|
 1) It's a bit childish, but I can't really see anything illegal about it 2) Laugh at the keeper for being a tit and award the goal surely 3) Goal? Tell the defenders to shut up
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2011 10:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 11:08 |
|
|
Pretty easy ones actually. 1. Goal, as long as they're not blocking the Goalkeepers vision theres nothing wrong with what they're doing. 2. Goal again, the ball hasn't crossed the line so its still in play. 3. Again, unless the attackers have grabbed a defender each and hauled them out the way thats perfectly legal.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2011 10:54
|
|
|
One: possibly give warnings for unsporting behaviour and card them for it, but in practise don't think you'd do anything. There is absolutely no foul in either two or three.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2011 11:06
|
|
|
1. Tell them to cut it out. If they don't, caution for USB. Attempting to verbally distract an opponent is a mandatory caution. 2. Goal. Same way you don't stop play if a player performing a tackle slides off the pitch. 3. Goal. This is not impedance!
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2011 11:10
|
|
|
Bhyo posted:1. Goal, as long as they're not blocking the Goalkeepers vision theres nothing wrong with what they're doing. There's neither goal nor any decision for a goal pending in the first one. It's just the decision whether you do something about the opposition players .
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2011 11:12
|
|
|
JingleBells posted:that looks nothing like Torres
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2011 11:14
|
|
|
JingleBells posted:1. Tell the players they're professionals and to stop with the childish badgering. Have the penalty taken. 2. Ball is still in play, give the goal and give a yellow each for leaving and entering the pitch without permit. 3. Have it retaken unless it's Italians bitching.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2011 11:25
|
|
|
JingleBells posted:
2) Absolutely a goal. It's the ball that matters, not the players, and I'd expect the goalie's manager to give him a proper rollicking at the next break for not only not playing to the whistle, but doing it because of a rule he's made up in his head. 3) No-one is impeding anyone. They could quite easily move to another position, jump to get a better view, or simply put a couple of tall lads behind a couple of short lads who could tell the rest of the team what's going on. Give the goal.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2011 12:43
|
|
|
I've never seen it before when all three answers are "do nothing".
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2011 13:13
|
|
|
Mickolution posted:I've never seen it before when all three answers are "do nothing". this looks to me like one of the bullshit ones where there is some minor technicality that hasn't been used since 1998 and only someone sitting down in front of a copy of the rulebook would know about
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2011 13:17
|
|
|
Robert Patrick posted:that looks nothing like Torres the guardian couldn't afford the appearance fee
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2011 13:38
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2011 14:22
|
|
|
SteadfastMeat posted:1. loving poofs, ruining the country. Get the Tories to make homosexuality illegal and chuck those faggots in jail 2. He already knows you're considering calling it a foul. You're as good as dead 3. Send off the smelly greasy one and tag him in the resulting photo on Facebook
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2011 14:35
|
|
|
2 is technically 2 yellows for deliberately leaving and then re-entering the field of play without permission. Key words being technically and deliberately
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2011 14:38
|
|
|
I am sure that Keith Hackett thinks that 1 is "tell them to knock it off, then book them if they don't"; but the goalkeeper who's actually distracted by that is far too poo poo to be playing for whoever he's playing for. 2 and 3, you don't need permission to leave the field during a natural playing motion, or to stand in front of someone. Personally, I'm more concerned about why the referee in all three situations has allowed them to play football with an apricot instead of a football...
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2011 14:49
|
|
|
1. Caution the attacking players for unsporting behaviour. 2. The goal stands, the attacker is allowed to step off the field and back on like that, the keeper should play to the whistle. 3. Now, it's not really specified, but it says it's a "free kick in the area", which I presume means in the box. Is there ever a case where there would be a direct FK in the box? Or are they always indirect (e.g. if the keeper picks up a backpass)? Because if only indirect free kicks are given then the goal is disallowed since the taker kicked it straight in. Restart play with a goal kick.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2011 15:03
|
|
|
Lyric Proof Vest posted:2 is technically 2 yellows for deliberately leaving and then re-entering the field of play without permission. Key words being technically and deliberately So players should be getting permission every time they go off to collect a ball for a throw in or corner?
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2011 15:04
|
|
|
Good spot, irlZaphod!
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2011 15:07
|
|
|
sassassin posted:So players should be getting permission every time they go off to collect a ball for a throw in or corner? Strawman mate, play is stopped during before throw ins and corners.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2011 16:13
|
|
|
Healbot posted:Strawman mate, play is stopped during before throw ins and corners. The law allows players to step off the field during natural playing movements so its a complete non issue.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2011 16:21
|
|
|
Bhyo posted:The law allows players to step off the field during natural playing movements so its a complete non issue. It's pretty much the exact scenario shown here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxJ9wdXXbwY
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2011 16:46
|
|
|
JingleBells posted:It's pretty much the exact scenario shown here: in this though it's berbatovs momentum that carries him off the field. In the strip a player is running in one direction then deliberately exits the field of his own accord.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2011 17:07
|
|
|
Lyric Proof Vest posted:in this though it's berbatovs momentum that carries him off the field. In the strip a player is running in one direction then deliberately exits the field of his own accord.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2011 17:23
|
|
|
As trin said, leaving the field in #2 is completely a non-issue. The point of the rule is to stop twattish behaviour, not to disrupt someone just playing football.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2011 18:11
|
|
|
1. Tell the players to stop, caution them if they continue. Unless the fans are throwing things, you can't really do anything. 2. Goal. Who cares if the attacker ran out of the field of play? This isn't the NFL. 3. It's an indirect free kick in the area. Unless it touched someone else before the ball went in the net, it essentially becomes a goal kick.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2011 19:00
|
|
|
This is now a game of "Figure out Hackett's technicality" because in reality you really would do gently caress all.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2011 19:56
|
|
|
Dudley posted:This is now a game of "Figure out Hackett's technicality" because in reality you really would do gently caress all. yeah i'm not disagreeing with people in that 2 should be a goal but that's what i reckon the answer will be
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2011 20:38
|
|
|
SteadfastMeat posted:1. Send off all the poofs, award a direct free kick to the goalkeepers team from the point of infringement. 2. Award a penalty to the mutant's team, send off the defender. Hope you don't die. 3. Walk up to the greasy player, tell him he smells. Suddenly become irrate, send him off. Claim in match notes player told you to gently caress yourself.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2011 19:43
|
|
|
Ace thread. 1) I'd say that this technically comes under unsporting behaviour. I know Dudek/Grobellaar have supposedly put off players before with their movement, but this is more blatant and calculated. 2) Nothing wrong here, the ball is all that matters. 3) I can't think of how this wouldn't be allowed, attacking players currently stand in the ball as it is.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2011 00:07
|
|
|
1. Tell them to stop, start showing cards and taking names if they carry on. 2. I'm sure there's some bollocks about gaining an advantage by leaving the field of play, but yeah really it shouldn't be applied in that situation. It's more for things like dodging the offside flag and so on. Goal stands. 3. Assuming the shot didn't go directly in (surely an indirect free kick if inside the area) goal stands.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2011 00:53
|
|
|
Robert Patrick posted:that looks nothing like Torres Then how did you know it was meant to be him?
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2011 01:24
|
|
|
Hackett's answers: 1) There's not much you can do about the fans, but you can be proactive and address the behaviour of the players. Delay the kick and call over the attacking side's captain. Let him know that if his players continue, you will start cautioning them for what is clearly unsporting behaviour. 2) It's a goal. One of the first phrases drilled into every youngster by youth coaches is "play to the whistle". The keeper's rather arrogant failure to do that has cost his side a goal. Players are allowed to leave the field without permission during open play if they're doing so in order to beat an opponent. 3) Ignore the defenders' complaints – it's up to them to defend the kick, and there's nothing in the laws to stop opponents standing near a defensive wall so long as they don't attempt to break it physically. But the defenders shouldn't be too worried: it's not a goal either because it was an indirect free kick inside the area, and the ball didn't touch anyone else on the way into the net. Award a goal kick.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2011 02:17
|
|
|
CaptainRightful posted:Then how did you know it was meant to be him? it says so on the website
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2011 02:20
|
|
|
I should be a ref. You guys all suck.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2011 10:23
|
|
|
peanut- posted:Hackett's answers: Oh come on, how the hell are we supposed to know that #3 was indirect?
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2011 18:19
|
|
|
Argyle posted:Oh come on, how the hell are we supposed to know that #3 was indirect? Because it's a freekick inside the box?
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2011 18:20
|
|
|
Vando posted:Because it's a freekick inside the box? Oh yes. I am not the ref.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2011 18:35
|
|
|
Argyle posted:Oh come on, how the hell are we supposed to know that #3 was indirect?
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2011 18:43
|
|
|
 IT'S FRIDAY
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2011 11:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 11:08 |
|
|
Gotta love that third picture.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2011 12:05
|
|