Yes. As I've said many times, the game is far more important than the rules. You would do well to remember that.
One thing about video umpiring in cricket, though, is that it has definitely lowered the quality of on-field umpiring. There are decisions getting made (or not getting made) now that would have got umpires sacked back in the day. However, because they know the third umpire will bail them out, they don't care.
Yes - not saying it was wrong to give it but that the rule is poor. This is a general point and could equally apply in the Ramsay case. Trouble with any discussion on refereeing it so often comes down to people saying that "you are only saying it because it happened to your team".
Quite a lot of pens fall into this category - it is a fault in the laws
Direct and indirect free kicks and penalty kicks can only be awarded for
offences and infringements committed when the ball is in play.
Page 81 of 206
1. Direct free kick
A direct free kick is awarded if a player commits any of the following offences
against an opponent in a manner considered by the referee to be careless,
reckless or using excessive force:
• charges
• jumps at
• kicks or attempts to kick
• pushes
• strikes or attempts to strike (including head-butt)
• tackles or challenges
• trips or attempts to trip
If an offence involves contact it is penalised by a direct free kick or penalty
kick.
• Careless is when a player shows a lack of attention or consideration when
making a challenge or acts without precaution. No disciplinary sanction is
needed
• Reckless is when a player acts with disregard to the danger to, or
consequences for, an opponent and must be cautioned
• Using excessive force is when a player exceeds the necessary use of force and
endangers the safety of an opponent and must be sent off
Page 95 of 206
The Penalty Kick
A penalty kick is awarded if a player commits a direct free kick offence inside
their penalty area or off the field as part of play as outlined in Laws 12 and 13.
A goal may be scored directly from a penalty kick.
IFAB Laws of the Game 2016/2017 (which I was given and expected to read as part of an FAI initiative). For the record I didn't.
I shall await your apology.
3 game touchline ban and £40k fine, what a ****ing joke the FA are
But you accept that 'kick' is a loosely defined term whose interpretation lies entirely within the hands of the referee no matter how incompetent (Dean) or corrupt (Riley) he actually is?
The point here I think is that the foul on Ramsey, or not , depends on how hard he was pushed, and on Hazard on how hard he was actually kicked. The rules provide only a guideline, the rest is down to the ability and impartiality of the referee.
Quite loving the way this has treated that appalling c*ntstain Riley, though. A man (loosely defined as well) I would genuinely like to meet in order to tell him what I think of him followed by, if possible without a criminal charge, a physical assault.