Suggesting Fernandinho should have been punished is the most stupid point ever made on a football forum. No one would even have suggested it if Michael Owen hadn't mentioned it and he's one of the biggest prícks on TV.
comment by Boris 'Inky' Gibson (U5901)
posted 5 minutes ago
Suggesting Fernandinho should have been punished is the most stupid point ever made on a football forum. No one would even have suggested it if Michael Owen hadn't mentioned it and he's one of the biggest prícks on TV.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In actual fact, I did think about it before Owen mentioned it. And besides, my point is different to Owen's... he said Sherwood would have preferred the ball not to go in. I am putting forward the point that the punishment should have been given for intentional hand ball.
Anyway, as I said in the OP - the best team won, just trying to stir a debate on what I thought to be a grey subject
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
I would suggest that both the referee and his linesman will not have games next week or if they do, then it will be in the lower leagues.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
No Solado on the pitch so it could have easily have been 10 v 10 and still 3-0 to City for the last 30 minutes if the penalty had been missed. I would have settled for that scenario as well.
A total non starter of an argument in the first place and one that will probably never be mentioned again. What should be mentioned is defenders who go unpunished when clattering a player when he scores, it happened on Yaya earlier this season. If he hadn't have scored it would have been a red card but as it was the defender didn't even get a talking to despite the fact Toure had to go off about 3 minutes later.
But it isnt a 'non-starter' of an argument though, is it?
As I said earlier, Rooney once got booked for showing studs despite not going anywhere near the player. However he showed 'malicious intent'. The issue is hardly black and white, should an intent to cheat and stop a goal be any better or worse? (I am not saying it is one or the other, just saying there is a point to be considered)
Looked at your offside goal, the reason it was disallowed was for Ade being offside and not the scorer. If Ade hadn't gone for the ball the goal more than likely would have stood, as for the sending off anywhere else on the pitch it would have been a foul, so the penalty is the right decision. I suppose if it had been the other way round you guy's would have all been screaming for a penalty wouldn't you.
The key word is INTENT.................................I am not sure he should have been sent off, however certainly a was the minimum he should have go for deliberately trying to stop the ball on the line!
comment by Boris 'Inky' Gibson (U5901)
posted 45 minutes ago
No Solado on the pitch so it could have easily have been 10 v 10 and still 3-0 to City for the last 30 minutes if the penalty had been missed. I would have settled for that scenario as well.
A total non starter of an argument in the first place and one that will probably never be mentioned again. What should be mentioned is defenders who go unpunished when clattering a player when he scores, it happened on Yaya earlier this season. If he hadn't have scored it would have been a red card but as it was the defender didn't even get a talking to despite the fact Toure had to go off about 3 minutes later.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And this another sentiment I agree with - a player being fouled but still managing to score is in the same bracket. The offender should be punished.
I am not suprised not one of their fans retaliated to our chant; "Where were you when you were shi.t"
.......................
Maybe that's because it's the most pathetic and innacurate chant of all time and we just treat it with the contempt it deserves. 34,000 at home to York and Lincoln City in the old 3rd division........... you absolute beIlend!!!
I am not suprised not one of their fans retaliated to our chant; "Where were you when you were shi.t"
Did they really sing that? They should have got a special mention for being the most boring, unoriginal and repetetive bunch of fans this side of Old Trafford.
I suppose it keeps them away from looting and knife crime for 90 minutes though.
Joey and Boris
It is a shít chant tbf
Joey and Boris
It is a shít chant tbf
........................
It's like going to Old Trafford and singing 'you've never won ***k all'
http://www.ja606.co.uk/articles/viewArticle/250873
I read that when you posted it Boris, quite funny when you see the facts
Dunno, if a player tries to foul another player, but that player is too quick/skilful and skips past him, should the first player still get a booking for the attempted foul? Yes the intent appeared to be there, but technically committed no wrongdoing so no, I don't think he can be punished for an act he failed to commit.
_____________________________________
ACEFACE.....................................The Laws of The Game :
LAW 12 - FOULS AND MISCONDUCT
Direct free kick
A direct free kick is awarded to the opposing team if a player commits any of the following seven offences in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force:
kicks or attempts to kick an opponent
trips or attempts to trip an opponent
jumps at an opponent
charges an opponent
strikes or attempts to strike an opponent
pushes an opponent
tackles an opponent
A direct free kick is also awarded to the opposing team if a player commits any of the following three offences:
holds an opponent
spits at an opponent
handles the ball deliberately (except for the goalkeeper within his own penalty area)
A direct free kick is taken from the place where the offence occurred (see Law 13 - Position of free kick).
So you see, contact does not need to be made at all. The key is the word is ATTEMPTS..................that is intent!!
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 3 hours, 22 minutes ago
Offside - Correct. Adebayor was a mile offside.
Penalty - Correct. Rose had to go through the player to get the ball. Silly tackle.
Fernandinho handball - fack me you are having a laugh.
If anything Spurs were lucky to get away with Bentaleb juggling the ball, I counted 6 handballs in the space of 2 seconds there.
Plus Capoue got away with a shocker about 40 seconds after coming on.
I thought the ref did well. It was a free kick to Spurs in the lead up to the offside goal, he got that right. In fact between them the officials got pretty much everything correct, especially in the decisions that 'favoured' City.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
FFS. So biased it's unreal. Just admit it was a good tackle.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
My interesting thought for the day, though, regards your goal. Fernandinho attempted to stop the ball going in quite blatantly using his arm. Now I know it did go in and therefore didn't prevent a goal but it was a fully intentional handball nonetheless. We al know that if he had prevented the ball going in, he would have been off and a penalty given. In my opinion as it was "intentional" as the rule describes, regardless of the fact that the ball went in, Fernandinho should have been sent off for intentional hand ball and trying to prevent a goal.
Is this a grey area in the rule book? Thoughts?
===============
No grey area at all if you refer to the rules...
"A player is sent off, however, if he prevents a goal or an obvious goalscoring opportunity by deliberately handling the ball. This punishment arises not from the act of the player deliberately handling the ball but from the unacceptable and unfair intervention that prevented a goal being scored"
Fair enough DJ, that clears that up for me then
I thought it was the act of intentionally handling the ball, not the prevention of a goal.
I am not suprised not one of their fans retaliated to our chant; "Where were you when you were shi.t"
The guy that posted this Raptor ? said he was at the game, well so was I, so why he didn't hear the first response "We were here when we were sh.."
Is it because he was like our second response, "not really there"
Funny how none of these twonks have mentioned the "Who put the ball in Tottenham's net" or "It should have been 10" chants - Maybe they'd shuffled off to bed by then.
Sign in if you want to comment
Thoughts from last night
Page 2 of 2
posted on 30/1/14
Suggesting Fernandinho should have been punished is the most stupid point ever made on a football forum. No one would even have suggested it if Michael Owen hadn't mentioned it and he's one of the biggest prícks on TV.
posted on 30/1/14
comment by Boris 'Inky' Gibson (U5901)
posted 5 minutes ago
Suggesting Fernandinho should have been punished is the most stupid point ever made on a football forum. No one would even have suggested it if Michael Owen hadn't mentioned it and he's one of the biggest prícks on TV.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In actual fact, I did think about it before Owen mentioned it. And besides, my point is different to Owen's... he said Sherwood would have preferred the ball not to go in. I am putting forward the point that the punishment should have been given for intentional hand ball.
Anyway, as I said in the OP - the best team won, just trying to stir a debate on what I thought to be a grey subject
posted on 30/1/14
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 30/1/14
I would suggest that both the referee and his linesman will not have games next week or if they do, then it will be in the lower leagues.
posted on 30/1/14
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 30/1/14
No Solado on the pitch so it could have easily have been 10 v 10 and still 3-0 to City for the last 30 minutes if the penalty had been missed. I would have settled for that scenario as well.
A total non starter of an argument in the first place and one that will probably never be mentioned again. What should be mentioned is defenders who go unpunished when clattering a player when he scores, it happened on Yaya earlier this season. If he hadn't have scored it would have been a red card but as it was the defender didn't even get a talking to despite the fact Toure had to go off about 3 minutes later.
posted on 30/1/14
But it isnt a 'non-starter' of an argument though, is it?
As I said earlier, Rooney once got booked for showing studs despite not going anywhere near the player. However he showed 'malicious intent'. The issue is hardly black and white, should an intent to cheat and stop a goal be any better or worse? (I am not saying it is one or the other, just saying there is a point to be considered)
posted on 30/1/14
Looked at your offside goal, the reason it was disallowed was for Ade being offside and not the scorer. If Ade hadn't gone for the ball the goal more than likely would have stood, as for the sending off anywhere else on the pitch it would have been a foul, so the penalty is the right decision. I suppose if it had been the other way round you guy's would have all been screaming for a penalty wouldn't you.
posted on 30/1/14
The key word is INTENT.................................I am not sure he should have been sent off, however certainly a was the minimum he should have go for deliberately trying to stop the ball on the line!
posted on 30/1/14
comment by Boris 'Inky' Gibson (U5901)
posted 45 minutes ago
No Solado on the pitch so it could have easily have been 10 v 10 and still 3-0 to City for the last 30 minutes if the penalty had been missed. I would have settled for that scenario as well.
A total non starter of an argument in the first place and one that will probably never be mentioned again. What should be mentioned is defenders who go unpunished when clattering a player when he scores, it happened on Yaya earlier this season. If he hadn't have scored it would have been a red card but as it was the defender didn't even get a talking to despite the fact Toure had to go off about 3 minutes later.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And this another sentiment I agree with - a player being fouled but still managing to score is in the same bracket. The offender should be punished.
posted on 30/1/14
I am not suprised not one of their fans retaliated to our chant; "Where were you when you were shi.t"
.......................
Maybe that's because it's the most pathetic and innacurate chant of all time and we just treat it with the contempt it deserves. 34,000 at home to York and Lincoln City in the old 3rd division........... you absolute beIlend!!!
posted on 30/1/14
I am not suprised not one of their fans retaliated to our chant; "Where were you when you were shi.t"
Did they really sing that? They should have got a special mention for being the most boring, unoriginal and repetetive bunch of fans this side of Old Trafford.
I suppose it keeps them away from looting and knife crime for 90 minutes though.
posted on 30/1/14
Joey and Boris
It is a shít chant tbf
posted on 30/1/14
Joey and Boris
It is a shít chant tbf
........................
It's like going to Old Trafford and singing 'you've never won ***k all'
posted on 30/1/14
http://www.ja606.co.uk/articles/viewArticle/250873
posted on 30/1/14
I read that when you posted it Boris, quite funny when you see the facts
posted on 30/1/14
Dunno, if a player tries to foul another player, but that player is too quick/skilful and skips past him, should the first player still get a booking for the attempted foul? Yes the intent appeared to be there, but technically committed no wrongdoing so no, I don't think he can be punished for an act he failed to commit.
_____________________________________
ACEFACE.....................................The Laws of The Game :
LAW 12 - FOULS AND MISCONDUCT
Direct free kick
A direct free kick is awarded to the opposing team if a player commits any of the following seven offences in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force:
kicks or attempts to kick an opponent
trips or attempts to trip an opponent
jumps at an opponent
charges an opponent
strikes or attempts to strike an opponent
pushes an opponent
tackles an opponent
A direct free kick is also awarded to the opposing team if a player commits any of the following three offences:
holds an opponent
spits at an opponent
handles the ball deliberately (except for the goalkeeper within his own penalty area)
A direct free kick is taken from the place where the offence occurred (see Law 13 - Position of free kick).
So you see, contact does not need to be made at all. The key is the word is ATTEMPTS..................that is intent!!
posted on 30/1/14
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 3 hours, 22 minutes ago
Offside - Correct. Adebayor was a mile offside.
Penalty - Correct. Rose had to go through the player to get the ball. Silly tackle.
Fernandinho handball - fack me you are having a laugh.
If anything Spurs were lucky to get away with Bentaleb juggling the ball, I counted 6 handballs in the space of 2 seconds there.
Plus Capoue got away with a shocker about 40 seconds after coming on.
I thought the ref did well. It was a free kick to Spurs in the lead up to the offside goal, he got that right. In fact between them the officials got pretty much everything correct, especially in the decisions that 'favoured' City.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
FFS. So biased it's unreal. Just admit it was a good tackle.
posted on 30/1/14
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 30/1/14
My interesting thought for the day, though, regards your goal. Fernandinho attempted to stop the ball going in quite blatantly using his arm. Now I know it did go in and therefore didn't prevent a goal but it was a fully intentional handball nonetheless. We al know that if he had prevented the ball going in, he would have been off and a penalty given. In my opinion as it was "intentional" as the rule describes, regardless of the fact that the ball went in, Fernandinho should have been sent off for intentional hand ball and trying to prevent a goal.
Is this a grey area in the rule book? Thoughts?
===============
No grey area at all if you refer to the rules...
"A player is sent off, however, if he prevents a goal or an obvious goalscoring opportunity by deliberately handling the ball. This punishment arises not from the act of the player deliberately handling the ball but from the unacceptable and unfair intervention that prevented a goal being scored"
posted on 30/1/14
Fair enough DJ, that clears that up for me then
I thought it was the act of intentionally handling the ball, not the prevention of a goal.
posted on 30/1/14
I am not suprised not one of their fans retaliated to our chant; "Where were you when you were shi.t"
The guy that posted this Raptor ? said he was at the game, well so was I, so why he didn't hear the first response "We were here when we were sh.."
Is it because he was like our second response, "not really there"
posted on 30/1/14
Funny how none of these twonks have mentioned the "Who put the ball in Tottenham's net" or "It should have been 10" chants - Maybe they'd shuffled off to bed by then.
Page 2 of 2