Where a player commits an offence against an opponent within their own penalty area which denies an opponent an obvious goal-scoring opportunity and the referee awards a penalty kick, the offending player is cautioned if the offence was an attempt to play the ball; in all other circumstances (e.g. holding, pulling, pushing, no possibility to play the ball etc.) the offending player must be sent off.
The following must be considered:
distance between the offence and the goal
general direction of the play
likelihood of keeping or gaining control of the ball
location and number of defenders
==============
Was there a genuine attempt to play the ball - No.
Was it pulling, pushing, holding - Yes.
Distance - was in the box.
Direction - towards the goal
Likelihood of keeping the ball - high
Location/number of defenders - One not in close enough proximity to deny the chance to shoot.
Ticks all the boxes for a red.
comment by Blue Aye (U20893)
posted 1 minute ago
I am really upset now ðŸ˜
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That has been obvious from the start, no need to state it.
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 6 minutes ago
Where a player commits an offence against an opponent within their own penalty area which denies an opponent an obvious goal-scoring opportunity and the referee awards a penalty kick, the offending player is cautioned if the offence was an attempt to play the ball; in all other circumstances (e.g. holding, pulling, pushing, no possibility to play the ball etc.) the offending player must be sent off.
The following must be considered:
distance between the offence and the goal
general direction of the play
likelihood of keeping or gaining control of the ball
location and number of defenders
==============
Was there a genuine attempt to play the ball - No.
Was it pulling, pushing, holding - Yes.
Distance - was in the box.
Direction - towards the goal
Likelihood of keeping the ball - high
Location/number of defenders - One not in close enough proximity to deny the chance to shoot.
Ticks all the boxes for a red.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In your opinion.
There are enough factors that justify the refs decision as well.
But thanks for confirming that what you said was not the definition for an obvious goal scoring opportunity.
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by Blue Aye (U20893)
posted 1 minute ago
I am really upset now ðŸ˜
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That has been obvious from the start, no need to state it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
😂 keep it coming
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 6 minutes ago
Where a player commits an offence against an opponent within their own penalty area which denies an opponent an obvious goal-scoring opportunity and the referee awards a penalty kick, the offending player is cautioned if the offence was an attempt to play the ball; in all other circumstances (e.g. holding, pulling, pushing, no possibility to play the ball etc.) the offending player must be sent off.
The following must be considered:
distance between the offence and the goal
general direction of the play
likelihood of keeping or gaining control of the ball
location and number of defenders
==============
Was there a genuine attempt to play the ball - No.
Was it pulling, pushing, holding - Yes.
Distance - was in the box.
Direction - towards the goal
Likelihood of keeping the ball - high
Location/number of defenders - One not in close enough proximity to deny the chance to shoot.
Ticks all the boxes for a red.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In your opinion.
There are enough factors that justify the refs decision as well.
But thanks for confirming that what you said was not the definition for an obvious goal scoring opportunity.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Give him time, clearly he’s a bit slow on the uptake
Having a clear shot on goal isn't an obvious goalscoring opportunity, Winston? It so clearly is.
Fack me, you are a cantakerous old idiot.
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 38 minutes ago
Having a clear shot on goal isn't an obvious goalscoring opportunity, Winston?It so clearly is.
Fack me, you are a cantakerous old idiot.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not in all cases, no it isn’t. That’s why it’s not written into the laws.
But rather than open your mind up to an alternative opinion, you’d rather just become insulting.
Your ignorance will lead you to forever being frustrated with refereeing decisions.
Haha clearly out of your depth. Hence, resorting to insults, which in your little brain, translates as a victory
Even Winston who loves to be argumentative, can’t be bothered to respond to your hogwash bullsheet you served here. Tells a lot about you as poster.
In reality, Winston has you on the ropes
Winston has a cheerleader
comment by Don Draper's dandruff (U20155)
posted 15 hours, 5 minutes ago
comment by Jalisco Red (U4195)
posted 4 minutes ago
The ref's getting slaughtered on Facebook, but as a neutral I thought he did okay. The second yellow was never a yellow but that's about it in terms of what he got wrong.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yep, gotta say that other than the second yellow - which apparently VAR cannot review - I didn't see many shocking decisions. Yet I've seen Chelsea fans liken it to the barca CL match (!)
Though I don't remember them complaining when they committed over 20 fouls in the semi for not one yellow card.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
LAMU
Manu are also rans
comment by Blue Aye (U20893)
posted 17 minutes ago
Haha clearly out of your depth. Hence, resorting to insults, which in your little brain, translates as a victory
Even Winston who loves to be argumentative, can’t be bothered to respond to your hogwash bullsheet you served here. Tells a lot about you as poster.
In reality, Winston has you on the ropes
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yet Winston has responded, you thick caaaaant.
I have proved that it should have been a red by the laws of the game. All that can be argued is "opinion, opinion, opinion" as if the laws don't matter and it is all on the refs own rules.
“I have proved that it should have been a red by the laws of the game.”
The sad thing is you genuinely believe that, I suspect.
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 1 hour, 36 minutes ago
Where a player commits an offence against an opponent within their own penalty area which denies an opponent an obvious goal-scoring opportunity and the referee awards a penalty kick, the offending player is cautioned if the offence was an attempt to play the ball; in all other circumstances (e.g. holding, pulling, pushing, no possibility to play the ball etc.) the offending player must be sent off.
The following must be considered:
distance between the offence and the goal
general direction of the play
likelihood of keeping or gaining control of the ball
location and number of defenders
==============
Was there a genuine attempt to play the ball - No.
Was it pulling, pushing, holding - Yes.
Distance - was in the box.
Direction - towards the goal
Likelihood of keeping the ball - high
Location/number of defenders - One not in close enough proximity to deny the chance to shoot.
Ticks all the boxes for a red.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, what you’ve done there DJ is back up your opinion with reasoning.
That does not mean that an alternative interpretation and opinion is incorrect.
I don’t think you’re stupid and it astounds me that you, and so many others, fail to grasp this rather critical point.
Yesterday we had a Chelsea fan claiming the referee was corrupt and then you claiming that he 100% made the wrong decision not to send Azpi off.
It is literally laughable.
You’re having a mare, not unusual by your standards tbf. You’re either dumb or too slow to grasp it
That does not mean that an alternative interpretation and opinion is incorrect.
==
No-one is giving an alternative intepretation based on the rules. You are just repeating "opinion, opinion, opinion" and Conte'nt is just saying "durrrrrr" a lot.
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 59 seconds ago
That does not mean that an alternative interpretation and opinion is incorrect.
==
No-one is giving an alternative intepretation based on the rules. You are just repeating "opinion, opinion, opinion" and Conte'nt is just saying "durrrrrr" a lot.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The referee clearly had a different opinion to you.
Are you really so oblivious to why that might be?
So certain that your opinion is the only valid one?
If that’s your interpretation of the low, then you’re leaving yourself open to ridicule. You can’t help it
comment by Blue Aye (U20893)
posted 2 minutes ago
If that’s your interpretation of the low, then you’re leaving yourself open to ridicule. You can’t help it
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Go on then, you have the law all there for you. What bit do you disagree with?
The referee clearly had a different opinion to you.
======
He has made a call in the heat of the action. Like many he takes the easier option.
VAR, as often is the case, does not want to overrule the on-field ref so doesn't.
The BBC reported at half time that the reason VAR didn't upgrade it to a red was not because of a covering defender, not because of distance, not because of control of the ball, but because it was "a genuine attempt to play the ball". This clearly wasn't the case, it was a grab of the shoulder. So the only conclusion you can make is VAR made an error.
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 2 minutes ago
The referee clearly had a different opinion to you.
======
He has made a call in the heat of the action. Like many he takes the easier option.
VAR, as often is the case, does not want to overrule the on-field ref so doesn't.
The BBC reported at half time that the reason VAR didn't upgrade it to a red was not because of a covering defender, not because of distance, not because of control of the ball, but because it was "a genuine attempt to play the ball". This clearly wasn't the case, it was a grab of the shoulder. So the only conclusion you can make is VAR made an error.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, I was surprised to hear that at half-time.
The one thing you can say with certainty is that it wasn't a genuine attempt by Azpilicueta to play the ball as all he did was pull at the player and hold him back.
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 18 minutes ago
comment by Blue Aye (U20893)
posted 2 minutes ago
If that’s your interpretation of the low, then you’re leaving yourself open to ridicule. You can’t help it
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Go on then, you have the law all there for you. What bit do you disagree with?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I did, but since you claim to be the “expert”, you gave me other ideas of how to deal with a fool like you.
"What bit do you disagree with?"
"I did"
DURRRRRRRR
Conte'nt coming into this conversation:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KuTPGMDAvQs
Sign in if you want to comment
Anthony Taylor
Page 4 of 5
posted on 2/8/20
Where a player commits an offence against an opponent within their own penalty area which denies an opponent an obvious goal-scoring opportunity and the referee awards a penalty kick, the offending player is cautioned if the offence was an attempt to play the ball; in all other circumstances (e.g. holding, pulling, pushing, no possibility to play the ball etc.) the offending player must be sent off.
The following must be considered:
distance between the offence and the goal
general direction of the play
likelihood of keeping or gaining control of the ball
location and number of defenders
==============
Was there a genuine attempt to play the ball - No.
Was it pulling, pushing, holding - Yes.
Distance - was in the box.
Direction - towards the goal
Likelihood of keeping the ball - high
Location/number of defenders - One not in close enough proximity to deny the chance to shoot.
Ticks all the boxes for a red.
posted on 2/8/20
comment by Blue Aye (U20893)
posted 1 minute ago
I am really upset now ðŸ˜
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That has been obvious from the start, no need to state it.
posted on 2/8/20
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 6 minutes ago
Where a player commits an offence against an opponent within their own penalty area which denies an opponent an obvious goal-scoring opportunity and the referee awards a penalty kick, the offending player is cautioned if the offence was an attempt to play the ball; in all other circumstances (e.g. holding, pulling, pushing, no possibility to play the ball etc.) the offending player must be sent off.
The following must be considered:
distance between the offence and the goal
general direction of the play
likelihood of keeping or gaining control of the ball
location and number of defenders
==============
Was there a genuine attempt to play the ball - No.
Was it pulling, pushing, holding - Yes.
Distance - was in the box.
Direction - towards the goal
Likelihood of keeping the ball - high
Location/number of defenders - One not in close enough proximity to deny the chance to shoot.
Ticks all the boxes for a red.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In your opinion.
There are enough factors that justify the refs decision as well.
But thanks for confirming that what you said was not the definition for an obvious goal scoring opportunity.
posted on 2/8/20
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by Blue Aye (U20893)
posted 1 minute ago
I am really upset now ðŸ˜
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That has been obvious from the start, no need to state it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
😂 keep it coming
posted on 2/8/20
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 6 minutes ago
Where a player commits an offence against an opponent within their own penalty area which denies an opponent an obvious goal-scoring opportunity and the referee awards a penalty kick, the offending player is cautioned if the offence was an attempt to play the ball; in all other circumstances (e.g. holding, pulling, pushing, no possibility to play the ball etc.) the offending player must be sent off.
The following must be considered:
distance between the offence and the goal
general direction of the play
likelihood of keeping or gaining control of the ball
location and number of defenders
==============
Was there a genuine attempt to play the ball - No.
Was it pulling, pushing, holding - Yes.
Distance - was in the box.
Direction - towards the goal
Likelihood of keeping the ball - high
Location/number of defenders - One not in close enough proximity to deny the chance to shoot.
Ticks all the boxes for a red.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In your opinion.
There are enough factors that justify the refs decision as well.
But thanks for confirming that what you said was not the definition for an obvious goal scoring opportunity.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Give him time, clearly he’s a bit slow on the uptake
posted on 2/8/20
Having a clear shot on goal isn't an obvious goalscoring opportunity, Winston? It so clearly is.
Fack me, you are a cantakerous old idiot.
posted on 2/8/20
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 38 minutes ago
Having a clear shot on goal isn't an obvious goalscoring opportunity, Winston?It so clearly is.
Fack me, you are a cantakerous old idiot.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not in all cases, no it isn’t. That’s why it’s not written into the laws.
But rather than open your mind up to an alternative opinion, you’d rather just become insulting.
Your ignorance will lead you to forever being frustrated with refereeing decisions.
posted on 2/8/20
Haha clearly out of your depth. Hence, resorting to insults, which in your little brain, translates as a victory
Even Winston who loves to be argumentative, can’t be bothered to respond to your hogwash bullsheet you served here. Tells a lot about you as poster.
In reality, Winston has you on the ropes
posted on 2/8/20
Winston has a cheerleader
posted on 2/8/20
comment by Don Draper's dandruff (U20155)
posted 15 hours, 5 minutes ago
comment by Jalisco Red (U4195)
posted 4 minutes ago
The ref's getting slaughtered on Facebook, but as a neutral I thought he did okay. The second yellow was never a yellow but that's about it in terms of what he got wrong.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yep, gotta say that other than the second yellow - which apparently VAR cannot review - I didn't see many shocking decisions. Yet I've seen Chelsea fans liken it to the barca CL match (!)
Though I don't remember them complaining when they committed over 20 fouls in the semi for not one yellow card.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
LAMU
Manu are also rans
posted on 2/8/20
comment by Blue Aye (U20893)
posted 17 minutes ago
Haha clearly out of your depth. Hence, resorting to insults, which in your little brain, translates as a victory
Even Winston who loves to be argumentative, can’t be bothered to respond to your hogwash bullsheet you served here. Tells a lot about you as poster.
In reality, Winston has you on the ropes
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yet Winston has responded, you thick caaaaant.
I have proved that it should have been a red by the laws of the game. All that can be argued is "opinion, opinion, opinion" as if the laws don't matter and it is all on the refs own rules.
posted on 2/8/20
“I have proved that it should have been a red by the laws of the game.”
The sad thing is you genuinely believe that, I suspect.
posted on 2/8/20
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 1 hour, 36 minutes ago
Where a player commits an offence against an opponent within their own penalty area which denies an opponent an obvious goal-scoring opportunity and the referee awards a penalty kick, the offending player is cautioned if the offence was an attempt to play the ball; in all other circumstances (e.g. holding, pulling, pushing, no possibility to play the ball etc.) the offending player must be sent off.
The following must be considered:
distance between the offence and the goal
general direction of the play
likelihood of keeping or gaining control of the ball
location and number of defenders
==============
Was there a genuine attempt to play the ball - No.
Was it pulling, pushing, holding - Yes.
Distance - was in the box.
Direction - towards the goal
Likelihood of keeping the ball - high
Location/number of defenders - One not in close enough proximity to deny the chance to shoot.
Ticks all the boxes for a red.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
posted on 2/8/20
Yes, what you’ve done there DJ is back up your opinion with reasoning.
That does not mean that an alternative interpretation and opinion is incorrect.
I don’t think you’re stupid and it astounds me that you, and so many others, fail to grasp this rather critical point.
Yesterday we had a Chelsea fan claiming the referee was corrupt and then you claiming that he 100% made the wrong decision not to send Azpi off.
It is literally laughable.
posted on 2/8/20
You’re having a mare, not unusual by your standards tbf. You’re either dumb or too slow to grasp it
posted on 2/8/20
That does not mean that an alternative interpretation and opinion is incorrect.
==
No-one is giving an alternative intepretation based on the rules. You are just repeating "opinion, opinion, opinion" and Conte'nt is just saying "durrrrrr" a lot.
posted on 2/8/20
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 59 seconds ago
That does not mean that an alternative interpretation and opinion is incorrect.
==
No-one is giving an alternative intepretation based on the rules. You are just repeating "opinion, opinion, opinion" and Conte'nt is just saying "durrrrrr" a lot.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The referee clearly had a different opinion to you.
Are you really so oblivious to why that might be?
So certain that your opinion is the only valid one?
posted on 2/8/20
If that’s your interpretation of the low, then you’re leaving yourself open to ridicule. You can’t help it
posted on 2/8/20
*law
posted on 2/8/20
comment by Blue Aye (U20893)
posted 2 minutes ago
If that’s your interpretation of the low, then you’re leaving yourself open to ridicule. You can’t help it
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Go on then, you have the law all there for you. What bit do you disagree with?
posted on 2/8/20
The referee clearly had a different opinion to you.
======
He has made a call in the heat of the action. Like many he takes the easier option.
VAR, as often is the case, does not want to overrule the on-field ref so doesn't.
The BBC reported at half time that the reason VAR didn't upgrade it to a red was not because of a covering defender, not because of distance, not because of control of the ball, but because it was "a genuine attempt to play the ball". This clearly wasn't the case, it was a grab of the shoulder. So the only conclusion you can make is VAR made an error.
posted on 2/8/20
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 2 minutes ago
The referee clearly had a different opinion to you.
======
He has made a call in the heat of the action. Like many he takes the easier option.
VAR, as often is the case, does not want to overrule the on-field ref so doesn't.
The BBC reported at half time that the reason VAR didn't upgrade it to a red was not because of a covering defender, not because of distance, not because of control of the ball, but because it was "a genuine attempt to play the ball". This clearly wasn't the case, it was a grab of the shoulder. So the only conclusion you can make is VAR made an error.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, I was surprised to hear that at half-time.
The one thing you can say with certainty is that it wasn't a genuine attempt by Azpilicueta to play the ball as all he did was pull at the player and hold him back.
posted on 2/8/20
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 18 minutes ago
comment by Blue Aye (U20893)
posted 2 minutes ago
If that’s your interpretation of the low, then you’re leaving yourself open to ridicule. You can’t help it
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Go on then, you have the law all there for you. What bit do you disagree with?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I did, but since you claim to be the “expert”, you gave me other ideas of how to deal with a fool like you.
posted on 2/8/20
"What bit do you disagree with?"
"I did"
DURRRRRRRR
posted on 2/8/20
Conte'nt coming into this conversation:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KuTPGMDAvQs
Page 4 of 5