Now, whatever way you look at it, that is stopping, or lessening the chances, of a goal scoring opportunity and so should be given as a penalty.
As I've said to the others, that's not the case at all.
There are plenty of examples where 'legal' contact is used to put off an opponent that is passing or shooting, and the referee has to judge the force of the challenge when deciding whether it's excessive/over the top - whatever term you want to use.
itsonlyagame - 4928 days and counting (U6426)
I called your point rubbish and stated why.
If you are so sensitive that you can't deal with that, then feel free to leave the conversation
"There are plenty of examples where 'legal' contact is used to put off an opponent that is passing or shooting, and the referee has to judge the force of the challenge when deciding whether it's excessive/over the top - whatever term you want to use."
Yep, in an ideal world you are right. I cannot think if a single example of where that has happened though, the player going to ground is far more likely to be given.
meltonblue (U10617)
Two things:
1. Of course it's more likely. Because by diving, the referee will see the challenge as more forceful than it was.
2. It is not your decision whether you're fouled or not. So on that basis, when can it ever be right to feel contact and go down on the basis that you're more likely to get a pen?
Now, whatever way you look at it, that is stopping, or lessening the chances, of a goal scoring opportunity and so should be given as a penalty.
As I've said to the others, that's not the case at all.
In afraid that's what you aren't understanding, as long as these fouls (read the rule book, they are fouls) aren't given, players will continue to go down, they'd be stupid not to.
There are plenty of examples where 'legal' contact is used
---
It most definitely isn't what you stated initially as not enough to make a player fall over.
Going by the book, the only contact that's legal involves body parts other than your arms or legs (e.g. shoulder barges).
You cannot 'legally' trip or kick your opponent.
It's a completely different issue as to how much contact refs, on their own discretion, decide to allow so as not to keep on stopping the game, but it certainly shouldn't be enough to deprive a player of a clear goalscoring opportunity by means other than those sanctioned in the rules.
Whether he did or didn't doesn't bother me but Mancinis reaction to him NOT going down was the most telling aspect of yesterdays events.
BusbysBabes (U9083)
Please quote the law that I've missed?
but it certainly shouldn't be enough to deprive a player of a clear goalscoring opportunity
Except we're not talking about 'depriving' anyone - we're talking about lessening the chances.
A bit like challenging for a header that you know you'll lose, because it reduces the chances of the opponent scoring.
Perfectly legal - involves contact.
A bit like challenging for a header that you know you'll lose, because it reduces the chances of the opponent scoring.
Perfectly legal - involves contact.
---
Completely different mate.
The rules don't say contact's illegal, they stipulate which forms of contact are and aren't. There's nothing saying you can't challenge for a header just because you know you're not going to win it - you can still challenge cleanly using your body, the same as you can shoulder barge an opponent knowing that you're not going to muscle him off the ball but hoping to unsteady him enough for him to lose his advantage, whereas tripping or kicking him are illegal forms of contact regardless of whether he goes to ground or not.
itsonlyagame - 4928 days and counting (U6426)
Not technically true - a referee has to decide if it's careless, reckless or excessive.
You could regard the jumping example I gave as pushing.
When you say:
"they stipulate which forms of contact are and aren't"
It's actually the total opposite.
It's not feasible to list bodily movements that are legal or illegal, so referees are given the power to interpret the challenge and decide for themselves.
That's why there's actual no right or wrong for an offence like pushing - it's completely subject to interpretation.
Sign in if you want to comment
Well done for staying on your feet? Madness
Page 4 of 4
posted on 10/12/12
Now, whatever way you look at it, that is stopping, or lessening the chances, of a goal scoring opportunity and so should be given as a penalty.
As I've said to the others, that's not the case at all.
There are plenty of examples where 'legal' contact is used to put off an opponent that is passing or shooting, and the referee has to judge the force of the challenge when deciding whether it's excessive/over the top - whatever term you want to use.
posted on 10/12/12
itsonlyagame - 4928 days and counting (U6426)
I called your point rubbish and stated why.
If you are so sensitive that you can't deal with that, then feel free to leave the conversation
posted on 10/12/12
"There are plenty of examples where 'legal' contact is used to put off an opponent that is passing or shooting, and the referee has to judge the force of the challenge when deciding whether it's excessive/over the top - whatever term you want to use."
Yep, in an ideal world you are right. I cannot think if a single example of where that has happened though, the player going to ground is far more likely to be given.
posted on 10/12/12
meltonblue (U10617)
Two things:
1. Of course it's more likely. Because by diving, the referee will see the challenge as more forceful than it was.
2. It is not your decision whether you're fouled or not. So on that basis, when can it ever be right to feel contact and go down on the basis that you're more likely to get a pen?
posted on 10/12/12
Now, whatever way you look at it, that is stopping, or lessening the chances, of a goal scoring opportunity and so should be given as a penalty.
As I've said to the others, that's not the case at all.
In afraid that's what you aren't understanding, as long as these fouls (read the rule book, they are fouls) aren't given, players will continue to go down, they'd be stupid not to.
posted on 10/12/12
There are plenty of examples where 'legal' contact is used
---
It most definitely isn't what you stated initially as not enough to make a player fall over.
Going by the book, the only contact that's legal involves body parts other than your arms or legs (e.g. shoulder barges).
You cannot 'legally' trip or kick your opponent.
It's a completely different issue as to how much contact refs, on their own discretion, decide to allow so as not to keep on stopping the game, but it certainly shouldn't be enough to deprive a player of a clear goalscoring opportunity by means other than those sanctioned in the rules.
posted on 10/12/12
Whether he did or didn't doesn't bother me but Mancinis reaction to him NOT going down was the most telling aspect of yesterdays events.
posted on 10/12/12
BusbysBabes (U9083)
Please quote the law that I've missed?
posted on 10/12/12
but it certainly shouldn't be enough to deprive a player of a clear goalscoring opportunity
Except we're not talking about 'depriving' anyone - we're talking about lessening the chances.
A bit like challenging for a header that you know you'll lose, because it reduces the chances of the opponent scoring.
Perfectly legal - involves contact.
posted on 10/12/12
A bit like challenging for a header that you know you'll lose, because it reduces the chances of the opponent scoring.
Perfectly legal - involves contact.
---
Completely different mate.
The rules don't say contact's illegal, they stipulate which forms of contact are and aren't. There's nothing saying you can't challenge for a header just because you know you're not going to win it - you can still challenge cleanly using your body, the same as you can shoulder barge an opponent knowing that you're not going to muscle him off the ball but hoping to unsteady him enough for him to lose his advantage, whereas tripping or kicking him are illegal forms of contact regardless of whether he goes to ground or not.
posted on 10/12/12
itsonlyagame - 4928 days and counting (U6426)
Not technically true - a referee has to decide if it's careless, reckless or excessive.
You could regard the jumping example I gave as pushing.
When you say:
"they stipulate which forms of contact are and aren't"
It's actually the total opposite.
It's not feasible to list bodily movements that are legal or illegal, so referees are given the power to interpret the challenge and decide for themselves.
That's why there's actual no right or wrong for an offence like pushing - it's completely subject to interpretation.
posted on 10/12/12
Fair enough.
Page 4 of 4