The penalty

[Back of the Dolman]

21 minutes ago, Calculus said:

Rugby doesn't finish when the clock reaches 80 though - the ball has to go out of play and that can take quite a while. 

I watch quite a bit of ice hockey and that’s clock on and off with no complaints about added time.

I’ve always thought that one way of stopping these constant stoppages for injuries/cramp in football is to follow rugby and for the physio to come on and play to continue.

I know that would be difficult if the injury was in the box but at the moment the majority of it is going on in other areas of the pitch.

I bet you wouldn’t see as many players going down requiring treatment if that was the case 

Edited April 14 by Back of the Dolman

[Northern Red]

The other thing to note is that if we had VAR, it almost certainly wouldn't have got involved with that one whether she'd given it or not.

[Calculus]

2 minutes ago, JakeOTIB said:

I’d have that in football too.

I'd agree with it. Would also like us all to hear what refs are saying, and possibly even think about sin bins. Much to learn from the egg chasers.

[Davefevs]

6 minutes ago, Three Lions said:

Q1 the player is moving, Its not natural to move without moving arms. Its natural above. did you play football without moving your arms? no you did not.

Q2 lots of movement have risk of ball striking hands and arms so the ? is the movement justifiable by the players  movement for that specific situation. yes it was.

wrong. its not always an offence if the ball connects with an arm. 

 

I was just asking for your opinion on whether you thought it was natural.  You did.  Thanks.

[IAmNick]

10 minutes ago, Back of the Dolman said:

I watch quite a bit of ice hockey and that’s clock on and off with no complaints about added time.

I’ve always thought that one way of stopping these constant stoppages for injuries/cramp in football is to follow rugby and for the physio to come on and play to continue.

I know that would be difficult if the injury was in the box but at the moment the majority of it is going on in other areas of the pitch.

I bet you wouldn’t see as many players going down requiring treatment if that was the case 

I thought the player having to stay off for 30s if the physio came one now was meant to be a deterrent.

It was annoying yesterday in ET when their player went down, physio on, messed about for a couple of mins, then they subbed him and the replacement came straight on - I get that it's harsh to punish a team for a legit sub, but that was taking the piss a bit I thought. Kind of sneaky way to get around the 30s thing and still waste time.

[Back of the Dolman]

2 minutes ago, IAmNick said:

I thought the player having to stay off for 30s if the physio came one now was meant to be a deterrent.

It was annoying yesterday in ET when their player went down, physio on, messed about for a couple of mins, then they subbed him and the replacement came straight on - I get that it's harsh to punish a team for a legit sub, but that was taking the piss a bit I thought. Kind of sneaky way to get around the 30s thing and still waste time.

Yes I suppose that was meant to be a deterrent but I guess what sides think is that play will restart after a stoppage and they will of had the chance to get themselves organised defensively and so they only have to hold out for 30 seconds before they’re back to full strength.

I’d imagine most teams would back themselves to manage that, especially at the pace we play

[Sleepy1968]

22 minutes ago, Northern Red said:

The other thing to note is that if we had VAR, it almost certainly wouldn't have got involved with that one whether she'd given it or not.

I thought they look at all potential penalty decisions?

[Davefevs]

14 minutes ago, IAmNick said:

I thought the player having to stay off for 30s if the physio came one now was meant to be a deterrent.

It was annoying yesterday in ET when their player went down, physio on, messed about for a couple of mins, then they subbed him and the replacement came straight on - I get that it's harsh to punish a team for a legit sub, but that was taking the piss a bit I thought. Kind of sneaky way to get around the 30s thing and still waste time.

The one thing I disagree with is that if the keeper gets the physio (like yesterday) and opposing player does too, I don’t think the opposing player should wait 30 seconds either.

[Back of the Dolman]

8 minutes ago, Sleepy1968 said:

I thought they look at all potential penalty decisions?

They do but you hear this clear and obvious error phrase rolled out with VAR and bearing in mind on this thread you have a split of people saying it was or wasn’t a penalty it can’t really be considered a clear and obvious error for VAR to intervene.

Personally I think it rubbish, forget clear and obvious. If it’s a wrong call it’s a wrong call as simple as that 

[IAmNick]

Just now, Davefevs said:

The one thing I disagree with is that if the keeper gets the physio (like yesterday) and opposing player does too, I don’t think the opposing player should wait 30 seconds either.

Yeah agreed, I forgot that happened as well.

I think the refs need to be braver sometimes - and LJ had the right idea where we put out that statement saying we'd no longer be kicking the ball out for the other team.

Either it's a head injury/something serious and the ref blows for it, or the game continues. If they kick it out, unless the physio is being called on we should just be able to restart. Is it an injury which needs the game to stop or not? If so, stop the clock and the player waits off the pitch properly once it's done.

Half the time the opposition coach is already waiting on the touchline with the drinks and energy bars ready for a 2 minute timeout, while a player gets a bit of a stretch for "cramp" and is back on 10s later like nothing happened.

[Back of the Dolman]

5 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

The one thing I disagree with is that if the keeper gets the physio (like yesterday) and opposing player does too, I don’t think the opposing player should wait 30 seconds either.

Yes that’s a fair point in those circumstances and would of been the same when Max and their player came together in the first half, I think they both received treatment from what I can remember 

[Ronnie pickering]

46 minutes ago, IAmNick said:

46 minutes ago, IAmNick said:

Brilliant joke, how on earth did you come up with that one? Just fantastic.

Woman = kitchen. Really, just inspired.

Who are you trying to impress mate, Downsy? 

Edited April 14 by Ronnie pickering

[Northern Red]

14 minutes ago, Sleepy1968 said:

I thought they look at all potential penalty decisions?

They do, but they wouldn't have flagged it for her to review, "clear and obvious" and all that.

[IAmNick]

Just now, Ronnie pickering said:

Who are you trying to impress mate, Downsy? 

Phwoar can't wait to hear your material on him!

I mean I'm not sure why Downsy is going to care what I think about your jokes on OTIB, but come on - let's have it!

[1960maaan]

40 minutes ago, Back of the Dolman said:

I watch quite a bit of ice hockey and that’s clock on and off with no complaints about added time.

I’ve always thought that one way of stopping these constant stoppages for injuries/cramp in football is to follow rugby and for the physio to come on and play to continue.

I know that would be difficult if the injury was in the box but at the moment the majority of it is going on in other areas of the pitch.

I bet you wouldn’t see as many players going down requiring treatment if that was the case 

The clock thing is interesting. There was talk of playing 60 minutes with the clock stopping for everything so you got a genuine 60 minutes play. When I realised the average time the ball was in play was 55 minutes, it seemed a good idea. Not sure what happened to that idea.

Having the trainer coming on is good in theory, but you just know that teams soon find a way of stopping play. Flicking the ball against, or near the trainer as he sees to the injury. 

[Back of the Dolman]

1 minute ago, 1960maaan said:

The clock thing is interesting. There was talk of playing 60 minutes with the clock stopping for everything so you got a genuine 60 minutes play. When I realised the average time the ball was in play was 55 minutes, it seemed a good idea. Not sure what happened to that idea.

Having the trainer coming on is good in theory, but you just know that teams soon find a way of stopping play. Flicking the ball against, or near the trainer as he sees to the injury. 

Yes teams will always look for ways to get around the rules but if they were to start intentionally playing the ball towards the prone player or physio and indeed striking them I would say that it is something that could be considered alongside the introduction of the role on physio and could lead to a booking and free kick.

But obviously this would all facilitate new laws to the game but it’s not impossible 

[pongo88]

2 hours ago, Davefevs said:

@Three Lions only after your opinion,

Q.1. do you think this is a natural position?  If you think it is, that’s fine by me.

Q.2. Do you think the defenders method to block the ball was risky, in terms of potential for ball striking hand / arm, and ref giving a penalty?

FWIW, seen them given, seen them not.

Q.3. Can the referee see what the ball hit from that position? IMO the answer is  no. She is in a good position to see Pring and the defender, but what the ball hit, and how it hit it, is probably blocked by the defender’s back. I think you can only give a penalty from that position based on an assumption, which is the wrong thing to do 

[BanburyRed]

5 pages on a penalty we were given......following 2 penalties in the previous game. OTIB goes into meltdown.

[slartibartfast]

3 hours ago, pongo88 said:

Only the OTIB forum could link JFK with Huddersfield 

On the Grassy Knowle West ?

[supercidered]

On 14/04/2024 at 01:21, 2015 said:

Never a penalty and common sense should prevail in these circumstances. That could send Huddersfield down. Pretty disgraceful

Common sense is a bit irrelevant if it was a penalty, which it was and was correctly given.

Hardly any complaints from the Huddersfield players, including the offender. Speaks volumes, especially in their position!

 

[The Bard]

On 14/04/2024 at 01:25, The turtle said:

I find the fact that's a penalty ridiculous.

 

But that's modern football.

It either takes your breath away, puts you to sleep, or makes you go really? 

Spot on.  She applied the rule using the current interpretation. If you disagree your issue is with the guidance/interpretation referees are being given not with the individual ref.

 

If someone is banging on about female refs then that's entirely a reflection of their stupidity.

[1960maaan]

11 hours ago, pongo88 said:

Q.3. Can the referee see what the ball hit from that position? IMO the answer is  no. She is in a good position to see Pring and the defender, but what the ball hit, and how it hit it, is probably blocked by the defender’s back. I think you can only give a penalty from that position based on an assumption, which is the wrong thing to do 

This is a snapshot of the incident . Is this the split second the ball hit hand or a fraction of a second after when the hand has moved after being hit ? I'd say she had a decent view.

Clear view of the arm out . Now I'd say a natural position for trying to block, but that changes when it stops the cross as he has gained an advantage.

Cross on it's way and you can clearly see raised arm.

Still able to see his arm after the ball has hit it.

I can't download this to slow mo it , I'll try and find it somewhere I can but I'm not hopeful.

 

[AppyDAZE]

The only thing that could have made this more sweet was had Warnock been their gaffer.

[AppyDAZE]

48 minutes ago, supercidered said:

Common sense is a bit irrelevant if it was a penalty, which it was and was correctly given.

Hardly any complaints from the Huddersfield players, including the offender. Speaks volumes, especially in their position!

 

Hardly any complaints? That's not what I saw 

They were going mental 

[JakeOTIB]

16 minutes ago, 1960maaan said:

This is a snapshot of the incident . Is this the split second the ball hit hand or a fraction of a second after when the hand has moved after being hit ? I'd say she had a decent view.

Clear view of the arm out . Now I'd say a natural position for trying to block, but that changes when it stops the cross as he has gained an advantage.

Cross on it's way and you can clearly see raised arm.

Still able to see his arm after the ball has hit it.

I can't download this to slow mo it , I'll try and find it somewhere I can but I'm not hopeful.

 

If it wasn’t sure before, I definitely am now; 100% a penalty, he’s stopped the cross going into the box with his raised arm. As I said before, I was in E28 so had a perfect side on view and this only ratified my original opinion.

Granted I’d be furious if we gave something like this away in the last minute but rules are rules, just don’t shoot the messenger

[supercidered]

6 minutes ago, AppyDAZE said:

Hardly any complaints? That's not what I saw 

They were going mental 

At their player for being a bellend and handballing it and more to the point not getting away with it.

It was a Penalty. Time to move on.

[1960maaan]

As for a video clip this is as good as I can get it. I think it shows Ref had a good view.

 

 

As for complaints, this is the guy who gave away the Pen, hardly going mad. The usual complaints to the Ref that you would see , even with the most blatant Pen. But not really going mad at a bad decision.

 

[Three Lions]

14 hours ago, bcfcredandwhite said:

Ok - if it’s away from your body at the time of impact it is - as in this case. 

 

the question should be is the players arm position  justifiable by the players movement.  yes its a natural movement. what else  how far are they from the ball? two metres away? no time to to move arms in that specific situation. so no offence.

increase the distance and the players arms will be in a position where its not justifiable as they have time to react and move their arms. That would be an offence.

 

 

[Cowshed]

49 minutes ago, 1960maaan said:

This is a snapshot of the incident . Is this the split second the ball hit hand or a fraction of a second after when the hand has moved after being hit ? I'd say she had a decent view.

Clear view of the arm out . Now I'd say a natural position for trying to block, but that changes when it stops the cross as he has gained an advantage.

 

 

Thats is not in the laws of the game. 

[Three Lions]

51 minutes ago, 1960maaan said:

This is a snapshot of the incident . Is this the split second the ball hit hand or a fraction of a second after when the hand has moved after being hit ? I'd say she had a decent view.

Clear view of the arm out . Now I'd say a natural position for trying to block, but that changes when it stops the cross as he has gained an advantage.

Cross on it's way and you can clearly see raised arm.

Still able to see his arm after the ball has hit it.

I can't download this to slow mo it , I'll try and find it somewhere I can but I'm not hopeful.

 

but that changes when it stops the cross as he has gained an advantage. that not totally correct advantage in the box applies to scoring a goal although the word advantage is not used in the laws. doesnt apply to the defending team. example slide tackle? arm in natural  position but stops cross from one two metres away offence? no. advantage gained doesn't apply.