Can we make a unofficial rule that we will not mention

[Pat Vegas]

Sanchez's antics last night.

Ah *******s I've already done it

[redgunamo]

Sanchez's antics last night.

https://twitter.com/Alexis_Sanchez/status/857342070419316736

[Pat Vegas]

https://twitter.com/Alexis_Sanchez/status/857342070419316736

in that case :shout: :redcard:

[The Insider]

https://twitter.com/Alexis_Sanchez/status/857342070419316736

Check the footage too. The ball clearly hits his face as well as his shoulder. Agreed that it was an overreaction, but it still hit him in the face.

:titles:

[Rich]

Sanchez's antics last night.

Ah *******s I've already done it

I don't get it, there are a couple of points to be clarified:

1. The ball clearly hits him in the mouth after deflecting off his shoulder. Why was this not mentioned on the commentary?
2. Is it an offence to stand in front of the thrower like that? I was unaware that it was. If it's not an offence, surely the thrower should be charged with a) time wasting by not throwing the ball back into play b) hurling the ball at a player with intent to harm.

[Pat Vegas]

I don't get it, there are a couple of points to be clarified:

1. The ball clearly hits him in the mouth after deflecting off his shoulder. Why was this not mentioned on the commentary?
2. Is it an offence to stand in front of the thrower like that? I was unaware that it was. If it's not an offence, surely the thrower should be charged with a) time wasting by not throwing the ball back into play b) hurling the ball at a player with intent to harm.

Commentary are too busy taking the piss out of us Rich.

and when Coq and Walcott were subbed. I was sort of thought of hoping it was a permanent substitution

[IUFG]

I don't get it, there are a couple of points to be clarified:

1. The ball clearly hits him in the mouth after deflecting off his shoulder. Why was this not mentioned on the commentary?
2. Is it an offence to stand in front of the thrower like that? I was unaware that it was. If it's not an offence, surely the thrower should be charged with a) time wasting by not throwing the ball back into play b) hurling the ball at a player with intent to harm.

You can stand on the inside of touchline in front of the person taking the throw in but you cannot move or jump.
I'm surprised the ref didn't tell Sanchez to stop ****ing about sooner

[Pat Vegas]

You can stand on the inside of touchline in front of the person taking the throw in but you cannot move or jump.
I'm surprised the ref didn't tell Sanchez to stop ****ing about sooner

Arsenal are the best team for having rules clarified.

Genius quick freekick. Put an end to that wait for the ref's whistle :-(

And that thing Henry used to do stealing the ball mid goal kick.

In other words same old Arsenal always cheating

[The Insider]

You can stand on the inside of touchline in front of the person taking the throw in but you cannot move or jump.
I'm surprised the ref didn't tell Sanchez to stop ****ing about sooner

A couple of clarification points here.

1. Sanchez was booked for stopping the throw in being taken (perfectly fine) after a warning, not for any kind of simulation.
2. The cut lip from Twitter was not from this, it happened earlier.

None of it takes away from the fact that he was hit in the face and the Spud loving media choose to present it differently.

:titles:

[Burney]

Sanchez's antics last night.

Ah *******s I've already done it

It's how dagoes, eyeties* and such carry on, f. :shrug: It's part of their culture.


*Not including your glw of course, who I'm sure would never go down theatrically having taken a ball to the face...oh, hang on, that's come out wrong, hasn't it? :-(

[eastgermanautos]

It's how dagoes, eyeties* and such carry on, f. :shrug: It's part of their culture.


*Not including your glw of course, who I'm sure would never go down theatrically having taken a ball to the face...oh, hang on, that's come out wrong, hasn't it? :-(

I assure you Burney's point is correct. Dagos and Eyeties very much do this type sh*t.

That said, there is this freaking hot Eyetie director chick whose shoot I will be crashing in a couple short weeks. The point being, one must prejudge if they have tits.

[Pokster]

A couple of clarification points here.

1. Sanchez was booked for stopping the throw in being taken (perfectly fine) after a warning, not for any kind of simulation.
2. The cut lip from Twitter was not from this, it happened earlier.

None of it takes away from the fact that he was hit in the face and the Spud loving media choose to present it differently.

:titles:

He has to be 2 metres away from the touchline

[IUFG]

He has to be 2 metres away from the touchline

to be moving and try and stop the throw in.

you can be inside of 2m if you are stationary.

[Rich]

to be moving and try and stop the throw in.

you can be inside of 2m if you are stationary.

He was sort of taking a little run up and jump towards the thrower, wasn't he? I'd suggest that he did start around 2m out and after he jumped was pretty much on the touchline.

I think Alexis did have a point, to be fair.

Also - I think the cut lip may well have happened when the ball hit him in the face, hit him with some force. That or when he had a little tussle with Huth towards the end.

[Pokster]

to be moving and try and stop the throw in.

you can be inside of 2m if you are stationary.

no you can't

An opponent who unfairly distracts or impedes the thrower (including moving closer than 2 m (2 yds) to the place where the throw-in is to be taken) is cautioned for unsporting behaviour and if the throw-in has been taken an indirect free kick is awarded

So in other words you have to be 2 metres away

[Luis Anaconda]

You can stand on the inside of touchline in front of the person taking the throw in but you cannot move or jump.
I'm surprised the ref didn't tell Sanchez to stop ****ing about sooner

Not sure if this rule has changed recently but all opponents have to stand 2m from the ball at at throw in. Ref can warn the player once and only book him if he fails to retreat. Jones appeared unaware of this rule - useless ****. Him not you

https://www.fifa.com/mm/document/afdeveloping/refereeing/law_15_the_throw_in_en_47365.pdf

[Luis Anaconda]

He has to be 2 metres away from the touchline

no he doesn't, he has to be 2 meters away from the point at which the throw is taken. He can be right on the touchline if he is 10 metres down the pitch :)

[Rich]

no he doesn't, he has to be 2 meters away from the point at which the throw is taken. He can be right on the touchline if he is 10 metres down the pitch :)

So the chap could have just taken the throw in from a little further back, you mean?

[redgunamo]

I know, that doesn't really work :-\



to be moving and try and stop the throw in.

you can be inside of 2m if you are stationary.

[Pokster]

So the chap could have just taken the throw in from a little further back, you mean?

he could have but he didn't, so Alexis was in the wrong and a free kick was awarded

[redgunamo]

Foreigners :rolleyes:



no you can't

An opponent who unfairly distracts or impedes the thrower (including moving closer than 2 m (2 yds) to the place where the throw-in is to be taken) is cautioned for unsporting behaviour and if the throw-in has been taken an indirect free kick is awarded

So in other words you have to be 2 metres away

[Burney]

no he doesn't, he has to be 2 meters away from the point at which the throw is taken. He can be right on the touchline if he is 10 metres down the pitch :)

'Meters'? For shame, la!

Besides, I can't help but feel that discussing the niceties of the laws on this is rather missing the point, which is that Sanchez behaved like an ocean-going bellend.

[Burney]

no you can't

An opponent who unfairly distracts or impedes the thrower (including moving closer than 2 m (2 yds) to the place where the throw-in is to be taken) is cautioned for unsporting behaviour and if the throw-in has been taken an indirect free kick is awarded

So in other words you have to be 2 metres away

Is it yards or metres, though? There's 20cm difference between them, which could have made all the difference.

[Rich]

Is it yards or metres, though? There's 20cm difference between them, which could have made all the difference.

I think we may have stumbled upon grounds for an appeal here. Wd awimb.

[Luis Anaconda]

he could have but he didn't, so Alexis was in the wrong and a free kick was awarded

The free kick could only be given for simulation - can't give a free kick for not retreating as that link says

It shouldn't have been a free kick anyway as the by the time, Alexis "reacted" the ball was out of play. Should have booked Alexis, booked and then red carded Fuchs and restarted play with another throw

[Luis Anaconda]

'Meters'? For shame, la!

Besides, I can't help but feel that discussing the niceties of the laws on this is rather missing the point, which is that Sanchez behaved like an ocean-going bellend.
Oops. But yes I agree with the sentiment about our Chilean chancer

[Burney]

I think we may have stumbled upon grounds for an appeal here. Wd awimb.

Yup. We should argue that Sanchez has always been a massive fan of Imperial measurements and refuses to acknowledge the metric system.

[The Insider]

Yup. We should argue that Sanchez has always been a massive fan of Imperial measurements and refuses to acknowledge the metric system.

Personally I find the fact that Mrs Insider confuses centimetres with inches both endearing and reassuring!

[Burney]

Personally I find the fact that Mrs Insider confuses centimetres with inches both endearing and reassuring!

Mate, inches or centimetres, single figures are single figures. ;-)

[Alberto Balsam Rodriguez]

Sanchez's antics last night.

Ah *******s I've already done it


Shirley, it is the official's responsibility to make sure Sanchez is the correct distance away from the touch line. If they a happy with Sanchez's position when the throw is taking place then, in that instance, the thrower is guilty of ungentlemanly conduct and should be carded. What Sanchez did was embarrassing and its only achievement was getting the other guy off getting a 2nd yellow card

[Burney]

Shirley, it is the official's responsibility to make sure Sanchez is the correct distance away from the touch line. If they a happy with Sanchez's position when the throw is taking place then, in that instance, the thrower is guilty of ungentlemanly conduct and should be carded. What Sanchez did was embarrassing and its only achievement was getting the other guy off getting a 2nd yellow card

All these laws that involve people being x yards or y metres away are utterly ludicrous, of course, in a sport that doesn't have the means for measuring such things properly. Everything ends up being guessed at by the ref, which inevitably leads to dispute.

Mind you, I've always found the laws of football ridiculous, since so many of them are either widely ignored, impossible to enforce consistently or simply questions of interpretation.

It is in many ways, a very silly game.

[redgunamo]

It is in many ways, a very silly game.

Right. That's the beauty of it, the genius behind it. That's why it's the best game in the world.

[Burney]

Right. That's the beauty of it, the genius behind it. That's why it's the best game in the world.

I agree that it gives it an interesting element of randomness to the thing, which can be both charming and infuriating.

However, test cricket is the best game in the world. That's just a FACT.

[redgunamo]

I agree that it gives it an interesting element of randomness to the thing, which can be both charming and infuriating.

However, test cricket is the best game in the world. That's just a FACT.

I love test cricket but there's a reason it's dying; it's not as good as football.

[Burney]

I love test cricket but there's a reason it's dying; it's not as good as football.

Hmmm. No. That's just popularity. It's like saying that Jackie Collins was better than Leo Tolstoy because she sold more books.

[redgunamo]

Hmmm. No. That's just popularity. It's like saying that Jackie Collins was better than Leo Tolstoy because she sold more books.

Well, she's at least better at selling books! It *is* all about bums on seats, at the end of the day.

Sadly, nobody cares about test cricket, yet the whole world reacts and adapts to football's every wish, whim and whimper. If test cricket were forced to be as popular as football, it would be called T20 cricket, or something like that.

[Burney]

Well, she's at least better at selling books! It *is* all about bums on seats, at the end of the day.

Sadly, nobody cares about test cricket, yet the whole world reacts and adapts to football's every wish, whim and whimper. If test cricket were forced to be as popular as football, it would be called T20 cricket, or something like that.

Yes. The facile and the vulgar will always sell better than the complex or the subtle. No getting away from it.

[redgunamo]

Yes. The facile and the vulgar will always sell better than the complex or the subtle. No getting away from it.

Oh? My father was born in some African mare's nest of a disease-ridden ****hole; just show me the money, in cash :shrug:

[Ash]

Besides, I can't help but feel that discussing the niceties of the laws on this is rather missing the point, which is that Sanchez behaved like an ocean-going bellend.

It did provide some much-needed entertainment, tbf, in a match unlikely to be remembered for the quality of football.

[barrybueno]

Sanchez's antics last night.

Ah *******s I've already done it

Ive just seen it for the first time, oh my days what a fúcking ****er :hehe: wd Fuchs imo