|
1) Does that intentionally look like Owen Hargreaves 3) Suarez's loving face
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2011 16:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 01:34 |
|
|
1. He's SOL and will have 10 players the rest of the match. 2. I'm assuming he's trying to pull a fast one here. There is normal time and extra time. You can still use a substitute in extra time and this makes him a valid penalty taker during kicks from the mark. 3. You do not blow your whistle because the assistant has not raised his flag. Let the play develop, if it ends in a result advantageous to the attackers(goal, corner, etc), have a talk with your linesman before play restarts to determine if the attacker was offside.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2011 16:39
|
|
|
I think your bigger concern, especially in 3, is the fact that Giant Luis Suarez is hungry and eyeing up which player he wants to eat first.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2011 16:53
|
|
|
Dollas posted:2. I'm assuming he's trying to pull a fast one here. There is normal time and extra time. You can still use a substitute in extra time and this makes him a valid penalty taker during kicks from the mark. You're being far too pedantic over the wording, it's clearly not referring to a player coming on in extra time as everyone knows that'd be fine.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2011 17:36
|
|
|
Transatlantic Gulp posted:You're being far too pedantic over the wording, it's clearly not referring to a player coming on in extra time as everyone knows that'd be fine. If it bothers you that much, consider it an equivalent to the comedy option of punching neville in the face.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2011 18:28
|
|
|
1) If he's on the pitch, tough poo poo. They have to play with 10. 2) Abandon match, award win to the away side. 3) No. Alternative question: As the away side are about to take a penalty, you notice a laser pen being shone on the ball. The striker takes the penalty almost immediately, and puts it wide. Do you intervene?
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2011 18:43
|
|
|
Psybro posted:1) If he's on the pitch, tough poo poo. They have to play with 10. Could be this too: A striker is about to take a penalty when he complains to you that someone in the stands is shining a laser pointer in his eyes. You look but can see nothing to back him up. He misses the penalty and complains to you afterwards that he couldn't see because of the laser, shone again after you looked away. What do you do?
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2011 18:49
|
|
|
I'm more concerned with what the hell's going on with the pitch markings in #3
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2011 19:01
|
|
|
Tsaedje posted:I'm more concerned with what the hell's going on with the pitch markings in #3 The vertical line that becomes dotted is showing where the pass would have gone. e: Or maybe they're playing in America where poo poo tons of fields have lines for like 6 different sports at the same time.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2011 22:53
|
|
|
foobardog posted:The vertical line that becomes dotted is showing where the pass would have gone. How could the groundsman have known that though?
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2011 22:54
|
|
|
SteadfastMeat posted:It's Friday! 1.Since the play hasn't restarted yet I guess let them get a new guy on. 2.Stop the 5th shot and have the player booked and have the home team retake the shot. 3.Let the play go on.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2011 21:47
|
|
|
Keith Hackett's verdict posted:
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2011 14:02
|
|
|
This is going to end up as a question one day:quote:When the board went up for a substitution in the 62nd minute of Dnipro's match away to Karpaty Lviv in Ukraine, the unlucky player, Dnipro's Ghanaian defender Samuel Inkoom, was disappointed to see his number come up.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2011 12:22
|
|
|
Uh. Isn't that specific rule about doing it after scoring a goal to incite the spectators?
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2011 13:02
|
|
|
Keith is wrong on #3. There was an incident just like this in the Premier League. The defender tried to 'reflex' get in the way so it deflected like in the example. No offside given, resulted in a goal. Later review decided that the offside SHOULD have been given: The defender did NOT mean to deliberately deflect the ball to an opponent!
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2011 13:13
|
|
|
Mewcenary posted:Keith is wrong on #3. There was an incident just like this in the Premier League. The defender tried to 'reflex' get in the way so it deflected like in the example. No offside given, resulted in a goal. Agreed. Surely by having the pass made to him and the defender needing to make the interception, he is by default "interfering with play" and therefore offside?
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2011 14:02
|
|
|
Sonic H posted:Agreed. Surely by having the pass made to him and the defender needing to make the interception, he is by default "interfering with play" and therefore offside? No, this part specifically isn't the case. If a defender intercepts a pass to an offside player and hastily clears the ball into touch, it's a throw-in to the attacking team (the offside isn't punished), unless the attacker actually challenges the defender for the ball. IFAB's view currently is that defenders should just get on with defending and not second guessing the ref's decision, but I can see them reviewing it if something dodgy happens at an international tournament. Example: The ball is played down the wing to a winger who is offside. The defending fullback intercepts the pass and concedes a throw-in. The winger keeps on running and another attacker who was close to the touchline quickly throws the ball to him, allowing the winger to run through and score. IFAB don't currently have a problem with this. As for #3, reading the rules again I can see Hackett's perspective. The defender deliberately played the ball, regardless of where it ended up, rather than it deflecting or rebounding off him (which is the requirement for the "gaining an advantage" part. I think it should be offside though just for the sake of consistency.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2011 14:47
|
|
|
Scikar posted:No, this part specifically isn't the case. If a defender intercepts a pass to an offside player and hastily clears the ball into touch, it's a throw-in to the attacking team (the offside isn't punished), unless the attacker actually challenges the defender for the ball. Fair enough, thanks for the explanation. It just seems a little odd to me that it's not offside as he's a deliberate target. How on earth is the winger onside in your example? Onside by way of Hackett's example, but surely he's offside for the throw..? (or am I being a retard and you can't be offside for a throw..? I have a funny feeling this is the case..)
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2011 17:05
|
|
|
Sonic H posted:Fair enough, thanks for the explanation. It just seems a little odd to me that it's not offside as he's a deliberate target. You are correct in calling yourself a retard. You can't be offside from a throw. For bonus points, name the other situations you can't be offside from...
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2011 17:19
|
|
|
Mewcenary posted:You are correct in calling yourself a retard. You can't be offside from a throw. For bonus points, name the other situations you can't be offside from... A corner kick, possibly a drop ball and maybe a goalkick?
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2011 17:36
|
|
|
Mewcenary posted:You are correct in calling yourself a retard. You can't be offside from a throw. For bonus points, name the other situations you can't be offside from... Corner kicks, you can't be offside in your own half, goal kicks..?
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2011 11:51
|
|
|
Gonna be pedantic and say kickoff.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2011 12:02
|
|
|
Kick-offs don't count for obvious reasons. List: * Throw-ins. * Corner kicks. * Goal kicks. There you have it!
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2011 12:04
|
|
|
It's Friday!
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2011 12:40
|
|
|
1. Send off the guy you booked, and stab the opponent. Snitches get stitches. 2. Stab her. Bury her under the patio. 3. Get brain-damaged Mick McCarthy to stab the manager. Dude's a bro.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2011 13:12
|
|
|
1. You didn't understand it, and the other play could be (probably is) lying, do nothing. 2. Keep playing advantage. Once it finishes, send off the fucker who commited the nasty tackle and explain the advantage rule the fat mother. 3. I honestly don't think theres anything you can do about this.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2011 13:25
|
|
|
1) Do nothing. Make a note in the match report and let the FA sort it out. 2) Stop play due to unauthorised entry, and explain the rule to the woman. 3) Warn the player manager. If he still does it red card him. Include him in the match report
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2011 13:42
|
|
|
1. Nothing, but include it in match report. 2. Stop play until she's gone, restart with a drop ball. 3. Send him off, wouldn't be allowed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2011 13:42
|
|
|
1) Nothing. The other player could be lying. Include in the match report, so if there's video evidence a lip reader can be used and the player charged. 2) Firstly, if it's a nasty tackle (red card worthy) you should ALWAYS stop the game immediately. You messed up and didn't though, so instead stop play for the pitch invasion, send off the tackler and restart with a drop ball. Explain to assface that she's just cost her son's team a great attacking opportunity, and ask for her to be escorted away from the game. If she comes back, abandon the game and report to the authorities as the home team failing to control the crowd. 3) Warn him that while he can be present as a substitute, he cannot communicate with the players or his assistant (on anything other than what his assman wants HIM to do if he's being subbed on). Report him to the FA.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2011 15:41
|
|
|
1) He can say whatever the gently caress he wants in his moon language, but I would remind him that it is polite to speak English at all times. That poo poo doesn't fly in a card room. I would then book the other player for being a grass. 2) Abandon match, go home, never ref at youth level again, live to a ripe old age. 3) Send him back to the bench and if he moves a muscle or says a word book him.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2011 19:24
|
|
|
Psybro posted:3) Send him back to the bench and if he moves a muscle or says a word book him. Can you book a player-manager for stuff he's doing as a manager?
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2011 20:28
|
|
|
Johnny Foreigner has spoken to you in his moon-man language, which is rightly beyond your comprehension. Take no action. The translator, however, has disgraced the Queen's English and said the words in a method you can understand. Send him off for using foul and abusive language.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2011 23:36
|
|
|
SteadfastMeat posted:It's Friday! 1)Nothing since for all I know the other is lying to get him sent off. 2)Stop the play and get the cops on the mom then resume play. 3)Warn the player manager and card him if he continues.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2011 05:42
|
|
|
Hackett said:quote:1) When you're judging possible offensive, insulting or abusive language you base your decision on what is said, how it is said and the context. Here you don't have enough information to take action: you can't take an opponent's word for it, and the comment was said calmly. But what you can do is have a word with both captains to ensure the issue does not escalate. Later, include what happened in your report.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2011 21:04
|
|
|
quote:The authorities will deal with the manager – and with you – after the game. This is so ridiculously ominous. Like something out of a dystopian future.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2011 21:07
|
|
|
If you want a vision of the future, imagine Mike Riley blowing his whistle for no discernible reason - forever. edit Alcarez has been charged with spitting and will be banned for three matches if he admits the charge. Hold the phone: quote:FA guidelines (page 9) The gently caress. Psybro fucked around with this message at 22:24 on Nov 7, 2011 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2011 22:10
|
|
|
Psybro posted:If you want a vision of the future, imagine Mike Riley blowing his whistle for no discernible reason - forever. What if he doesn't admit it? Does he get off free?
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2011 06:35
|
|
|
pik_d posted:What if he doesn't admit it? Does he get off free? I doubt it, they showed a video of it on SSN earlier and he's guilty as hell.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2011 09:29
|
|
|
Mickolution posted:I doubt it, they showed a video of it on SSN earlier and he's guilty as hell. Maybe he was just aggressively denying an accusation of spitting?
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2011 10:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 01:34 |
|
|
Atomic Dog posted:Maybe he was just aggressively denying an accusation of spitting? Maybe... 
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2011 14:48
|
|