merse
TFF member
Posts: 2,684
|
Post by merse on Aug 12, 2010 21:57:04 GMT
You have to be a little wary of an assistant running the line wearing a white baseball cap.  Have the FA now decreed that ALL lines are run "right wing" and relieved the Football League or any other individual leagues from allowing their officials to do as they wish? I noticed that The Conference insisted on that when we were in it, and I can't remember when I last saw a referee running his linesmen on the left wings. To my mind, such dogmatism is both idiotic and impractical. For one, it unnecessarily cuts up the right wing touchlines and two it deprives the referee of the opportunity of taking practical action to avoid a lino looking into a setting sun. When I reffed I used to make a point of frequently using alternative wings for my linos and very often would switch them over at half time..........................it's rather like a player ensuring he retains his ability to play "two footed" Don't assume either that ref might have been "dragged down all the way from Yorkshire"............he might well have been on a family holiday down in Devon or even works down that way during the week. Do you remember that well known referee Keith Hackett "from Sheffield"? Well, for many years of his refereeing career he only lived in Sheffield at weekends for his weekday job was managing a company in Romford in Essex; and hence received a lot of appointments that were relevant to his working week location. |
|
keyberrygull
TFF member
Posts: 994
Favourite Player: Steve Cooper
|
Post by keyberrygull on Aug 12, 2010 22:59:18 GMT
You have to be a little wary of an assistant running the line wearing a white baseball cap. Have the FA now decreed that ALL lines are run "right wing" and relieved the Football League or any other individual leagues from allowing their officials to do as they wish? I noticed that The Conference insisted on that when we were in it, and I can't remember when I last saw a referee running his linesmen on the left wings. To my mind, such dogmatism is both idiotic and impractical. For one, it unnecessarily cuts up the right wing touchlines and two it deprives the referee of the opportunity of taking practical action to avoid a lino looking into a setting sun. When I reffed I used to make a point of frequently using alternative wings for my linos and very often would switch them over at half time..........................it's rather like a player ensuring he retains his ability to play "two footed" Don't assume either that ref might have been "dragged down all the way from Yorkshire"............he might well have been on a family holiday down in Devon or even works down that way during the week. Do you remember that well known referee Keith Hackett "from Sheffield"? Well, for many years of his refereeing career he only lived in Sheffield at weekends for his weekday job was managing a company in Romford in Essex; and hence received a lot of appointments that were relevant to his working week location. It was not so much the fact he was wearing a cap, although with the sun pretty much at eye level it was pointless, it was more the fact that it was WHITE and made him look an idiot. Maybe he should not bother or wear a black one next time. |
|
Rags
TFF member
Posts: 1,210
|
Post by Rags on Aug 13, 2010 15:19:57 GMT
Yes, I know I'm a bit behind but I've only just watched the action from midweek.
Now, this brings about one of my pet hates/moans etc and that's the mystery of the disappearing "dangerous play" law from the penalty area.
Law 12 clearly states that "Playing in a dangerous manner" constitutes a foul and an indirect free kick is awarded. It goes on to define "Playing in a dangerous manner" as being
"any action that, while trying to play the ball, threatens injury to someone (including the player himself). It is committed with an opponent nearby and prevents the opponent from playing the ball for fear of injury.
A scissors or bicycle kick is permissible provided that, in the opinion of the referee, it is not dangerous to an opponent.
Playing in a dangerous manner involves no physical contact between the players. If there is physical contact, the action becomes an offence punishable with a direct free kick or penalty kick. In the case of physical contact, the referee should carefully consider the high probability that misconduct has also been committed."
So if, for example, a forward tries to kick the ball while it is at head height and a defender pulls away from heading the ball for fear of being kicked, or does attempt to kick the ball and narrowly avoids getting kicked, that is dangerous play. I always understood it to also be dangerous play if a player stoops low to head the ball resulting in an opponent not kicking the ball for fear of kicking the player's head by mistake.
All around the pitch these occurrences are given as indirect free kick but last season I must have counted 20-25 goals that were scored in this manner, and that doesn't include overhead/high kicks where there was no defender close by - just those where a defender was going for the same ball or pulled away at the last moment.
Then on Wednesday Gregor Rasiak kicked the ball from head height into the net for their winner as Guy Branston was leaning in to head it clear.
Why isn't that dangerous play?
Has the law been suspended for incidents in the penalty are or something?
Can any ref explain why this is now acceptable?
|
|
|
|
Post by aussie on Aug 13, 2010 15:30:27 GMT
Simple it`s not acceptable, in my opinion he was quite bias toward the higher level outfit, every tackle we put in was deemed a free kick and every tackle they put in dangerous or not was deemed o.k. This is why I mentioned earlier that no-one has mentioned the Ref, the goal should have been dissallowed thus the game going to pens and we wouldn`t have a broken f*cken wall!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by stefano on Aug 13, 2010 15:44:36 GMT
Playing in a dangerous manner involves no physical contact between the players. If there is physical contact, the action becomes an offence punishable with a direct free kick or penalty kick. In the case of physical contact, the referee should carefully consider the high probability that misconduct has also been committed." [/i][/color] So if, for example, a forward tries to kick the ball while it is at head height and a defender pulls away from heading the ball for fear of being kicked, or does attempt to kick the ball and narrowly avoids getting kicked, that is dangerous play. I always understood it to also be dangerous play if a player stoops low to head the ball resulting in an opponent not kicking the ball for fear of kicking the player's head by mistake. Then on Wednesday Gregor Rasiak kicked the ball from head height into the net for their winner as Guy Branston was leaning in to head it clear. Why isn't that dangerous play? Has the law been suspended for incidents in the penalty are or something? [/quote] I agree. I couldn't get there on Wednesday as I was working and have just watched the goal on the BBC Football Focus website. Definite dangerous play I would say. What do some of our current and former referees think? |
|
Dave
TFF member
Posts: 13,081
|
Post by Dave on Aug 13, 2010 17:19:54 GMT
|
|
Dave
TFF member
Posts: 13,081
|
Post by Dave on Aug 13, 2010 17:51:59 GMT
The Football Association and Torbay Council who are the licensing authority, will investigate how the breeze block fell down near the end of the Reading cup match. It does sound as if it was designed to give way rather than be the cause of any crush injuries. Its going to be rebuilt in a few days once the investigations are completed.  |
|
rjdgull
TFF member
Admin
Posts: 12,227 
|
Post by rjdgull on Aug 13, 2010 18:01:34 GMT
Interesting that McDermott told Buckle that with funds in place he would have bought three of our players from last night immediately! I wonder which three are deemed good enough to play at Championship level from their performance on Wednesday?
|
|
|
|
Post by ohtobeatplainmoor on Aug 13, 2010 19:33:46 GMT
I hadn't seen that quote but I'm not surprised to hear him say something like that. I would be pretty certain that Mark Ellis would have been one that caught the eye, maybe Eunan and maybe Benners - two players that have real potential.
I wasn't disappointed with a single performance and I don't doubt that any watching scout would have seen a lot that would catch their eye.
|
|
keyberrygull
TFF member
Posts: 994
Favourite Player: Steve Cooper
|
Post by keyberrygull on Aug 13, 2010 20:20:21 GMT
An over head kick in front of an ecstatic crowd who later broke through a barrier and spilled onto the pitch at the end! I thought these things only happened in mainland Europe during the war. No sign of a tunnel leading into the away dressing room shower I hope. |
|
|
|
Post by Ditmar van Nostrilboy on Aug 13, 2010 21:51:57 GMT
Interesting that McDermott told Buckle that with funds in place he would have bought three of our players from last night immediately! I wonder which three are deemed good enough to play at Championship level from their performance on Wednesday? Zebs, Benners & Ellis would be my guess (young hungry players)  |
|
merse
TFF member
Posts: 2,684
|
Post by merse on Aug 15, 2010 9:57:17 GMT
..........Gregor Rasiak kicked the ball from head height into the net for their winner as Guy Branston was leaning in to head it clear.
Why isn't that dangerous play?
Has the law been suspended for incidents in the penalty are or something?
Can any ref explain why this is now acceptable? I think by the present day interpretaion of the law, that goal should have been disallowed.................however I'm not for whingeing about it; I think the present day interpretation is an arse and particularly the piece that says a "player may not execute anything which "presents a danger to himself" ~ what total tosh. I guess they'll be banning heading next, or at least to all but those who sport those stupid contraptions that the Chelsea goalkeepr looks such a pratt in!  |
|
|
|
Post by chrish on Aug 15, 2010 10:39:19 GMT
..........Gregor Rasiak kicked the ball from head height into the net for their winner as Guy Branston was leaning in to head it clear.
Why isn't that dangerous play?
Has the law been suspended for incidents in the penalty are or something?
Can any ref explain why this is now acceptable? I think by the present day interpretaion of the law, that goal should have been disallowed.................however I'm not for whingeing about it; I think the present day interpretation is an arse and particularly the piece that says a "player may not execute anything which "presents a danger to himself" ~ what total tosh. I guess they'll be banning heading next, or at least to all but those who sport those stupid contraptions that the Chelsea goalkeepr looks such a pratt in! He does look a right prat alright but I guess after a fractured skull you'd put up with the look to afford yourself a little more protection. He hasn't been the same goalkeeper since, scrum cap or no scrum cap. |
|
merse
TFF member
Posts: 2,684
|
Post by merse on Aug 15, 2010 11:04:41 GMT
.............and wasn't it a Reading player who kicked his head in?
|
|
keyberrygull
TFF member
Posts: 994
Favourite Player: Steve Cooper
|
Post by keyberrygull on Aug 15, 2010 11:11:26 GMT
..........Gregor Rasiak kicked the ball from head height into the net for their winner as Guy Branston was leaning in to head it clear.
Why isn't that dangerous play?
Has the law been suspended for incidents in the penalty are or something?
Can any ref explain why this is now acceptable? I think by the present day interpretation of the law, that goal should have been disallowed.................however I'm not for wingeing about it; I think the present day interpretation is an arse and particularly the piece that says a "player may not execute anything which "presents a danger to himself" ~ what total tosh. I guess they'll be banning heading next, or at least to all but those who sport those stupid contraptions that the Chelsea goalkeepr looks such a pratt in! Like with many laws of the game, the interpretation appears different when incidents occur in the penalty area. I think a free-kick for dangerous play would have been given if it happened anywhere else on the pitch. I doubt it very much that the referee was criticized by the assessor for allowing the goal and nor would he have been if he penalized a player for having a raised foot, millimeters from somebody's head, on the halfway line. I would have thought that disallowing spectacular goals would be frowned upon, in the same way as dishing out soft penalties for marginal fouls inside the box, by the men in grey suits. As for stupid head wear Merse and looking a pratt, Tuesday linno takes the biscuit. |
|
