Esmond Million's Bung Posted March 10, 2011 Report Share Posted March 10, 2011 When is a foul not a foul?. Just watching the Braga v Liverpool game with a mate. on about 41 minutes Joe Cole went down on the halfway line, very little contact and I said "not a lot in that, very little contact", my mate "yes but in today's game it's a foul", I then said "is that a foul in the penalty area", "of course not" was the reply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matty-H Posted March 10, 2011 Report Share Posted March 10, 2011 Good luck getting a straight answer to this that is definitive. Bottom line is it's referees interpretation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jordan Tansley Posted March 10, 2011 Report Share Posted March 10, 2011 When is a foul not a foul?. Just watching the Braga v Liverpool game with a mate. on about 41 minutes Joe Cole went down on the halfway line, very little contact and I said "not a lot in that, very little contact", my mate "yes but in today's game it's a foul", I then said "is that a foul in the penalty area", "of course not" was the reply. I hate this aspect of football, Not much more frustrating things than conceding a freekick for a push in the centre circle then watching your striker getting bundled over in the box and nothing is given... It's so common that we just accept it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esmond Million's Bung Posted March 10, 2011 Author Report Share Posted March 10, 2011 FFS why dosen't Collymore **** off dogging useless tit. Cole blatantly dives and nothing said other than "free kick to Liverpool". Braga blokes get's his foot stamped on and Collymore says "nothing in that". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Posted March 10, 2011 Report Share Posted March 10, 2011 Continental football is also governed more by 'intent'. If a player goes in two-footed, studs showing, but doesn't get the man in Spain, for example, it's a red card. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olé Posted March 10, 2011 Report Share Posted March 10, 2011 But Braga ARE cheats. Just like they were on Sunday against Benfica. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esmond Million's Bung Posted March 10, 2011 Author Report Share Posted March 10, 2011 But Braga ARE cheats. Just like they were on Sunday against Benfica. Ha, Ha, Ha biggest cheat/waste of space was Joe Cole, totally useless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beaverface Posted March 10, 2011 Report Share Posted March 10, 2011 When is a foul not a foul?. Just watching the Braga v Liverpool game with a mate. on about 41 minutes Joe Cole went down on the halfway line, very little contact and I said "not a lot in that, very little contact", my mate "yes but in today's game it's a foul", I then said "is that a foul in the penalty area", "of course not" was the reply. I'd like to question whether or not football is now non-contract?? Two players running alongside each other jostling, or two players going into a tackle together anywhere on the pitch may result in one of those players being kicked, or more appropriately being touched by the opposing player. Now in my eyes, if the tackler doesn't get the ball, then it's the level of contact that the tackling player makes which determines if it's a foul or not? Yet if this happens within the penalty area and the ball isn't won, everybody classes it straight away as a penalty ! Surely if we're giving a penalty in these circumstances then we're labelling and defining football as a non-contact sport? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibor Posted March 10, 2011 Report Share Posted March 10, 2011 Contact doesn't necessarily mean foul. It's a direct free kick if it's a kick, trip or strike (or attempt at any of those) or a charge, push, jump at or tackle of an opponent in a manner careless, reckless or using excessive force. In other words, unless it is careless, reckless or excessive it isn't a direct free kick. It's an indirect free kick if it impedes the player irrespective of the force, carelessness or recklessness. Impedes is where it gets hairy IMO. Players are very quick these days, a clip of the heels can send them flying spectacularly, something exploited routinely by cheats. I think the media influence it quite a bit, pundits who are ex footballers seem to want to call everything a foul just like they did when they were playing. I believe there should be extremely harsh retrospective punishments (10 game bans) for cheating based on video evidence. Take away the reward for cheating and tell the players to stay on their feet and try to continue. That way the ref can be comfortable and can make a proper decision instead of having to worry about being misled safe in the confidence that any faking will be caught and dealt with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beaverface Posted March 10, 2011 Report Share Posted March 10, 2011 Contact doesn't necessarily mean foul. It's a direct free kick if it's a kick, trip or strike (or attempt at any of those) or a charge, push, jump at or tackle of an opponent in a manner careless, reckless or using excessive force. In other words, unless it is careless, reckless or excessive it isn't a direct free kick. It's an indirect free kick if it impedes the player irrespective of the force, carelessness or recklessness. Impedes is where it gets hairy IMO. Players are very quick these days, a clip of the heels can send them flying spectacularly, something exploited routinely by cheats. I think the media influence it quite a bit, pundits who are ex footballers seem to want to call everything a foul just like they did when they were playing. I believe there should be extremely harsh retrospective punishments (10 game bans) for cheating based on video evidence. Take away the reward for cheating and tell the players to stay on their feet and try to continue. That way the ref can be comfortable and can make a proper decision instead of having to worry about being misled safe in the confidence that any faking will be caught and dealt with. Thanks for that, you've basically outlined what I couldn't put into words - your explanation is a lot clearer. What I'd really like to emphasize is the point that contact doesn't necessarily mean a foul and yet pundits on the TV (and players) often say they should go down if they feel any kind of contact in the box. It's so wrong as you've rightly pointed out and I agree whole heartedly with the final paragraph you've typed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chivs Posted March 10, 2011 Report Share Posted March 10, 2011 Whilst we're on laws of the game, can anyone explain this one? During the Tottenham game yesterday the commentator said about a handball "well that didn't look like deliberate handball". I thought that if the ball hit an arm, meaning that a goal scoring opportunity is missed, that it is a foul irrespective of the deliberateness or not. Anyone know the rules? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibor Posted March 10, 2011 Report Share Posted March 10, 2011 Whilst we're on laws of the game, can anyone explain this one? During the Tottenham game yesterday the commentator said about a handball "well that didn't look like deliberate handball". I thought that if the ball hit an arm, meaning that a goal scoring opportunity is missed, that it is a foul irrespective of the deliberateness or not. Anyone know the rules? It has to be deliberate. It's commonly badly interpreted. The ref is supposed to judge movement of ball to hand or hand to ball, whether there was intent to block and a few other things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esmond Million's Bung Posted March 13, 2011 Author Report Share Posted March 13, 2011 Quote from Andy Townsend tonight after Huth had ripped Hitselberger from the defensive wall and threw him to the ground for a Stoke goal "technically that was a foul", FFS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CotswoldRed Posted March 14, 2011 Report Share Posted March 14, 2011 That's why i've always argued that there should be a rule that stipulates "A player must at all times make an effort to stay on his feet". Would then be easy to spot the nancy-boys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riaz Posted March 14, 2011 Report Share Posted March 14, 2011 Quote from Andy Townsend tonight after Huth had ripped Hitselberger from the defensive wall and threw him to the ground for a Stoke goal "technically that was a foul", FFS. To be fair - andy townsend is clueless! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CotswoldRed Posted March 14, 2011 Report Share Posted March 14, 2011 "technically that was a foul", FFS. alternatively Andy ...."that was a foul" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gazred Posted March 14, 2011 Report Share Posted March 14, 2011 On a similar note, im always annoyed when watching European matches when i hear "you cant get away with that at this level" what? You mean FIFA has a stricter set of rules for the better players in the world? A foul is a foul, dont get me wrong i dont want to see players going down at the slightest contact or breeze of wind but, if lower league players are allowed to get away with more physical challenges then why cant the top players? The amount of simulation that goes on in the Champions League is just pathetic, based on what you see not one of those players would last 1 challenge on a rugby pitch, delicate little things, bless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esmond Million's Bung Posted March 19, 2011 Author Report Share Posted March 19, 2011 Just watching a live French game where a player going for a header in the penalty area and has to jump for it takes studs to his head for his troubles and the result is a drop ball where the defence kick it back to the attacking team. Anywhere else on the pitch a free kick in fact this ref has already given at least 3 others in this game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Peacock Posted March 20, 2011 Report Share Posted March 20, 2011 How about where an attacker runs straight into a defender and the defender gets booked? Joke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibor Posted March 20, 2011 Report Share Posted March 20, 2011 How about where an attacker runs straight into a defender and the defender gets booked? Joke. Yeah that was ridiculous. I must have missed the bit in the laws of the game where it says that if an opponent plays the ball past you you must get out of their way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Mosquito Posted March 20, 2011 Report Share Posted March 20, 2011 How about where an attacker runs straight into a defender and the defender gets booked? Joke. The Burnley players were using all kinds of tricks like that yesterday to gain advantage from the referee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esmond Million's Bung Posted March 20, 2011 Author Report Share Posted March 20, 2011 To be honest the standard of refereeing is appalling and has been sorely highlighted by scandalous decisions made by our supposedly top referees this weekend in the prem including the tit who ruined the world cup final last year and the penalty that Liverpool got earlier today beggars belief. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Peacock Posted March 20, 2011 Report Share Posted March 20, 2011 the tit who ruined the world cup final last year To be fair the tits that ruined the World Cup Final were the players themselves, especially the Dutch. The major error in the final was not sending off the Dutch guy who's name I forget for a karate kick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esmond Million's Bung Posted March 20, 2011 Author Report Share Posted March 20, 2011 To be fair the tits that ruined the World Cup Final were the players themselves, especially the Dutch. The major error in the final was not sending off the Dutch guy who's name I forget for a karate kick. The major error came well before the karate kick, in fact within the first 30 seconds a Dutch player committed a foul well worthy of a yellow card and 20 seconds later a Spanish player did exactly the same and had that been dealt with appropriately the karate kick and other ugly fouls may not have happend, by the time the karate kick occurred the tit had totally lost control of the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terpin Posted March 21, 2011 Report Share Posted March 21, 2011 The major error came well before the karate kick, in fact within the first 30 seconds a Dutch player committed a foul well worthy of a yellow card and 20 seconds later a Spanish player did exactly the same and had that been dealt with appropriately the karate kick and other ugly fouls may not have happend, by the time the karate kick occurred the tit had totally lost control of the game. And if he books a player within 30 seconds and another after 2 minutes then fans and pundits would be saying "It's a World Cup Final", "referee has no feel for the game", yada yada yada. He used common sense in the hope that the adrenaline would subside and the players would get on with the game. Unfortunately the Dutch had the sole intention to kick the Spanish off the park. As mentioned above his major mistake in that game was missing the red for De Jong for his kung-fu kick on Alonso. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith_Lemon Posted March 21, 2011 Report Share Posted March 21, 2011 To be honest the standard of refereeing is appalling and has been sorely highlighted by scandalous decisions made by our supposedly top referees this weekend in the prem including the tit who ruined the world cup final last year and the penalty that Liverpool got earlier today beggars belief. Esmond not to be funny but I would like to see you go and be a Referee in football seeing as you deem it as 'appalling'. It is annoying when perhaps things do not go your way, or the referee did not book him or send him off. The referee make's a decision in 1 second, 2 seconds, or 3 seconds. It's very hard to make decisions on that pitch infront of 15,000 fans, 30,000 fans or 60,000 fans or what ever. There's even more pressure from the likes of Alen Hansen, Mark Lawerson and Alan Shearer who lecture the referee's saying what they should be doing or what they should be saying each week. Unlike these 'pundits' referee's are not given 2 minutes to make a decision in the heat of a football game, they make that decision under 5 seconds with 24,0000 fans and 22 players on their back, and that point is not made enough, it should be understood how hard it is to referee a match. The standard that come from fans and pundits of referee's is highly unfair. Every decision is not going to right, the referee makes a decision from what he and his colleagues see themselves. People also moan about fouls not been given. But then people moan fouls are given to easily. You cannot justify how hard it is to referee a match. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esmond Million's Bung Posted March 21, 2011 Author Report Share Posted March 21, 2011 Esmond not to be funny but I would like to see you go and be a Referee in football seeing as you deem it as 'appalling'. It is annoying when perhaps things do not go your way, or the referee did not book him or send him off. The referee make's a decision in 1 second, 2 seconds, or 3 seconds. It's very hard to make decisions on that pitch infront of 15,000 fans, 30,000 fans or 60,000 fans or what ever. There's even more pressure from the likes of Alen Hansen, Mark Lawerson and Alan Shearer who lecture the referee's saying what they should be doing or what they should be saying each week. Unlike these 'pundits' referee's are not given 2 minutes to make a decision in the heat of a football game, they make that decision under 5 seconds with 24,0000 fans and 22 players on their back, and that point is not made enough, it should be understood how hard it is to referee a match. The standard that come from fans and pundits of referee's is highly unfair. Every decision is not going to right, the referee makes a decision from what he and his colleagues see themselves. People also moan about fouls not been given. But then people moan fouls are given to easily. You cannot justify how hard it is to referee a match. i'm sorry but if you are expecting me too feel sorry for referees you've got no chance. You only have too look at most of them to see why they are refereeing and not playing and why most of them have never actually played the game. The Liverpool penalty is a classic example of somebody not fit referee a game, he was in the perfect position 10 yards away and originally called it correct and then allowed himself to over ruled by a linesman 80 yards away, at least have the courage of your convictions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esmond Million's Bung Posted March 21, 2011 Author Report Share Posted March 21, 2011 And if he books a player within 30 seconds and another after 2 minutes then fans and pundits would be saying "It's a World Cup Final", "referee has no feel for the game", yada yada yada. He used common sense in the hope that the adrenaline would subside and the players would get on with the game. Unfortunately the Dutch had the sole intention to kick the Spanish off the park. As mentioned above his major mistake in that game was missing the red for De Jong for his kung-fu kick on Alonso. interesting, the thread is entitled 'rules & interpretation' and the first line is 'when is a foul not a foul'?, substitute that for 'when is a yellow card not a yellow card'? and your answer is when it's the first minute of a game?. Had he applied the letter of the law then the rest may not have happend, it's called setting your stall out and leaving the players in no doubt where they stand, instead of allowing things to escalate to a point where he totally lost control. As a referee when it comes to the strict letter of the law he is not allowed to apply common sense, that's why it's the strict letter of the law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redcityman Posted March 21, 2011 Report Share Posted March 21, 2011 i'm sorry but if you are expecting me too feel sorry for referees you've got no chance. You only have too look at most of them to see why they are refereeing and not playing and why most of them have never actually played the game. The Liverpool penalty is a classic example of somebody not fit referee a game, he was in the perfect position 10 yards away and originally called it correct and then allowed himself to over ruled by a linesman 80 yards away, at least have the courage of your convictions. I guess anyone can be a backseat driver. As for the ref consulting his linesman, how many times do we hear fans and pundits moan whats the points of the linesman is the ref never listens to them when they have something to say! Dammed if they do, dammed if they don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terpin Posted March 21, 2011 Report Share Posted March 21, 2011 The Liverpool penalty is a classic example of somebody not fit referee a game, he was in the perfect position 10 yards away and originally called it correct and then allowed himself to over ruled by a linesman 80 yards away, at least have the courage of your convictions. The difference is angles - in that situation the assistant has a better angle to see straight along the edge of the area and whether the tackle is inside or outside. Like for a thrown in if the ball is down the other end of the pitch it is still the assistant that signals if it has left the pitch. You can bet in their pre-match instructions the ref would have said that if I make a mistake around the edge on inside / out and you are 100% certain that I have made a mistake then let me know. If the ref then gets a message from his assistant (who for the decision of whether the offence in or outside is better placed than him) then after these instructions he will go with it. In this situation you can't blame the referee here. t is the responsibility of the linesman who has got the decision horribly wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.