|
The earlier one I was thinking of doesn't actually cover it: http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/nov/05/you-are-ref-tim-cahill
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2011 01:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 10:35 |
|
|
Psybro posted:In both cases, a goal was denied, then a second action occurred resulting in a goal. By your own admission the wording of the law says 'goal or goalscoring opportunity'. Except it doesn't break it down into separate instances the way you're claiming it is. To use another example from YATR, consider a striker who is fouled just as he's about to tap the ball in and the other striker lets it run out of play to make sure it's a red card. That's not a DOGSO because there was still a OGSO in the run of play.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2011 01:17
|
|
|
Green Eyed Loco-Man posted:What is this "potential abuse" you speak of? Who is being harmed by a player failing to avoid conceding a goal by committing a non-violent foul? If you try and handle it off the line but gently caress it up and nothing bad happens, you may as well try and handle it off the line all the time. In practice people always will try and handle it and risk the penalty and red due to the possibility of preventing a goal, but the idea that it's enshrined in the laws doesn't seem correct to me.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2011 01:41
|
|
|
Psybro posted:If you try and handle it off the line but gently caress it up and nothing bad happens, you may as well try and handle it off the line all the time. In practice people always will try and handle it and risk the penalty and red due to the possibility of preventing a goal, but the idea that it's enshrined in the laws doesn't seem correct to me. You're completely losing me here. The only reason denying a goal by handling it is a red is because it denies a goal. When it doesn't, there's no reason for a red card. It's really not necessary to attach heuristic significance to the laws of the game and ponder the philosophical implications of every decision.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2011 01:47
|
|
|
Isn't the handball rule only for "deliberate" handling? Since it specifically says that the catch was "instinctive" (despite there probably being no way to tell in a real case) this is almost certainly no penalty.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2011 01:58
|
|
|
I think I'm fighting a losing battle here so I propose we simply get Mike Riley to officiate an identical scenario, then do the opposite of what he does.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2011 02:51
|
|
|
xK1 posted:Isn't the handball rule only for "deliberate" handling? Since it specifically says that the catch was "instinctive" (despite there probably being no way to tell in a real case) this is almost certainly no penalty. How would the ref go about determining the player's intent in this case?
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2011 03:18
|
|
|
Dollas posted:How would the ref go about determining the player's intent in this case? Well, as I said, in a real situation he probably couldn't. It would have to be a judgement call, but for the sake of this week's question it specifically says that it wasn't intentional.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2011 03:20
|
|
|
Out on the pitch the only time that "I didn't mean to!" is an excuse is when you're defending yourself from a ball that's been kicked at you from point-blank range; "deliberate" does not mean the player has to consciously think "tee hee, I'm going to cheat now" and twirl his moustache before handling.Psybro posted:If you try and handle it off the line but gently caress it up and nothing bad happens There's a phrase called "unsporting behaviour". It'll blow your mind what it can cover.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2011 09:03
|
|
|
Dollas posted:How would the ref go about determining the player's intent in this case?
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2011 10:47
|
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:There's a phrase called "unsporting behaviour". It'll blow your mind what it can cover. So, should it be a yellow for unsporting conduct? My thought was that it would be the least the player should get, but didn't mention it as I was arguing for the much stronger sanction. Psybro fucked around with this message at 18:27 on Aug 21, 2011 |
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2011 18:23
|
|
|
Aaaaaand:Hackett posted:1) There is no way he can play wearing that sort of equipment. It is not a question of whether or not he is medically fit to play – that is not your call. It's about whether the item represents a danger to himself or his opponents. This sort of collar clearly falls into the same category as snoods, which were outlawed last year because of the risk of them being caught as players run. Tell the player and his manager that the collar must be removed, and remind the player that, if he continues without it, he does so at his own risk. Thanks to Richard Collins.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2011 16:04
|
|
|
Hackett posted:As for the striker: his action was careless rather than reckless, Surely by virtue of this alone it's a yellow card? Malice or otherwise it's dangerous play.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2011 19:06
|
|
|
Sonic H posted:Surely by virtue of this alone it's a yellow card? Malice or otherwise it's dangerous play. I was confused, because careless and reckless were both mentioned on the direct free kick. But the interpretation of the law says: Law 12 interpretation posted:“Reckless” means that the player has acted with complete disregard to the I guess my fault was in assuming that dangerous play was a level above reckless. Here's what it says for careless: Law 12 Interpretation posted:
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2011 19:53
|
|
|
if you can't wear a snood, why would you let a player wear a neck brace
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2011 22:23
|
|
|
I had no loving idea 'careless' was a thing, fascinating.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2011 23:43
|
|
|
Is punching Gary Neville in the face reckless or careless?
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2011 02:54
|
|
|
Luigi Thirty posted:Is punching Gary Neville in the face reckless or careless? Its careless for your account.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2011 07:13
|
|
|
whoops look what everyone forgot to do
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2011 17:30
|
|
|
1) Don't see anything wrong with this. He didn't handle the ball and not dangerous, so no foul. 2) I don't think he'd be allowed to wear it. Maybe we'll get some sort of answer to Pissflaps turban question finally? 3) Disallowed, he's touched the ball twice. Not sure if it's a retake or just disallowed, probably the latter as I don't think you'd be allowed retake a freekick in the same situation. Mickolution fucked around with this message at 19:20 on Aug 28, 2011 |
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2011 17:48
|
|
|
1: Goal stands. 2: Throw the LOAF at him. If it can be a danger to himself or others, demand he take it off or don't allow him to play. 3: IDFK to the defending team, goal disallowed.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2011 18:30
|
|
|
1) No foul but the intent was there. Does this count as unsporting behaviour -> yellow? Goal stands, anyway. 2) I think he's probably right on the legal side. Presumably we can make him tape it up like for wedding rings. 3) Two touches, no goal, standard.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2011 18:31
|
|
|
1)Let the goal stand since he did get the ball in with his knees and his hand didn't touch the ball in the first place. 2)Keep him off the field for the safely for the other players on the pitch. 3)If it was all in one motion I would allow the goal but it seem there was a a little delay so I'll have the guy retake the penalty.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2011 18:32
|
|
|
1) Yellow card for unsportsmanlike conduct and because that incident happened before the goal it is disallowed as the play can be deemed to have stopped as soon as the offence was committed. 2) Tell him to tape it up and mention it in your match report. 3) Disallowed for touching the ball twice, free kick to the defending team.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2011 20:41
|
|
|
SteadfastMeat posted:whoops look what everyone forgot to do quote:Keith Hackett's verdict
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2011 04:34
|
|
|
It's Friday!
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2011 10:54
|
|
|
That accurately captures the punchability of Samir Nasri's loving french lesbian horse face
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2011 12:02
|
|
|
1) Retake the goal kick. Doesn't count as being taken until the ball leaves the area. 2) Certainly send the second player off, but I'd say both should go. 3) Surely if the keeper's off his line, the goal shouldn't be given? Anyway, it's the ref's fault for not checking the goals before the match. I would say abandon the game and replay it at a later date.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2011 12:13
|
|
|
Mickolution posted:1) Retake the goal kick. Doesn't count as being taken until the ball leaves the area. 1) retake goal kick. Book defender for unsporting play or send him off if it was dangerous or violent play. 2) spitting around players like that is in itself unsporting. Book Both. 3) goal stands but call off game anyway so it doesn't matter. Report to fa and punch local groudsman in the face. Especially if he's Gary Neville.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2011 12:22
|
|
|
Masonity posted:2) spitting around players like that is in itself unsporting. Book I think it's a red. Certainly for the second one, which was intentional.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2011 12:23
|
|
|
Mickolution posted:I think it's a red. Certainly for the second one, which was intentional. Yeah but booking one and sending off the other is ultra cuntish. Sending both off is semi cuntish while booking both is the path of least cuntishness. If I was a ref my mantra would be "rule one: dont be a oval office"
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2011 12:31
|
|
|
Yeah, but as we've seen You Are The Ref is about the rules, not common sense.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2011 12:43
|
|
|
Masonity posted:Yeah but booking one and sending off the other is ultra cuntish. Sending both off is semi cuntish while booking both is the path of least cuntishness. Agreed. You are the ref, now don't be a oval office.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2011 23:37
|
|
|
1. Disallow, as the goal kick hasn't been taken, right? Probably a yellow too. 2. Yellow for the first, red for the second. 3. Goalie is off the line, so the penalty is disallowed, but the game is cancelled anyway. The goal is a vital part of the game, right?
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2011 05:46
|
|
|
DiscipleoftheClaw posted:1. Disallow, as the goal kick hasn't been taken, right? Probably a yellow too. Goalie off his line only disallows a miss, allowing a retake. The offending team has to break the rules for the goal to be disallowed. With the situation as it was, and being youth football, it wouldn't be unreasonable to either call it an away win (for awful management of the facilities) or a rematch from 0 minutes anyway.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2011 10:16
|
|
|
SteadfastMeat posted:It's Friday! #1: If the ball didn't go outside of the box, retake the goal kick. Send the defender off for being a oval office. #2: Send them both off for being cunts. (Technically you could book the first guy for unsportsmanlike conduct then red the second guy for deliberately spitting at another player, but if you send the second guy off for spitting you can't really not march the first guy as well.) #3: Allow the goal, then cancel the game, call it a 3-0 away win because the home team can't keep their goalposts standing. (Also might depend on league rules. Other options: re-play the game at a later date, or shift to a different pitch at the same ground. Either way, goal stands.)
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2011 01:58
|
|
|
SteadfastMeat posted:It's Friday! 1) Goal kick never happened. Start over. 2) Tell the first guy off because spitting is gross. Send off the lad who did it deliberately. 3) That kid is a pussy so award the goal, but abandon the match because the groundskeeper is a necropaedo.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2011 04:16
|
|
|
1) Retake and depending how bad the foul book appropriately 2) Book both. Probably send both off for spitting on each other. That must have been some strong wind. The second guy would definitely be getting a red. 3) Its a loving junior game so I would disallow the goal + call the game off and start punching everyone who runs the ground in the face for nearly killing a kid.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2011 05:49
|
|
|
You want the truth? You can't handle the truth!quote:1) Depending on the severity of the hacking offence, caution or send off the defender. It is not a straight red card for denying an obvious goal-scoring opportunity though, because the ball was not in play – it had not left the penalty area. So, having dealt with the defender, restart with a retaken goal-kick. Thanks to Jim Potter.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2011 15:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 10:35 |
|
|
RAAAHHH! It's Friday!
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2011 09:06
|
|