|
Post by SuttonUnitedFCtv on Oct 20, 2019 19:06:44 GMT
|
|
markf
Top Performer
Posts: 3,190
|
Post by markf on Oct 20, 2019 19:44:07 GMT
Can someone please explain to me what the f-k was given for around 7:26?
Ref must have been on LSD.
|
|
billy
1st team skipper
Posts: 2,626
|
Post by billy on Oct 20, 2019 21:40:03 GMT
Strange ! Ronnie Henry is the Grandson of former Spurs left back Ron Henry who played in the double winning Spurs team of the early (1961?) sixties.
He also played once for England.If memory serves it was Alf Ramsey's first game in charge,a 5-2 defeat away to France.
|
|
|
Post by colinf on Oct 20, 2019 21:58:17 GMT
Can someone please explain to me what the f-k was given for around 7:26? Ref must have been on LSD. Just one of many strange decisions
|
|
|
Post by hobart on Oct 21, 2019 6:08:45 GMT
At 7.26 the referee signaled advantage for what can only be described as the very softest of fouls at best. When he realized that no advantage was gained due to the ball going out for a goal kick he came back for the "foul". (Down under we are told that you can come back to an original offence after you have signaled advantage and it does not materialize.)
As for the "back pass" - hmm - I can see why some may not have given it - enough doubt there for some for the benefit to be given to the defender. (If you had that as a test for referees you'd likely get mixed opinions.)
|
|
oohaah
Top Performer
Posts: 3,074
|
Post by oohaah on Oct 21, 2019 7:59:36 GMT
Did I imagine that we had a goal disallowed in the first half?
|
|
|
Post by timbo on Oct 21, 2019 9:02:33 GMT
At 7.26 the referee signaled advantage for what can only be described as the very softest of fouls at best. When he realized that no advantage was gained due to the ball going out for a goal kick he came back for the "foul". (Down under we are told that you can come back to an original offence after you have signaled advantage and it does not materialize.) As for the "back pass" - hmm - I can see why some may not have given it - enough doubt there for some for the benefit to be given to the defender. (If you had that as a test for referees you'd likely get mixed opinions.) I guess one could argue that the defender made a tackle on Beautyman and the GK just picked up the ball from that?
|
|
|
Post by os on Oct 21, 2019 22:26:23 GMT
At 7.26 the referee signaled advantage for what can only be described as the very softest of fouls at best. When he realized that no advantage was gained due to the ball going out for a goal kick he came back for the "foul". (Down under we are told that you can come back to an original offence after you have signaled advantage and it does not materialize.) As for the "back pass" - hmm - I can see why some may not have given it - enough doubt there for some for the benefit to be given to the defender. (If you had that as a test for referees you'd likely get mixed opinions.) I guess one could argue that the defender made a tackle on Beautyman and the GK just picked up the ball from that? Nope don't wash with me, firstly the defender plays the ball, and even if you say that was a tackle, blocking Harry with his body to enable the keeper to pick it up, made it a back pass. In fact keeper made it a back pass by picking the ball up, he could / should have kicked it away.
|
|
|
Post by pinewalker on Oct 21, 2019 22:30:38 GMT
The defending for there goal was absolutely shocking, just let the player head the ball and no one on the left post marking.. If you put a man on the left post, then you have no offside line and the opponents can come as close to goal as they like. Holding the offside line on the 18 yard line should mean that even if the oppos get a clean header, it is coming from far enough away for the keeper to get to it. And it was, so from Jamie's point of view that was a poor effort to save it. But, holding at 18 yards means your keeper will not be able to move far enough to get a fist to the ball before it drops on a head, he has to make the save if his defenders don't win the ball. An alternative may be to hold the offside line at about 10 yards, if you have a keeper who can command the aerial ball and get a fist to it first.
|
|
markf
Top Performer
Posts: 3,190
|
Post by markf on Oct 22, 2019 8:53:28 GMT
At 7.26 the referee signaled advantage for what can only be described as the very softest of fouls at best. When he realized that no advantage was gained due to the ball going out for a goal kick he came back for the "foul". (Down under we are told that you can come back to an original offence after you have signaled advantage and it does not materialize.) As for the "back pass" - hmm - I can see why some may not have given it - enough doubt there for some for the benefit to be given to the defender. (If you had that as a test for referees you'd likely get mixed opinions.) If you had been standing where I was you would have seen exactly what happened. The guy had to touch the ball back to the 'keeper to stop Harry B getting to it. That the 'keeper picked it up made it a back pass as the touch back was deliberate. As for the advantage - for what exactly? It just summed up the ref's performance throughout. Sub standard but then no surprise there Looking at your stance it would appear the issues aren't just limited to these isles!
|
|
|
Post by hobart on Oct 22, 2019 9:52:25 GMT
And it would appear strong opinions on refereeing standards are not just limited to the Antipodes!
My actual 'stance' in assessment terms would be:
1. The advantage was for a non-existent foul - yes - a wrong decision - referee should have negated this decision by awarding a goal-kick rather than come back for the free kick. (I think you can see him hesitate about this.)
2. Yep - it was a back pass - and I hope I would have given it - all I would add is the relative speed of the passage of play and uncertainty over it being deliberate could combine, as in this case, to result in a wrong decision.
(Interesting side point - one of Australia's new 2nd Division (State NPL) Referees just did an interview where he lauded his time in recent seasons in England - in particular he valued his time doing National Conference matches. I'm not surprised - the Conference playing standard is quite a bit higher than our 2nd Division.)
|
|
|
Post by timbo on Oct 22, 2019 23:38:34 GMT
The defending for there goal was absolutely shocking, just let the player head the ball and no one on the left post marking.. If you put a man on the left post, then you have no offside line and the opponents can come as close to goal as they like. Holding the offside line on the 18 yard line should mean that even if the oppos get a clean header, it is coming from far enough away for the keeper to get to it. And it was, so from Jamie's point of view that was a poor effort to save it. But, holding at 18 yards means your keeper will not be able to move far enough to get a fist to the ball before it drops on a head, he has to make the save if his defenders don't win the ball. An alternative may be to hold the offside line at about 10 yards, if you have a keeper who can command the aerial ball and get a fist to it first. Have they changed the rules about no offside from a corner?
|
|
|
Post by timbo on Oct 22, 2019 23:50:54 GMT
I guess one could argue that the defender made a tackle on Beautyman and the GK just picked up the ball from that? Nope don't wash with me, firstly the defender plays the ball, and even if you say that was a tackle, blocking Harry with his body to enable the keeper to pick it up, made it a back pass. In fact keeper made it a back pass by picking the ball up, he could / should have kicked it away. Unfortunately the ref didn't reflect your opinion when making his decision on Saturday I guess he thought their bloke had not deliberately kicked the ball back to Julian. How does "blocking" Harry come into it viz a viz the law?
|
|
|
Post by pinewalker on Oct 22, 2019 23:52:04 GMT
If you put a man on the left post, then you have no offside line and the opponents can come as close to goal as they like. Holding the offside line on the 18 yard line should mean that even if the oppos get a clean header, it is coming from far enough away for the keeper to get to it. And it was, so from Jamie's point of view that was a poor effort to save it. But, holding at 18 yards means your keeper will not be able to move far enough to get a fist to the ball before it drops on a head, he has to make the save if his defenders don't win the ball. An alternative may be to hold the offside line at about 10 yards, if you have a keeper who can command the aerial ball and get a fist to it first. Have they changed the rules about no offside from a corner? If you watch the video in this thread you will see banjo's comment refers to the Billericay goal scored from a free kick. But in in answer to your question - no the corner kick is regarded as taken from the touchline, even when it isn't, so all players are considered level with the ball or behind it thus cannot be offside.
|
|
|
Post by timbo on Oct 23, 2019 0:11:39 GMT
Have they changed the rules about no offside from a corner? If you watch the video in this thread you will see banjo's comment refers to the Billericay goal scored from a free kick. But in in answer to your question - no the corner kick is regarded as taken from the touchline, even when it isn't, so all players are considered level with the ball or behind it thus cannot be offside. For some reason my memory said the goal came from a corner , but I just looked back at the replay and it was indeed a FK. Silly sausage, sorry about that
|
|