Reply With QuoteIt’s weird how some offences are punished outside the penalty area yet the self same offence inside the area is ignored.
| + Visit Cardiff FC for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results |
Just been roused from my slumber by a comment at the Fulham v Man United game that it wasn’t a foul because the player grabbing hold of another player’s arm didn’t have hold of it for long enough. A few hours earlier while watching Villa v West Ham, Jamie Carragher said it wasn’t a penalty because the player grabbing an opponent’s shirt did not have hold of it for long enough.
When were the laws of the game amended to read “no offence will have been committed if the player grabbing hold of an opponent or their shirt does not do so for more than x amount of seconds”?
It’s weird how some offences are punished outside the penalty area yet the self same offence inside the area is ignored.
Isn’t it just.Originally Posted by splott parker
The notion that you can commit a foul on an opponent as long as you don’t foul them for too long is a new one on me though.
Haven't heard that one before.
Another one I don't get is why it's ok to obstruct an opponent to shepherd the ball out of play when you couldn't do it anywhere else on the pitch.
Bob, there has been a deliberate policy over several decades to chip away and change the Laws of the Game into rules. Where once decisions were made on fact (handball and offside were prime examples of this) now there are so many sub-clauses to consider that decisions are now based on opinion. The advent of VAR is a second level of this opinion based decision making.Just been roused from my slumber by a comment at the Fulham v Man United game that it wasn’t a foul because the player grabbing hold of another player’s arm didn’t have hold of it for long enough
When were the laws of the game amended to read “no offence will have been committed if the player grabbing hold of an opponent or their shirt does not do so for more than x amount of seconds”?
We have gone so far away from the reason for the Laws of the Game that decisions have become arbitrary and almost meaningless.
Goalkeepers waste far more time with the ball now than then ever did before the back pass rules were brought it.
Could you imagine what Brian Clough would make of a centre half passing the ball to a goalkeeper within the 6 yd box for a goal kick? Or a kick off passed back to a goalkeeper?
StT.
<><
[The Campaign for the Re-instatement of The Laws of the Game ... TCftRoTLotG]
PS: A shorter title would be appreciated.
that one has driven me nuts for years. The defender doesn't have the ball under control so it's just obstruction
Exactly, like goals being disallowed because a player's toenail is offside - they've not gained any unfair advantage!
What would you say about a contact in the penalty box on an attacking player who has the ball at his feet, the softest of touches by the defender, with his foot, on the attacking players leg, not enough contact or force to inhibit the move, but a foul nevertheless.Play on or blow up for the foul?Just been roused from my slumber by a comment at the Fulham v Man United game that it wasn’t a foul because the player grabbing hold of another player’s arm didn’t have hold of it for long enough
When were the laws of the game amended to read “no offence will have been committed if the player grabbing hold of an opponent or their shirt does not do so for more than x amount of seconds”?
Another one is, in the area again, an attacker is obviously impeded or fouled but it’s not a pen because the ball had gone or the offended had lost control. Anywhere else on the pitch it’s termed ‘an off the ball incident which has been, perhaps, flagged by the linesman’, play is stopped and a free kick given. A foul is a foul on or off the ball in my opinion.
Yes, but we didn't see much of that even before the game went all 'Modern'
IMPEDING THE PROGRESS OF AN OPPONENT WITHOUT CONTACT
A player may shield the ball by taking a position between an opponent and the ball if the ball is within playing distance and the opponent is not held off with the arms or body. If the ball is within playing distance, the player may be fairly charged by an opponent.
so the ball needs to be within playing distance to shepherd the ball outbut when a playing is running, they are in play and heading to the ball, its a rule thats always tough to call
First, I don’t think contact automatically equals a foul, so, provided the contact is as soft as you say, I don’t see it’s a foul.
On the other hand, if it’s a shirt pull that only lasts for a second, that’s a foul and a penalty for me - same with a grab at an arm.
I understand what you’re trying to say Steve, but the fact is that decisions have always been based on opinion, including hand ball offences and offsides.
And the second Millwall goal last week. A Millwall player, barely a yard in front of the City keeper, had to virtually jump over the ball as it went into the net. Not a word word spoken about it.
StT.
<><
Probably on account of the fact that he wasn’t offside.
That's how it is. We would have to get rid of that great big lump of Human Being officiating the game if it wasn't.
Hi Dave,
I appreciate what you are saying and there is a degree that clearly it is as the ref sees it. My gripe is that now there are so many sub clauses where once it was a clear one liner in the Laws that today you can vitually, 'seek to justify,' any wrong decision. You can't tell me that partiality doesn't come into it.
Calvert-Lewin's red for a deliberate backward movement of the elbow into a players face, drawing blood by the way, resulted Sky's Sue Smith and Stephen Warnock both saying it wasn't even a yellow. I contrast this with the recent surreal red given to Robbo for just seeking to use his arms for balance and I despair.
StT.
<><
[The Campaign for the Real Laws of the Game]
Load of bollox. I think I’ve mentioned this before, but there’s an edition of the Big Match Revisited from about 1978 where a Chelsea player does what we see every week these days and obstructs (I prefer that word to “shepherds”) a Man City player as the ball is going out for a goal kick and the ref gives Man City a free kick and books the Chelsea player - rather than slating the decision, the commentator is very matter of fact about the whole thing and carries on as if nothing untoward has happened.IMPEDING THE PROGRESS OF AN OPPONENT WITHOUT CONTACT
A player may shield the ball by taking a position between an opponent and the ball if the ball is within playing distance and the opponent is not held off with the arms or body. If the ball is within playing distance, the player may be fairly charged by an opponent.
so the ball needs to be within playing distance to shepherd the ball out
That’s because, by the standards of the time, nothing strange had happened (that said, maybe a booking was a bit over the top). In the last forty five years or so, there has been a 180 degree turnaround in the way this situation has been officiated with the defending team benefiting now when it used to favour the attacking one - surely, that’s wrong?
Think you’re probably right, the staggering figure of Siopis, giddy after being turned inside out and then back again was probably playing the Millwall player onside.
Is the defender just supposed to get out of the way though and allow the attacking player the ball? The same could be said of the old traditional no 9 shielging the ball, holding the ball up while pinning the central defender, jut waiting for an option, a runner etc. That's obstruction as well, although i'd call it good play, strong, intelligent.
The defender is trying to stop the game - unless the attacker is trying to buy a free kick, they’re trying to keep the ball in play.
Brian Clough would probably be the most likely manager of that era to approve of a short goal kick.
My recollection was that he was partly infront of the defender. I didn't think the player was clearly on-side. I could be wrong,
StT.
<><
The thought of seeing defenders like Larry Lloyd and Kenny Burns receiving a goal kick from the goal keeper near their 6 yd line would probably have resulted in Clough retorting, "Get rid of it sonny." Sadly, lardy, we'll never know.
StT.
<><
I've just watched the highlights again and froze the frame where the second goal was struck. In fact, there were no less than three City men playing the Millwall guy onside (Goutas, Siopis and Rinomhota). They were all to the keeper's right.
Posting Permissions