Comment deleted by Article Creator
Can see why the decision was made. It's again a lack of consistency that is the issue.
comment by Peter O'Hanraha-hanrahan (U1217)
posted 49 minutes ago
Can see why the decision was made. It's again a lack of consistency that is the issue.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No, I can't see why the decision has been made because the law hadn't been applied regarding the FK
According to the rules
- All FK must be taken from the place where the offence occurred
- The ball must be stationary and the ball is in play when it is kicked
The consistency argument isn't really an argument as no infraction was committed
PP - I'm sure we can all see why the decision was made, but the fact is 99% of the time the decision would be different.
We all know the best way to handle that situation is tell Veltman to take the ball back 10 yards, tell Rice to get away and both to chill. There are way too many mitigating circumstances to give a red. Rice was walking away, he had no interest in Veltman or the ball. The ball was dead and Veltman kicked it, thus the free kick should have been deemed taken before it hit Rice. The ref should also consider that the movement of the ball away from where the foul took place would not give Veltman a chance to take a clean kick, as he rolled it directly at Rice, that is in Law 12 and Veltman should, by the letter of the law, be booked for that. And, of course, Veltman should be punished for the kick out that clearly had nothing to do with the ball. If Rice hadn't touched the ball Veltmans kick would have at best grazed the top of the ball. Any half competent ref would take all this into consideration and deal with it as said at the start of this paragraph. The incident would be very quickly forgotten with no debate from the PGMOL, ref assessor or anyone else.
It was undoubtedly the correct decision. Don't understand the uproar.
Even Gary Lineker has tweeted calling that crooked panel verdict: "utter nonsense".
- Free kick wasn't taken from where it should have been.
- Veltman should have been sent off for hacking Rice from behind.
- Ball was moving when he took it anyway and he did it deliberately to try and get Rice sent off.
- Plus Rice had his back to the whole thing and was walking away from it.
- Nobody ever actually tries to take a quick freekick by their own corner flag.
absolutely...was being a caant
Kavanagh was not going to pass up the chance to send off an Arsenal player
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 2 hours, 21 minutes ago
It was undoubtedly the correct decision. Don't understand the uproar.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Unless it was Salah!
No, I can't see why the decision has been made because the law hadn't been applied regarding the FK
According to the rules
- All FK must be taken from the place where the offence occurred
- The ball must be stationary and the ball is in play when it is kicked
------------------------
This isn't really relevant though, is it? You wouldn't allow someone to boot the ball out of play when a free kick is awarded because the ball isn't stationary and it isn't taking place where the offence occurred. Ultimately, Rice only tapped the ball out of play - but it was an attempt to delay the restart and thus a bookable offence.
Totally agree re. the consistency thoughn - you'll see those not given every week.
Stilll not got over this correct decision
comment by -bloodred- (U1222)
posted 7 minutes ago
No, I can't see why the decision has been made because the law hadn't been applied regarding the FK
According to the rules
- All FK must be taken from the place where the offence occurred
- The ball must be stationary and the ball is in play when it is kicked
------------------------
This isn't really relevant though, is it? You wouldn't allow someone to boot the ball out of play when a free kick is awarded because the ball isn't stationary and it isn't taking place where the offence occurred. Ultimately, Rice only tapped the ball out of play - but it was an attempt to delay the restart and thus a bookable offence.
Totally agree re. the consistency thoughn - you'll see those not given every week.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The point made there is the free kick was already taken before Rice kicked it. The ball was stationary and Veltman kicked it. He tried to play it off Rice and then continue, but it didn't go to plan yet the ref didn't officiate to the letter of law 13...
Fair, need to see it again.
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 44 minutes ago
comment by -bloodred- (U1222)
posted 7 minutes ago
No, I can't see why the decision has been made because the law hadn't been applied regarding the FK
According to the rules
- All FK must be taken from the place where the offence occurred
- The ball must be stationary and the ball is in play when it is kicked
------------------------
This isn't really relevant though, is it? You wouldn't allow someone to boot the ball out of play when a free kick is awarded because the ball isn't stationary and it isn't taking place where the offence occurred. Ultimately, Rice only tapped the ball out of play - but it was an attempt to delay the restart and thus a bookable offence.
Totally agree re. the consistency thoughn - you'll see those not given every week.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The point made there is the free kick was already taken before Rice kicked it. The ball was stationary and Veltman kicked it. He tried to play it off Rice and then continue, but it didn't go to plan yet the ref didn't officiate to the letter of law 13...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"The point made there is the free kick was already taken before Rice kicked it"
That is one of the most laughable interpretations of what happened. Have a word with yourself !!
How is that laughable? Law 13 literally says it was taken. The ball was stationary, in the correct position and was kicked.
lEtTeR oF tHe LaW.
He was stealing a yard or 2, he hadnt taken it, Anyone can see that. Happens all the time.
He's actually looking into the distance, looking for a quick option. Yes the ball was still moving so may have been pulled back if he had hit a quick FK but up to the point that Rice kicked it away from him the player had not committed any offence and nor had he actually taken the FK.
Soft yellow, but as you say, letter of the law.
stealing a yard? when you look at his team mates no one was in position to receive the ball up the line
Why wasn't the letter of the law applied when taking the freekick?
comment by Passion Power - Make 1984 fiction again (U8398)
posted 5 minutes ago
stealing a yard? when you look at his team mates no one was in position to receive the ball up the line
Why wasn't the letter of the law applied when taking the freekick?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He didn't take the free kick. What letter are you saying should have been applied?
The ball:
must be stationary and the kicker must not touch the ball again until it has touched another player
is in play when it is kicked and clearly moves
Those letters that make up part of Law 13.
So you are maintaining that he had taken the free kick and that Rice's kick was actually a tackle, so it should have been a throwing Priceless !
Letter of the law says he has. Or are we to only apply letter of the law against Arsenal?
PS - it should have been a free kick to Arsenal for the kick by Veltman.
If you really are applying the letter of the law in this petty way that you want, then the FIRST offence is by Rice, who, according to Rule 13 should be at least 9.15m(10yards) from the ball..
But to make that argument purely on the basis of the "letter of the law" would be as pathetic and pointless as to make out that just because the player tried to steal a couple of yards means that he touched the ball and had therefore taken the freekick.
Sign in if you want to comment
The circus continues...
Page 1 of 3
posted on 10/9/24
Comment deleted by Article Creator
posted on 10/9/24
Can see why the decision was made. It's again a lack of consistency that is the issue.
posted on 10/9/24
comment by Peter O'Hanraha-hanrahan (U1217)
posted 49 minutes ago
Can see why the decision was made. It's again a lack of consistency that is the issue.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No, I can't see why the decision has been made because the law hadn't been applied regarding the FK
According to the rules
- All FK must be taken from the place where the offence occurred
- The ball must be stationary and the ball is in play when it is kicked
The consistency argument isn't really an argument as no infraction was committed
posted on 10/9/24
PP - I'm sure we can all see why the decision was made, but the fact is 99% of the time the decision would be different.
We all know the best way to handle that situation is tell Veltman to take the ball back 10 yards, tell Rice to get away and both to chill. There are way too many mitigating circumstances to give a red. Rice was walking away, he had no interest in Veltman or the ball. The ball was dead and Veltman kicked it, thus the free kick should have been deemed taken before it hit Rice. The ref should also consider that the movement of the ball away from where the foul took place would not give Veltman a chance to take a clean kick, as he rolled it directly at Rice, that is in Law 12 and Veltman should, by the letter of the law, be booked for that. And, of course, Veltman should be punished for the kick out that clearly had nothing to do with the ball. If Rice hadn't touched the ball Veltmans kick would have at best grazed the top of the ball. Any half competent ref would take all this into consideration and deal with it as said at the start of this paragraph. The incident would be very quickly forgotten with no debate from the PGMOL, ref assessor or anyone else.
posted on 10/9/24
well said
posted on 11/9/24
It was undoubtedly the correct decision. Don't understand the uproar.
posted on 11/9/24
Even Gary Lineker has tweeted calling that crooked panel verdict: "utter nonsense".
posted on 11/9/24
- Free kick wasn't taken from where it should have been.
- Veltman should have been sent off for hacking Rice from behind.
- Ball was moving when he took it anyway and he did it deliberately to try and get Rice sent off.
- Plus Rice had his back to the whole thing and was walking away from it.
- Nobody ever actually tries to take a quick freekick by their own corner flag.
posted on 11/9/24
absolutely...was being a caant
posted on 11/9/24
Kavanagh was not going to pass up the chance to send off an Arsenal player
posted on 11/9/24
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 2 hours, 21 minutes ago
It was undoubtedly the correct decision. Don't understand the uproar.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Unless it was Salah!
posted on 11/9/24
No, I can't see why the decision has been made because the law hadn't been applied regarding the FK
According to the rules
- All FK must be taken from the place where the offence occurred
- The ball must be stationary and the ball is in play when it is kicked
------------------------
This isn't really relevant though, is it? You wouldn't allow someone to boot the ball out of play when a free kick is awarded because the ball isn't stationary and it isn't taking place where the offence occurred. Ultimately, Rice only tapped the ball out of play - but it was an attempt to delay the restart and thus a bookable offence.
Totally agree re. the consistency thoughn - you'll see those not given every week.
posted on 11/9/24
Stilll not got over this correct decision
posted on 11/9/24
comment by -bloodred- (U1222)
posted 7 minutes ago
No, I can't see why the decision has been made because the law hadn't been applied regarding the FK
According to the rules
- All FK must be taken from the place where the offence occurred
- The ball must be stationary and the ball is in play when it is kicked
------------------------
This isn't really relevant though, is it? You wouldn't allow someone to boot the ball out of play when a free kick is awarded because the ball isn't stationary and it isn't taking place where the offence occurred. Ultimately, Rice only tapped the ball out of play - but it was an attempt to delay the restart and thus a bookable offence.
Totally agree re. the consistency thoughn - you'll see those not given every week.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The point made there is the free kick was already taken before Rice kicked it. The ball was stationary and Veltman kicked it. He tried to play it off Rice and then continue, but it didn't go to plan yet the ref didn't officiate to the letter of law 13...
posted on 11/9/24
Fair, need to see it again.
posted on 11/9/24
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 44 minutes ago
comment by -bloodred- (U1222)
posted 7 minutes ago
No, I can't see why the decision has been made because the law hadn't been applied regarding the FK
According to the rules
- All FK must be taken from the place where the offence occurred
- The ball must be stationary and the ball is in play when it is kicked
------------------------
This isn't really relevant though, is it? You wouldn't allow someone to boot the ball out of play when a free kick is awarded because the ball isn't stationary and it isn't taking place where the offence occurred. Ultimately, Rice only tapped the ball out of play - but it was an attempt to delay the restart and thus a bookable offence.
Totally agree re. the consistency thoughn - you'll see those not given every week.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The point made there is the free kick was already taken before Rice kicked it. The ball was stationary and Veltman kicked it. He tried to play it off Rice and then continue, but it didn't go to plan yet the ref didn't officiate to the letter of law 13...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"The point made there is the free kick was already taken before Rice kicked it"
That is one of the most laughable interpretations of what happened. Have a word with yourself !!
posted on 11/9/24
How is that laughable? Law 13 literally says it was taken. The ball was stationary, in the correct position and was kicked.
lEtTeR oF tHe LaW.
posted on 11/9/24
He was stealing a yard or 2, he hadnt taken it, Anyone can see that. Happens all the time.
He's actually looking into the distance, looking for a quick option. Yes the ball was still moving so may have been pulled back if he had hit a quick FK but up to the point that Rice kicked it away from him the player had not committed any offence and nor had he actually taken the FK.
Soft yellow, but as you say, letter of the law.
posted on 11/9/24
stealing a yard? when you look at his team mates no one was in position to receive the ball up the line
Why wasn't the letter of the law applied when taking the freekick?
posted on 11/9/24
comment by Passion Power - Make 1984 fiction again (U8398)
posted 5 minutes ago
stealing a yard? when you look at his team mates no one was in position to receive the ball up the line
Why wasn't the letter of the law applied when taking the freekick?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He didn't take the free kick. What letter are you saying should have been applied?
posted on 11/9/24
The ball:
must be stationary and the kicker must not touch the ball again until it has touched another player
is in play when it is kicked and clearly moves
posted on 11/9/24
Those letters that make up part of Law 13.
posted on 11/9/24
So you are maintaining that he had taken the free kick and that Rice's kick was actually a tackle, so it should have been a throwing Priceless !
posted on 11/9/24
Letter of the law says he has. Or are we to only apply letter of the law against Arsenal?
PS - it should have been a free kick to Arsenal for the kick by Veltman.
posted on 11/9/24
If you really are applying the letter of the law in this petty way that you want, then the FIRST offence is by Rice, who, according to Rule 13 should be at least 9.15m(10yards) from the ball..
But to make that argument purely on the basis of the "letter of the law" would be as pathetic and pointless as to make out that just because the player tried to steal a couple of yards means that he touched the ball and had therefore taken the freekick.
Page 1 of 3