dont_do_it_doug. Posted January 19, 2014 Share Posted January 19, 2014 Doing his best and failing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
limpid Posted January 19, 2014 Administrator Share Posted January 19, 2014 He's allowed to reach for the ball as long as he doesn't intend to obstruct the player. If he does then, accidentally, obstruct the player then it's a foul and a penalty and not a red card. At least that's the rule that we've been peddled all these years. He obstructs him, no doubt about it. We had this same debate when that Sunderland player did the same to Weimann and wasn't sent off. So, if any of you agree that it's both a foul and a dive, what's the rule there? Even if you don't agree it is both in this instance. That's what the mongs in the studio need to start questioning more often IMO. "accidentally" means without intent. No intent means no foul. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dont_do_it_doug. Posted January 19, 2014 Share Posted January 19, 2014 (edited) Edit so simplify - So you can't foul somebody unless it's intentional? Edited January 19, 2014 by dont_do_it_doug. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
limpid Posted January 19, 2014 Administrator Share Posted January 19, 2014 Please can you explain to me what has changed in rule 12 (or its interpretation) which would make your claim true? Cautions for unsporting behaviour There are different circumstances when a player must be cautioned for unsporting behaviour, e.g. if a player: ... commits a foul for the tactical purpose of interfering with or breaking up a promising attack This is the source of the "professional foul" term. I don't see how this helps your argument. The player still needs to have committed a foul or intended to commit a foul. Contact is not enough. ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dont_do_it_doug. Posted January 19, 2014 Share Posted January 19, 2014 Eh? We're coming from completely different places. You're saying there was no intent to tackle, I'm saying there might have been. The referee has to assume there was in that situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
limpid Posted January 19, 2014 Administrator Share Posted January 19, 2014 No, I'm saying there was no intent to foul. Tackling is allowed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samjp26 Posted January 19, 2014 Share Posted January 19, 2014 From what you're saying limpid it makes you question whether more penalties should be awarded from all the shirt pulling, pushing and so on when set pieces are being taken. We easily see more penalties for diving or slight bits of contact in the box in open play than we do for genuine fouls, quite silly really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
limpid Posted January 19, 2014 Administrator Share Posted January 19, 2014 Well yes. If the ref got that right then any contact in the box is a penalty. That's clearly not right. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dont_do_it_doug. Posted January 19, 2014 Share Posted January 19, 2014 No, I'm saying there was no intent to foul. Tackling is allowed. Indeed. But if you mistime your tackle and take the man, or even if the man jumps out of the way (or dives in this case) of being taken out, then currently it's a foul. And a penalty. What I'm asking is, which "foul play" takes precedence here? Because to me that's both a foul and a dive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
limpid Posted January 19, 2014 Administrator Share Posted January 19, 2014 I see. To answer that specific question: both. The foul would draw a penalty and the simulation would be cautioned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dont_do_it_doug. Posted January 19, 2014 Share Posted January 19, 2014 Ok. That's what should have happened, I just don't agree that's the right thing to do. Truth is, I don't know what should be done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
limpid Posted January 19, 2014 Administrator Share Posted January 19, 2014 ... apart from TV companies needing to employ people who actually know the rules of the game? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dont_do_it_doug. Posted January 19, 2014 Share Posted January 19, 2014 ... apart from TV companies needing to employ people who actually know the rules of the game? It's a start. I don't think there's enough of a deterrent at the minute. At worst there Suarez is carded whilst "winning" a penalty. Trouble is, he kind of has to dive there. When we played Sunderland Albrighton (I think) caught Ki with a challenge in the box. Ki stays on his feet, no pen. If he went down I've no doubt the ref would have pointed, it was a stonewaller. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mantis Posted January 19, 2014 Share Posted January 19, 2014 I have to say the defence of Suarez on Match of the Day last night was very odd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lmarsha_926 Posted January 19, 2014 Share Posted January 19, 2014 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2542090/What-Luis-Suarezs-dive-against-Aston-Villa-looked-similar-Gary-Linekers-tumble-Italia-90.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AValon Posted January 19, 2014 Share Posted January 19, 2014 He was grinning like a cheshire cat the second he hit the ground. But, I remember years ago someone saying there was no point arguing about it.....the ref gave it, therefore it was a penalty. I beg to differ. It was a penalty decision......not a penalty. Of course, it won't change the result and if he does the same next week, then he'll probably get the same decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keefa3011 Posted January 19, 2014 Share Posted January 19, 2014 It's just typical though,isn't it? Suarez gets absolutely wiped out by Eto'o at Stamford Bridge and doesn't get a stonewall penalty, but at Anfield against us he feels the merest touch, goes down and he gets one. C'est la vie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AntrimBlack Posted January 19, 2014 Share Posted January 19, 2014 This is why football definitely needs video referiing, it takes just 10-30 seconds to get info to the ref. Absolutely. To me, in rugby, it actually adds to the game, adds suspense. And stops all the complaints on the pitch. Video refereeing will happen eventually! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanAVFC Posted January 19, 2014 Share Posted January 19, 2014 Video reffing doesn't really solve the problem though. Take the NFL. They make an instant decision, then will review it. Unless there is clear evidence to overturn it, then they can't. Therefore the initial decision is still massively influential. Being a referee is far too subjective to solve the problem using video evidence IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AntrimBlack Posted January 19, 2014 Share Posted January 19, 2014 This is why football definitely needs video referiing, it takes just 10-30 seconds to get info to the ref. i think the opposite, i think this is why video refs wont work if shearer or lineker was the video ref for example... Video referees are actual referees, not overpaid pundits. That is why it would work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts