|
The Mash posted:2) seems dumb because clearly it's in the best interest of the losing, punched team to go "nuh-uh, we're not playing now" and taking their chances with the FA as opposed to playing a man down, 3 goals down and an outfield player in goal for the rest of the game. I'm sure that's something the FA would take into account when deciding what to do. I think there's a difference in the ref abandoning the game, and the team refusing to play on.
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2012 16:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 08:16 |
|
|
Semprini posted:The gospel according to Hackett: It seems very strange in #3 to say that "it seems likely" to be over the line. I'm with AVB, if the goalposts are aligned properly with the goal line, I don't see how the ball could be simultaneously wedged in the corner of the goal and also entirely across the line. It'd have to be stuck in the top plane of the goal, entirely behind the crossbar, correct?
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2012 16:49
|
|
|
I honestly completely disagree with 2 and 3's official answers this week. The 2nd is obviously Sheffield Wednesday/Leeds, so we saw what the actual ref did in that game (nothing, continue allowing reckless and excessive challenges continue and do not give fouls for anything less than a riot). If the environment or player safety is in danger, terminate/abandon the game, or maybe put the fans in time out while the players go play PS3 in the dressing room. The 3rd one is terrible both because his vague wording actually plays in to a loving terrible answer. His use of the word stanchion is what makes it plausible that yes, it could be over the line if it was wedged in to the stanchion of some weirdly designed goal like the one posted above:  But...given the picture, it's not that. He's asking the question about the ball getting wedged in the corner of the vertical and horizontal post, which can't be a goal because it couldn't be wedged there without being on the line (unless you failed the most basic part of pre-game and didn't check the lines/goalposts). The FIRST thing they taught us in our cert class was to check the goalposts for both proper anchoring, netting, and ensuring that they are 100% parallel with the goal line. So after the question where our answers are all saying "depending on whether or not the post is correctly parallel with the goal line, blah blah" his answer is "see if it's stopped (uh, your question says it is?) and then to give a goal if it's over the line. If not, a drop ball on the goal line and watch the entire world media laugh at you for the next few weeks.  If you have goalposts that can have balls wedged in their "stanchion," you failed to check the goals properly pre-kickoff. All center referees must check goalposts for both proper anchoring and alignment with the goal line. Hackett is actually wrong here - the answer should be either A. if this is even possibly a goal, you failed to do your field inspection prior to kickoff; your assessor is going to probably punch you, or B. if you award a goal here or do a drop ball on the goal line, the FA will be required to send you back to high school to take Geometry and/or use severe force when elevating their cleat in to the stanchion of his general groin area. Technically we could stop and discuss which part of the area is the stanchion, but that's why you'd need to kick, stop play, and then decide whether or not it was sufficiently painful before restarting play on the whistle. Do not report to FA. I've never seen that unbelievably lovely goal post design in person, so technically it could happen, but the picture shows a 90 degree angle.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2012 18:03
|
|
|
The drop ball is on the goal area line, i.e. the 6 yard line, not the goal line. Also those goals are all over the place here (I can see at least 4 from my house) and really aren't problematic at all?
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2012 18:29
|
|
Lamont Cranston posted:The drop ball is on the goal area line, i.e. the 6 yard line, not the goal line. Ah, I misread that, and that makes obviously a lot more sense. I was thinking that nothing should be closer than the 6', but for whatever reason I imagined a drop ball between the keeper on the actually goal line, which would be hilarious. That should be an option for light fouls within the 6' from now on.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2012 18:37
|
|
|
EvilHawk posted:I'm sure that's something the FA would take into account when deciding what to do. I think there's a difference in the ref abandoning the game, and the team refusing to play on. Yeah but on the other hand, most FAs clamp down hard on fan violence and the MASSIVE gain the winning team gets from this action would be enough to justify calling off the game in my book. I mean, otherwise your fans would get to punch the opposition goalkeeper and your punishment would be that the other team had to play with an outfielder in goal and a man down. That hardly seems fair.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2012 16:01
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2012 08:52
|
|
|
1) No, choose one and stick with him 2) Retake it. 3) Get them to calm down and make one of them take the kick, write that you think they tried to cheat in your report.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2012 10:10
|
|
|
I think there's been a similar one to 3) in the past where if it's bad enough that you have to send them off, don't hesitate to do it and just let the FA sort it out later. You shouldn't not send someone off because their team might get an advantage from it. Of course, when it's just swearing you might be able to let them get away with it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2012 10:33
|
|
|
Alright, never done this before and barely aware of the rules of foot. Let's see... 1) Tell him to gently caress off. 2) Red the tackler, chock it up as a miss 3) Unless they start getting physical, tell them to take it. If they get physical, red the fuckers and strongly recommend an FA investigation into the anomalous behaviour in the match report.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2012 10:46
|
|
|
This is a week where punching everyone in the face is the clear and only answer. Are they asking to have an outfielder in goal half the game, between "kicks"? Let them the cunts. How is that keeper so slow that the ball is still on the goal line when the kicker is tackling him? How are they on the 19th kick without this happening on the 6th kick already? Only the playing 11 can participate in a shootout.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2012 11:13
|
|
|
pik_d posted:This is a week where punching everyone in the face is the clear and only answer.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2012 11:20
|
|
|
1. I'm pretty sure this isn't allowed. I think you have to select one person to be the keeper for a shootout and then can only sub him once as normal. 2. No goal, red the tackler, move on to the next shot. Am I missing something here? 3. Call the captain over and tell him to calm his players down. If they don't, abandon the game. poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2012 11:57
|
|
|
1. perfectly acceptable in the laws of the game. Punch the captain in the face 2. red card the taker, retake the penalty, punch the taker in the face 3. send them both off, punch both in the face, write in your match report that you suspect the players of blatant cheating to alter the outcome of the game and watch the FA crucify them
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2012 16:34
|
|
|
1: Fine by me. Make them get their spare goalie kit out so you don't waste five minutes between each penalty. 2: Red card the taker, chalk it up as a miss. One of the few occasions where punching him in the face is fully justified. 3: Red card them both, and note in the match report that they're conspiring to alter the course of a match in a manner inconsistent with the Laws of the Game. Watch the FA come down on them like a ton of bricks while doing your best  impression.3, option 2: punch them both in the face, hard. Then make them take their penalties.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2012 22:41
|
|
|
quote:1) There is no reason why not: they have asked permission and it does not contravene a Law. All you need to be wary of is that there is no unnecessary delay or obvious gamesmanship. When the opposition player is walking up to take his kick, the change of keeper should already be taking place. But if done fairly it's an interesting tactic.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2012 09:16
|
|
|
2) Show the taker a red for violent conduct for tackling the keeper. Show the keeper a red for DOGSO for getting tackled.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2012 17:26
|
|
|
I think this week is when I tell people I need to talk to my AR, then run over and say "pretend like you're explaining what you saw, but just tell me which people you want me to punch, as all of this is a bunch of bullshit. 1. Tell the team that they can change keepers, but the alternate keeper must be no taller than 5'6" and must wear a Grateful dead shirt. 2. Give out reds to everyone involved, let the game go on with no goalie. 3. Tell them "I know are, but what am I?" and then take the PK for them. Hit it at least 5' over the post, and put one of them down as the kick taker. The real answers seem to already be out, so here's hoping next week is far better.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2012 05:13
|
|
|
It's Friday!
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2012 18:16
|
|
|
Semprini posted:It's Friday! 1. Tell the keeper to stop being such a tool and get on with it. Allow the goal, but tell the stewards to eject the fan if he keeps playing with the laser pointer. 2. Tell him to turn them back round and get on with it. Watch the defenders a bit closer, but I think the Laws say something about "reasonable protection", and it's pretty unreasonable to leave your shins wide open like that. 3. Cover up the sponsor with tape, and let him play.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2012 18:22
|
|
|
What the gently caress is going on with that leg?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2012 18:33
|
|
|
1) Have fan ejected and banned for life. Award goal. 2) Watch defenders closer, warn them that you'll drag them off the field by their faces if they don't sort out their behaviour. Tell striker to turn shin pads back around. 3) Cover up sponsor with tape and get on with the game. Give bloody shirt to fan as a souvenir.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2012 18:45
|
|
|
8raz posted:What the gently caress is going on with that leg? Well, if your testicles were on your legs, wouldn't you want to defend them?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2012 19:43
|
|
|
Two observations:- 1. Chris Kamara in the first panel. 2. Paul At Lunch.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2012 19:45
|
|
|
Semprini posted:It's Friday! 2) Whatever, let him play on as it is adequate protection for him and then put it in your report. Hope nobody breaks his leg for the rest of the match. 3) Play on, it's the right name and number.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2012 21:09
|
|
|
For 3, I thought all kits had to be identical, so them saying "but its last year's design" makes me think it's off (different stripes or something) and thus not cool.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2012 21:43
|
|
|
The Erland posted:Well, if your testicles were on your legs, wouldn't you want to defend them? Everyone knows footballers keep one testicle down each sock; this is why such a tiny tap on the legs can cause such insufferable agony.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2012 21:46
|
|
|
Semprini posted:It's Friday! 1. Have security take the pen away, disallow the goal, award a drop ball at the top of the goal box. In my mind, this is enough like a fan throwing a bottle on the field. 2. I'd say yes, because his calves look like a woman's behind. Seriously, still yes, because it's not safe to protect the back and leave the shin bone open. Scratches are better than a broken bone. 3. I'm leaning to not allowing it. Normally, a replica of this season would be fine, but the different design alone makes it non-uniform. e: Oh, forgot 1 was a corner. Retake the corner instead of a drop ball.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2012 21:47
|
|
|
Semprini posted:It's Friday! 1: Have security/police take the pen away and eject the fan. No goal, retake corner. 2: Tell the striker to put his shinpads back the right way around, then watch the defenders like a hawk to see if he's actually being hacked at or just being a giant manbaby. 3: As long as the shirt is sufficiently close to the current kit to not cause confusion (same color/general pattern, not close to the ref/goalie/other team's kit), then allow it and play on. (Also, note it in your match report and arrange for the kitman to be punched in the face.) Otherwise, have him steal a shirt off an unused sub.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2012 22:49
|
|
|
As an alternate to 2: What if he came out from half time with two pair of shinguards, one in the front and one in the back. Now since his shins are covered and he's not putting himself in undue danger, would it be allowed?
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2012 04:26
|
|
|
Bea Nanner posted:As an alternate to 2: I'd say yes. I don't see it being a danger to others. Now, it would likely make it harder for him to run, but if he wants to handicap himself, let him.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2012 04:45
|
|
|
Bea Nanner posted:As an alternate to 2: I wouldn't. Having the pads on the back is also leaning towards tacitly allowing the defenders to hack away as was before, if not more. It's a danger.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2012 05:11
|
|
|
partipo posted:I wouldn't. Having the pads on the back is also leaning towards tacitly allowing the defenders to hack away as was before, if not more. It's a danger.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2012 06:50
|
|
|
I remember a real-life instance of 2, I don't remember who but a team who played with a generally white kit design had to have one player wear a plain white t-shirt with his squad number written on it in biro pen. I imagine the rules on kits are relaxed if necessary in case of force majeure.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2012 11:51
|
|
|
Semprini posted:It's Friday! 1)Tell the player to stuck it up and allow the goal, then punch the fan in the stands with the pen. 2)Tell the player to put his shins protecter back where it's belongs and keep watch on him to see what he is saying is true. 3)I guess let him wear the shirt and put tape on the outdated stuff.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 04:49
|
|
|
1. I think it depends on whether you consider the laser pointer a "dangerous" outside agent (can be blinding, I guess), or whether you consider it to have been a distraction. I'm more inclined to think the latter, so I THINK it would be a drop ball if you knew when the ball was when you blew the whistle for an outside agent. But, since you don't and it's circumstantial, a corner sounds right, along with identifying the seat # and section of the person with the laser pointer if he's a supporter of the away time. Note in your report etc etc etc. 2. Get the female physio from Chelsea to check out the player's downstairs mixup, as it could be one of the older players attempting to stretch out/batwing his unusually long scrotum to get some cheap laughs. Real answer - I think that everyone is right saying that basically, extra protective gear that doesn't interfere with play is allowed if approved (casts, Cech helmets, etc), but that shin guards specifically are part of the mandatory basic kit. He can, I believe, wear a second pair of guards on the back of his legs if you feel that it's not going to interfere with play or gave an advantage. . However - shin guards are required parts of the kit, along with being part of sufficient protection, so he has to at least have them facing forward. Note to FA that player has droopy balls for knees. 3. The fact that it notes that it's not the same year makes me think that it's going to have some bullshit answer, but - as long as the player is recognizable to you and the opponents, is the correct color/number, and has no elements that match the other teams's jerseys, play on. The sponsor is obviously total poo poo due to them not dropping enough for the player to have enough extra current shirts, so since it's apparently a high-level/broadcast game, Tape over it with tape of the same color as the shirt and play on. Maybe MS Paint an extra sponsor logo and tape it on if it's before the end of first half. I again feel like 2 of these are going to have weird answers because of how they're worded, and because the picture this week appears to be Rafa's attempts to "bond with team" during training after saying "Hey guys I so a good Beavis and Butthead impression, watch!" The more I look at that drawing, the more bizarre it gets. The balls on the knee was weird, but the Rafa is even more  if you look it in the eyes.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 05:46
|
|
|
quote:1) You can only act on what you have seen, not on what players are telling you. You didn't actually see the laser shining on the keeper's face, so you have to award the goal. But as you did then see the laser pen in the crowd, speak to the ground controller before resuming the game – and report all the facts to the competition concerned afterwards.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2012 20:31
|
|
|
 that's gotta be the strangest artist's rendering of an fro ever, fellaini looks like a lion
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2012 21:54
|
|
|
1. Play on and watch the two players second-guess each other into oblivion. 2. No goal. The striker obstructed the defender. 3. Advantage on the defender's foul, blow the whistle on the striker's foul. No goal. Free kick to the defense.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2012 22:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 08:16 |
|
|
CPColin posted:2. No goal. The striker obstructed the defender. That is a fantastic way of trying to get out of that problem and I'd love to see someone actually try to sell it to players.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2012 22:43
|
|