This Wenger charge for calling into question the integrity of the referees

[redgunamo]

I am familiar with law 12. The wording is ambiguous. There is no way of reading the rule which makes Bellerin's challenge an obvious penalty, as sw glibly chucked into the argument.

I can't abide glibness reg. You would do well to remember that.

Yes. As I've said many times, the game is far more important than the rules. You would do well to remember that.

[Burney]

offences committed when the ball is in play."

Seriously though, Law 12 describes practically everything, up to and including, your mum.

Succinct genius, really.

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.

[Luis Anaconda]

Unfortunately the FIFA Laws of the Game when taken literally mean the offence was a penalty in that it was a direct free kick offence which occurred in the penalty box.

The fact it then results in an almost definite goal is of course *******s but it’s no less silly than the same outcome resulting from Ramsey being pushed over in the box at Burnley. This one in fact is even more fúcking stupid when you see the amount of pushing and pulling that goes on at almost every corner kick in every match every weekend.

I don’t think many, certainly less (or fewer), would have cared about the call on Wednesday night had it not happened 3 days after Dean @ West Brom.

The laws of the game are a bit of a *******s but we like them when it goes in our favour and decry them when not.

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

[redgunamo]

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.

Right. We merely get to discuss a different kind of controversy. Meanwhile, the ICC vice-secretary's nephew's video replay equipment company in Sharjah makes a pretty penny out of the thing. NTTAWWI.

[SWv2]

Could you describe for us the wording within Law 12 which 'literally' defines the incident as a foul? Thanks.

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.

[PSRB]

3 game touchline ban and £40k fine, what a ****ing joke the FA are

[Sir C]

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.

You've highlighted the bits which suit you but apparently failed to read all of it.

You want to get your shít together, sharpish.

[Burney]

Right. We merely get to discuss a different kind of controversy. Meanwhile, the ICC vice-secretary's nephew's video replay equipment company in Sharjah makes a pretty penny out of the thing. NTTAWWI.

I'm pretty sure most of the tech is British, tbf.

[SWv2]

You've highlighted the bits which suit you but apparently failed to read all of it.

You want to get your shít together, sharpish.

Apology accepted.

[World's End Stella]

Apology accepted.

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.