"I think Ade was obscuring his view of Zabaleta "
.................................................................................................
You mean the same Ade who was in the in the centre of the goal in an off-side position?
"Rose clearly got the ball first and then the player"
...........................................................................................
So in your position as an ex referee; why do touching the ball and winning the ball seem to be deemed as the same thing, and why is it OK to bring someone down as long as you have touched the ball?!
it has been pointed out by others, if the ball had stayed out then Spurs would have had a penalty and Fernandinho would have been sent off.
Because the ball ended up in the back of the net, he escaped punishment.
As an ex-referee I believe this is definitely a grey area that needs scrutinising by both the FA & Fifa
=====================
As an ex-player, I would expect the ref to show me the red card.
If you handle the ball and it hasn't gone in yet, then it is handball, even if the ball subsequently goes in.
I think the ref bottled it.
Big time
comment by morespurs (U15748)
posted 1 minute ago
it has been pointed out by others, if the ball had stayed out then Spurs would have had a penalty and Fernandinho would have been sent off.
Because the ball ended up in the back of the net, he escaped punishment.
As an ex-referee I believe this is definitely a grey area that needs scrutinising by both the FA & Fifa
=====================
As an ex-player, I would expect the ref to show me the red card.
If you handle the ball and it hasn't gone in yet, then it is handball, even if the ball subsequently goes in.
I think the ref bottled it.
Big time
----------------------------------------------------------------------
On reply wasn't the ball already over the line?
On reply wasn't the ball already over the line?
NO!
Ok ( sure it was tho )
If he gave him a card surely he'd have to give a pen instead of letting the goal count
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
So in your position as an ex referee; why do touching the ball and winning the ball seem to be deemed as the same thing, and why is it OK to bring someone down as long as you have touched the ball?!
It is really all down to intent, did the player intend to play the ball? If yes, no penalty.
Was the challenge dangerous or reckless? If no, then no penalty.
Offences that warrant sending off have to be deemed to be deliberate and in this case that is very doubtful indeed. Rose went for the ball, got the ball and then collided with Dzeko. He was travelling in the same direction and it would have been impossible for either player to pull up hence they collide! It is a physical game & if you take all contact out then we might as well take up tiddlywinks!
Ok ( sure it was tho )
If he gave him a card surely he'd have to give a pen instead of letting the goal count
No! That comes under Referee's discretion!
"It is really all down to intent, did the player intend to play the ball? If yes, no penalty.
Was the challenge dangerous or reckless? If no, then no penalty."
..............................................................................................
Tackling from behind is generally considered as dangerous play now, you may recall the rules/guidelines changing a while back.
I don't accept your 'Intent' argument; many a miss-timed tackle started out with the intent of getting the ball!
When the ref gives a penalty I don't hear many players saying "but I intended to get the ball ref."
I can't see why touching the ball is enough for the ref to consider you've won it. If he had not have brought Dzeko down then Dzeko would still have had the ball at his feet in front of goal.
not seen disallowed goal....but the rose thing....he jumped in...yes got alot of the ball....but jumped in...pen and yellow wlda been right......imo.
What about the multiple handball that spurs got away with?
The free kick you got before the disallowed goal wasn't even a free kick.
Off side is offside.
And ade should have been sent off for his tackle on Demichelis
As for the penalty that makes up for the one that Nasri didn't get at our place against you
If the Rose tackle had happened anywhere else on the pitch it would have been a foul and that's how the ref would have called it.
The tackle from behind is outlawed full stop, rightly or wrongly this is the law.
Ok ( sure it was tho )
If he gave him a card surely he'd have to give a pen instead of letting the goal count
======================
Correct!
Send off the player as he has being ungentlemanly (dirty)
give the opposition penalty and rule out the goal because technically it isn't a goal if a clear handball has been committed?
The guy stuck his arms out and only the power of the shot got the better off him, otherwise he would've stopped the shot.
The ref bottled it for me.
I don't accept your 'Intent' argument; many a miss-timed tackle started out with the intent of getting the ball!
==============================
I agree. That "intent" argument is a lot of hot air.
What about the multiple handball that spurs got away with?
===============
That was ball to hand
Bentaleb turned his back, the shot hit his hand and bounced onto the other hand.
In every game, you will see incidents like that.
Some refs do give them tho only if the ref is 100% sure.
What about the multiple handball that spurs got away with?
====================
I have to say you should not use this as an argument.
End of the day, City always had extra gears and were on top.
Lets say Rose was on the field and our equaliser stood, I could still see city winning by 2 goals.
City deserved the win but the game was marred by the officials, and it would have been a lot less embarassing for us too.
We don't have to play City anymore phew
Hope you give some other teams a drubbing too
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
The tackle from behind is outlawed full stop, rightly or wrongly this is the law................... No it is not, the tackle through the player from behind is though!
I don't accept your 'Intent' argument; many a miss-timed tackle started out with the intent of getting the ball!
==============================
I agree. That "intent" argument is a lot of hot air.
Intent is a key element in decisions by referees, just as in handball. Was it intentional or not?
Ok ( sure it was tho )
If he gave him a card surely he'd have to give a pen instead of letting the goal count
======================
Correct!
Send off the player as he has being ungentlemanly (dirty)
give the opposition penalty and rule out the goal because technically it isn't a goal if a clear handball has been committed?
The guy stuck his arms out and only the power of the shot got the better off him, otherwise he would've stopped the shot.
The ref bottled it for me.
If the referee had given a penalty, yes I am sure he would have sent Fernandinho off, however as the ball ended up in the net before he could blow he allowed the goal, It is a no win situation really. If had ruled the goal out & given a penalty and that was missed, there would have been uproar.
I think at worst he should have cautioned Fernandinho, you probably could not send him off because he did not prevent a goal scoring opportunity. Unfair? Possibly, but thats life!
That isn't true and there are many instances that outline this. Dangerous play, handball etc are often not deliberate but still warrant a sending off.
===================
Agree. Intent or not, any dangerous play deemed so by the officials should result in a sending off.
Unless the ref bottles it
Offences that warrant sending off have to be deemed to be deliberate
--------------------
That isn't true and there are many instances that outline this. Dangerous play, handball etc are often not deliberate but still warrant a sending off.
_____________________________________
Greatteamswinit4times
Read my words again...................DEEMED!!!
If the referee deemed it to be deliberate, irrespective of whether the player meant it or not, then that is all that matters.
Look at the Laws and you will see references to "In the referees opinion"..................................
The whole argument about intent has always puzzled me. In order to be a top-class referee one has, it seems, to have the ability to read minds. I would say that most penalties awarded for handball are unintentional handballs, and yet they are still given.
Read my words again...................DEEMED!!!
====================
yes, read my last comment too ....DEENMED!!!
True though
His team selection and going for one up top smacked of fear
=================
How does playing an attacking formation, and one that was even trying its hardest to get back in the game at 3-0 down, and with 10 men, smack of of fear?
I'd say totally the opposite, it showed we had intent and to try to create goal scoring opportunities all the way through.
The manager should accept some blame for losing by 4 goals but i dont think losing 1 game from 7 league games, against a side like City, shows any refelection of niavity or anything.
I also think there were one or two contraversial decisons that affected the game somewhat.
PS. I'm not taking any blame away from the manager - but its ridiculous to mock his management after his first league loss (in 7).
The whole argument about intent has always puzzled me. In order to be a top-class referee one has, it seems, to have the ability to read minds. I would say that most penalties awarded for handball are unintentional handballs, and yet they are still given.
==================
Refs need to have common sense and use discretion many times during a single game, recall Pierluigi Collina
comment by morespurs (U15748) posted 10 minutes ago
"City deserved the win but the game was marred by the officials"
...........................................................................................
I don't see why you say this; we've established it was a deserved penalty and therefore the ref was within his rights to send Rose off. We know the disallowed goal was rightly given as offside as at least one player was in an offside position when the free kick was taken. And we know it was quite reasonable for the ref to give the Spurs goal and continue with the game without sending someone off for handball, so it sounds like the ref played a blinder, got the big decisions right. The thing that marred the game was two unmatched teams!
Sign in if you want to comment
The Morning After!
Page 1 of 2
posted on 30/1/14
"I think Ade was obscuring his view of Zabaleta "
.................................................................................................
You mean the same Ade who was in the in the centre of the goal in an off-side position?
"Rose clearly got the ball first and then the player"
...........................................................................................
So in your position as an ex referee; why do touching the ball and winning the ball seem to be deemed as the same thing, and why is it OK to bring someone down as long as you have touched the ball?!
posted on 30/1/14
it has been pointed out by others, if the ball had stayed out then Spurs would have had a penalty and Fernandinho would have been sent off.
Because the ball ended up in the back of the net, he escaped punishment.
As an ex-referee I believe this is definitely a grey area that needs scrutinising by both the FA & Fifa
=====================
As an ex-player, I would expect the ref to show me the red card.
If you handle the ball and it hasn't gone in yet, then it is handball, even if the ball subsequently goes in.
I think the ref bottled it.
Big time
posted on 30/1/14
comment by morespurs (U15748)
posted 1 minute ago
it has been pointed out by others, if the ball had stayed out then Spurs would have had a penalty and Fernandinho would have been sent off.
Because the ball ended up in the back of the net, he escaped punishment.
As an ex-referee I believe this is definitely a grey area that needs scrutinising by both the FA & Fifa
=====================
As an ex-player, I would expect the ref to show me the red card.
If you handle the ball and it hasn't gone in yet, then it is handball, even if the ball subsequently goes in.
I think the ref bottled it.
Big time
----------------------------------------------------------------------
On reply wasn't the ball already over the line?
posted on 30/1/14
On reply wasn't the ball already over the line?
NO!
posted on 30/1/14
Ok ( sure it was tho )
If he gave him a card surely he'd have to give a pen instead of letting the goal count
posted on 30/1/14
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 30/1/14
So in your position as an ex referee; why do touching the ball and winning the ball seem to be deemed as the same thing, and why is it OK to bring someone down as long as you have touched the ball?!
It is really all down to intent, did the player intend to play the ball? If yes, no penalty.
Was the challenge dangerous or reckless? If no, then no penalty.
Offences that warrant sending off have to be deemed to be deliberate and in this case that is very doubtful indeed. Rose went for the ball, got the ball and then collided with Dzeko. He was travelling in the same direction and it would have been impossible for either player to pull up hence they collide! It is a physical game & if you take all contact out then we might as well take up tiddlywinks!
posted on 30/1/14
Ok ( sure it was tho )
If he gave him a card surely he'd have to give a pen instead of letting the goal count
No! That comes under Referee's discretion!
posted on 30/1/14
"It is really all down to intent, did the player intend to play the ball? If yes, no penalty.
Was the challenge dangerous or reckless? If no, then no penalty."
..............................................................................................
Tackling from behind is generally considered as dangerous play now, you may recall the rules/guidelines changing a while back.
I don't accept your 'Intent' argument; many a miss-timed tackle started out with the intent of getting the ball!
When the ref gives a penalty I don't hear many players saying "but I intended to get the ball ref."
I can't see why touching the ball is enough for the ref to consider you've won it. If he had not have brought Dzeko down then Dzeko would still have had the ball at his feet in front of goal.
posted on 30/1/14
not seen disallowed goal....but the rose thing....he jumped in...yes got alot of the ball....but jumped in...pen and yellow wlda been right......imo.
posted on 30/1/14
What about the multiple handball that spurs got away with?
The free kick you got before the disallowed goal wasn't even a free kick.
Off side is offside.
And ade should have been sent off for his tackle on Demichelis
As for the penalty that makes up for the one that Nasri didn't get at our place against you
posted on 30/1/14
If the Rose tackle had happened anywhere else on the pitch it would have been a foul and that's how the ref would have called it.
The tackle from behind is outlawed full stop, rightly or wrongly this is the law.
posted on 30/1/14
Ok ( sure it was tho )
If he gave him a card surely he'd have to give a pen instead of letting the goal count
======================
Correct!
Send off the player as he has being ungentlemanly (dirty)
give the opposition penalty and rule out the goal because technically it isn't a goal if a clear handball has been committed?
The guy stuck his arms out and only the power of the shot got the better off him, otherwise he would've stopped the shot.
The ref bottled it for me.
posted on 30/1/14
I don't accept your 'Intent' argument; many a miss-timed tackle started out with the intent of getting the ball!
==============================
I agree. That "intent" argument is a lot of hot air.
posted on 30/1/14
What about the multiple handball that spurs got away with?
===============
That was ball to hand
Bentaleb turned his back, the shot hit his hand and bounced onto the other hand.
In every game, you will see incidents like that.
Some refs do give them tho only if the ref is 100% sure.
posted on 30/1/14
What about the multiple handball that spurs got away with?
====================
I have to say you should not use this as an argument.
End of the day, City always had extra gears and were on top.
Lets say Rose was on the field and our equaliser stood, I could still see city winning by 2 goals.
City deserved the win but the game was marred by the officials, and it would have been a lot less embarassing for us too.
We don't have to play City anymore phew
Hope you give some other teams a drubbing too
posted on 30/1/14
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 30/1/14
The tackle from behind is outlawed full stop, rightly or wrongly this is the law................... No it is not, the tackle through the player from behind is though!
I don't accept your 'Intent' argument; many a miss-timed tackle started out with the intent of getting the ball!
==============================
I agree. That "intent" argument is a lot of hot air.
Intent is a key element in decisions by referees, just as in handball. Was it intentional or not?
Ok ( sure it was tho )
If he gave him a card surely he'd have to give a pen instead of letting the goal count
======================
Correct!
Send off the player as he has being ungentlemanly (dirty)
give the opposition penalty and rule out the goal because technically it isn't a goal if a clear handball has been committed?
The guy stuck his arms out and only the power of the shot got the better off him, otherwise he would've stopped the shot.
The ref bottled it for me.
If the referee had given a penalty, yes I am sure he would have sent Fernandinho off, however as the ball ended up in the net before he could blow he allowed the goal, It is a no win situation really. If had ruled the goal out & given a penalty and that was missed, there would have been uproar.
I think at worst he should have cautioned Fernandinho, you probably could not send him off because he did not prevent a goal scoring opportunity. Unfair? Possibly, but thats life!
posted on 30/1/14
That isn't true and there are many instances that outline this. Dangerous play, handball etc are often not deliberate but still warrant a sending off.
===================
Agree. Intent or not, any dangerous play deemed so by the officials should result in a sending off.
Unless the ref bottles it
posted on 30/1/14
Offences that warrant sending off have to be deemed to be deliberate
--------------------
That isn't true and there are many instances that outline this. Dangerous play, handball etc are often not deliberate but still warrant a sending off.
_____________________________________
Greatteamswinit4times
Read my words again...................DEEMED!!!
If the referee deemed it to be deliberate, irrespective of whether the player meant it or not, then that is all that matters.
Look at the Laws and you will see references to "In the referees opinion"..................................
posted on 30/1/14
The whole argument about intent has always puzzled me. In order to be a top-class referee one has, it seems, to have the ability to read minds. I would say that most penalties awarded for handball are unintentional handballs, and yet they are still given.
posted on 30/1/14
Read my words again...................DEEMED!!!
====================
yes, read my last comment too ....DEENMED!!!
True though
posted on 30/1/14
His team selection and going for one up top smacked of fear
=================
How does playing an attacking formation, and one that was even trying its hardest to get back in the game at 3-0 down, and with 10 men, smack of of fear?
I'd say totally the opposite, it showed we had intent and to try to create goal scoring opportunities all the way through.
The manager should accept some blame for losing by 4 goals but i dont think losing 1 game from 7 league games, against a side like City, shows any refelection of niavity or anything.
I also think there were one or two contraversial decisons that affected the game somewhat.
PS. I'm not taking any blame away from the manager - but its ridiculous to mock his management after his first league loss (in 7).
posted on 30/1/14
The whole argument about intent has always puzzled me. In order to be a top-class referee one has, it seems, to have the ability to read minds. I would say that most penalties awarded for handball are unintentional handballs, and yet they are still given.
==================
Refs need to have common sense and use discretion many times during a single game, recall Pierluigi Collina
posted on 30/1/14
comment by morespurs (U15748) posted 10 minutes ago
"City deserved the win but the game was marred by the officials"
...........................................................................................
I don't see why you say this; we've established it was a deserved penalty and therefore the ref was within his rights to send Rose off. We know the disallowed goal was rightly given as offside as at least one player was in an offside position when the free kick was taken. And we know it was quite reasonable for the ref to give the Spurs goal and continue with the game without sending someone off for handball, so it sounds like the ref played a blinder, got the big decisions right. The thing that marred the game was two unmatched teams!
Page 1 of 2