject) on 13:35 - Nov 9 with 627 views | ShotKneesHoop |
| (No subject) on 13:34 - Nov 9 by HAYESBOY |
Thought that was because the player hadn't retreated 10 yards? |
Hayesboy is right and Pinnerboy is wrong. | |
| Why does it feel like R'SWiPe is still on the books? Yer Couldn't Make It Up.Well Done Me! |
| |
| (No subject) on 13:36 - Nov 9 with 626 views | QPR_John |
| (No subject) on 13:30 - Nov 9 by PinnerPaul |
Rob Green made a mistake at West Ham, same "rule", its a law btw, saved us conceding a third goal. |
It might be the same rule but it creates an anomaly which should be addressed. Green, although making a mistake, did not commit an offence, the West Ham player did and was thus penalised. Yesterday Hart made a mistake but also committed the offence and gained from it as we were penalised. | | | |
| (No subject) on 13:37 - Nov 9 with 625 views | PinnerPaul |
| (No subject) on 13:34 - Nov 9 by HAYESBOY |
Thought that was because the player hadn't retreated 10 yards? |
Nope , two things were wrong with it
a) Ball didn't leave the area and
b) West Ham player not allowed in the area anyway! | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
