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

[Monty92]

Out of curiosity, has a manager ever been charged for saying "you don't get the decisions at the big grounds"?

Because I think I must have heard that said 3 million times, and it is rather explicitly questioning the integrity, or certainly no less so than Wenger's comments.

[Ash]

Out of curiosity, has a manager ever been charged for saying "you don't get the decisions at the big grounds"?

Because I think I must have heard that said 3 million times, and it is rather explicitly questioning the integrity, or certainly no less so than Wenger's comments.

Conspiratorial, tin-foil hatted insanity to suggest that football could possibly be corrupt, I've been informed. To suggest that a ref, or even worse, the head of the refs might have bias against a team. Madness.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/04/Mike_riley.jpg

You might as well suggest that FIFA itself is corrupt.

[Monty92]

Conspiratorial, tin-foil hatted insanity to suggest that football could possibly be corrupt, I've been informed. To suggest that a ref, or even worse, the head of the refs might have bias against a team. Madness.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/04/Mike_riley.jpg

You might as well suggest that FIFA itself is corrupt.

I'm not sure I would necessarily count a ref "disliking" a team as corruption.

[Ash]

I'm not sure I would necessarily count a ref "disliking" a team as corruption.

I changed the wording to 'bias', as that covers more possibilities. Any abuse of power is a corruption in my book.

synonyms for verb corrupt: alter, falsify, manipulate, tamper with, interfere with, tinker with, doctor, distort

How does a blatant cheat like Mike Riley get to be in charge of all the refs?

[PSRB]

I'm not sure I would necessarily count a ref "disliking" a team as corruption.

It would surely affect your decisions though, you couldn't help but think, "I'll just let that one go"......as per the terrible tackle on Lanzini in the lead up to spur's goal last night.

[Monty92]

It would surely affect your decisions though, you couldn't help but think, "I'll just let that one go"......as per the terrible tackle on Lanzini in the lead up to spur's goal last night.

It can also work the other way, where a ref who is thought to be biased in favour of a certain club will overcompensate by showing a slight bias against them in his decisions.

I also think this 'over-compensation' mentality can come into play in other situations too. For example, I reckon Anthony Taylor may have given Chelsea their pelanty because he feared if he didn't it would look like he'd been scared off by Wenger's comments after the West Brom game.

[Ash]

It would surely affect your decisions though, you couldn't help but think, "I'll just let that one go"......as per the terrible tackle on Lanzini in the lead up to spur's goal last night.

Yet Moyes said it wasn't a foul. Sucking up, imo.

[Herbert Augustus Chapman]

How does a blatant cheat like Mike Riley get to be in charge of all the refs?

I take exception. Mr Riley was no cheat. He was simply a spineless, gutless, scum sucking little weasel who was frightened of Sir ****ex so he was, the hideous little ****stain.

[Ash]

It can also work the other way, where a ref who is thought to be biased in favour of a certain club will overcompensate by showing a slight bias against them in his decisions.

I also think this 'over-compensation' mentality can come into play in other situations too. For example, I reckon Anthony Taylor may have given Chelsea their pelanty because he feared if he didn't it would look like he'd been scared off by Wenger's comments after the West Brom game.

I was a bit annoyed with Arsene wasting nearly a minute of added time arguing with Dean when we could have been trying to get the winner. Dean blew up exactly on 4 mins.

[Luis Anaconda]

Conspiratorial, tin-foil hatted insanity to suggest that football could possibly be corrupt, I've been informed. To suggest that a ref, or even worse, the head of the refs might have bias against a team. Madness.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/04/Mike_riley.jpg

You might as well suggest that FIFA itself is corrupt.
Interesting I've read a couple of pieces slagging off Wenger of suggesting a conspiracy that have totally failed to mention the fact that he was on the end of one of the biggest examples of corruption in modern-day football. Clearly going to colour his view

[Ash]

I take exception. Mr Riley was no cheat. He was simply a spineless, gutless, scum sucking little weasel who was frightened of Sir ****ex so he was, the hideous little ****stain.

You have given a possible explanation of his motives for cheating. It's still cheating.

[Luis Anaconda]

Out of curiosity, has a manager ever been charged for saying "you don't get the decisions at the big grounds"?

Because I think I must have heard that said 3 million times, and it is rather explicitly questioning the integrity, or certainly no less so than Wenger's comments.

:nod: Excellent point - never gets brought up

[redgunamo]

The whole business is complicated though, so I guess anyone can look at it any way they choose :-\



It can also work the other way, where a ref who is thought to be biased in favour of a certain club will overcompensate by showing a slight bias against them in his decisions.

I also think this 'over-compensation' mentality can come into play in other situations too. For example, I reckon Anthony Taylor may have given Chelsea their pelanty because he feared if he didn't it would look like he'd been scared off by Wenger's comments after the West Brom game.

[Herbert Augustus Chapman]

I was a bit annoyed with Arsene wasting nearly a minute of added time arguing with Dean when we could have been trying to get the winner. Dean blew up exactly on 4 mins.

:nod: Despite having booked Courtois for time wasting - hideous little cheating ****.

[redgunamo]

Any abuse of power is a corruption in my book.

My word :-|

[Sir C]

Conspiratorial, tin-foil hatted insanity to suggest that football could possibly be corrupt, I've been informed. To suggest that a ref, or even worse, the head of the refs might have bias against a team. Madness.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/04/Mike_riley.jpg

You might as well suggest that FIFA itself is corrupt.

Exactly. Riley cheated that day at Old Trafford. Whether because he was paid, intimidated, or simply doesn't like us is immaterial. It is clear that he was consciously biased against us. His gimp, Mike Dean, continues this tradition.

[Ash]

Out of curiosity, has a manager ever been charged for saying "you don't get the decisions at the big grounds"?

Because I think I must have heard that said 3 million times, and it is rather explicitly questioning the integrity, or certainly no less so than Wenger's comments.

Apologies for steering the thing in a different direction. On your point, didn't Sean Dyche say "we were never going to get that decision" or words to that effect about the late pen we got at Burnley?

[redgunamo]

Interesting I've read a couple of pieces slagging off Wenger of suggesting a conspiracy that have totally failed to mention the fact that he was on the end of one of the biggest examples of corruption in modern-day football. Clearly going to colour his view

That all happened in France though. Different matter entirely; everyone knows what they're like.

[redgunamo]

Apologies for steering the thing in a different direction. On your point, didn't Sean Dyche say "we were never going to get that decision" or words to that effect about the late pen we got at Burnley?

Yes, something like that. I recall his comments actually being rather even-handed, under the circumstances.

[redgunamo]

:nod: Despite having booked Courtois for time wasting - hideous little cheating ****.

Told you so, didn't I. Money has ruined the game. No-one cares what's right anymore, so long as they get paid enough.

The decision to lawfully financially reward officials was probably one of the worst ever.

[Luis Anaconda]

Yes, something like that. I recall his comments actually being rather even-handed, under the circumstances.

He actually admitted it was a penalty though which rather undermined any complaints

[SWv2]

I'm not sure I would necessarily count a ref "disliking" a team as corruption.

I think as balanced, reasoned adults we can all agree the issue if one of incompetence and human error as opposed to conspiracy or dislike.

As I read an Arsenal blogger suggest yesterday - "Are the Laws of the Game too subjective to be effective?"

[Sir C]

I think as balanced, reasoned adults we can all agree the issue if one of imcompetence and human error as opposed to conspiracy or dislike.

As I read an Arsenal blogger suggest yesterday - "Are the Laws of the Game too subjective to be effective?"

It is usually. With Riley and Dean it is corruption.

[SWv2]

It is usually. With Riley and Dean it is corruption.

Blimey. Do we know who is paying them?

[Ash]

I think as balanced, reasoned adults we can all agree the issue if one of incompetence and human error as opposed to conspiracy or dislike.


One word, my friend.

Calciopoli.

[Sir C]

Blimey. Do we know who is paying them?

Payment, intimidation or personal preference; the reason is immaterial. I've seen many refereeing mistakes. I've even seen incompetent referees. If you can't see the differnce between those and Dean and Riley, you're simply not looking.

[Luis Anaconda]

One word, my friend.

Calciopoli.

Ah - I miss their pizzas

[SWv2]

One word, my friend.

Calciopoli.

I am unsure how dodgy affairs in Italy over a decade ago coincide with the incompetence of Mike Dean which is the primary issue here.

[redgunamo]

Out of curiosity, has a manager ever been charged for saying "you don't get the decisions at the big grounds"?

Because I think I must have heard that said 3 million times, and it is rather explicitly questioning the integrity, or certainly no less so than Wenger's comments.

Different matter entirely, imo. The favouring of the underdog is to be inherent in any real understanding and appreciation of a game invented, popularised by the English.

Foreigners, like Wenger, simply don't, cannot and probably will never get this. That's why they never invent any decent games that anyone's interested in.

[Burney]

I think as balanced, reasoned adults we can all agree the issue if one of incompetence and human error as opposed to conspiracy or dislike.

As I read an Arsenal blogger suggest yesterday - "Are the Laws of the Game too subjective to be effective?"

I've said this for a long time. Given that it's the world's biggest game, its laws are a fücking joke and leave far too much to the referee's opinion.

Of course, there is the argument that this ambiguity is part of what makes it so popular, but even so.

[redgunamo]

I've said this for a long time. Given that it's the world's biggest game, its laws are a fücking joke and leave far too much to the referee's opinion.

Of course, there is the argument that this ambiguity is part of what makes it so popular, but even so.

There cannot really be any "even so", can there.

[Sir C]

I am unsure how dodgy affairs in Italy over a decade ago coincide with the incompetence of Mike Dean which is the primary issue here.

You're not listening. Dean is not incompetent, he is corrupt.

[Burney]

There cannot really be any "even so", can there.

I think so. There is certainly an odd reluctance to introduce things that would remove some of the subjectivity, such as video replays. These have been shown to be effective in other games (indeed, to add another level of tension and excitement) and yet football continues to resist them. Why? I suspect there's an attachment to the antiquated in football that is at odds with its modern image.

[Ash]

I am unsure how dodgy affairs in Italy over a decade ago coincide with the incompetence of Mike Dean which is the primary issue here.

It is to indicate that corruption is football is possible. Referees, for whatever reason, can display bias, and bias is corruption. To believes that Dean is merely incompetent, and not biased, is a reasonable position to take. It is not reasonable, however, to automatically rule out any possibility of foul play as childish or paranoid fantasy, when foul play can happen, and has happened.

So we have to examine the evidence. For example: Does Dean consistently think that a ball striking the arm from a yard away while held in front of the body is a handball? Apparently not, according to the decision he made in a game involving Leicester.

Who is Dean's boss?
Has Dean's boss ever suggested gross incompetence in his own refereeing career?
Was he rewarded or penalised for this?
Why is this relevant?

[Burney]

You're not listening. Dean is not incompetent, he is corrupt.


There have always been shít refs. Clive Thomas springs to mind. He was utterly incompetent, but - and this is crucial - he was even-handedly incompetent. Dean is not.

[SWv2]

You're not listening. Dean is not incompetent, he is corrupt.

I see and note evidence of incompetence, I am aware of none of corruption.

Simple really.

[Ash]

I've said this for a long time. Given that it's the world's biggest game, its laws are a fücking joke and leave far too much to the referee's opinion.

Of course, there is the argument that this ambiguity is part of what makes it so popular, but even so.

This is why VAR might not resolve problems. Instead of a referee making an arbitrary decision in real time, he'll make an arbitrary one based on multiple slow-motions.

[Luis Anaconda]

I think so. There is certainly an odd reluctance to introduce things that would remove some of the subjectivity, such as video replays. These have been shown to be effective in other games (indeed, to add another level of tension and excitement) and yet football continues to resist them. Why? I suspect there's an attachment to the antiquated in football that is at odds with its modern image.

Partially that was Blatter holding the game back - he refused to countenance the idea of technology and his word was law. No coincidence that we will have VAR at the World Cup and everywhere from next season now he is out of the way. Though it is still a pretty flawed system at the moment from what I have seen in the German game.

And the laws will remain the same regardless, despite some of them being ridiculous. I mean in the cold light of day, we can admit that Hector "probably" fouled the cheating little Belgian **** the other night, but in what insane system should that equate to almost an automatic goal (or with Cech in nets, an dead-cert goal). Makes very little sense

[Sir C]

I see and note evidence of incompetence, I am aware of none of corruption.

Simple really.

Open your mind. Not with LSD. With reason, with curiosity, with a passion for truth.*

*Warning: such a course may require a moment of sobriety.

[Pokster]

Partially that was Blatter holding the game back - he refused to countenance the idea of technology and his word was law. No coincidence that we will have VAR at the World Cup and everywhere from next season now he is out of the way. Though it is still a pretty flawed system at the moment from what I have seen in the German game.

And the laws will remain the same regardless, despite some of them being ridiculous. I mean in the cold light of day, we can admit that Hector "probably" fouled the cheating little Belgian **** the other night, but in what insane system should that equate to almost an automatic goal (or with Cech in nets, an dead-cert goal). Makes very little sense

It will never take away the ref's opinion... who is to say when contact becomes a foul? Are we going to have 4 or 5 pens every game from shirt pulling at corners?

In Cricket there is little scope for opinion, there is Umpire's call but apart from that there isn't much of a grey area (there are obvious ones that could be questioned, but these are few and far between)

[Burney]

This is why VAR might not resolve problems. Instead of a referee making an arbitrary decision in real time, he'll make an arbitrary one based on multiple slow-motions.

Well it will be arbitrary, but it will be subject to increased scrutiny and thus you are more likely to at least get close to the correct outcome.

[Burney]

It will never take away the ref's opinion... who is to say when contact becomes a foul? Are we going to have 4 or 5 pens every game from shirt pulling at corners?

In Cricket there is little scope for opinion, there is Umpire's call but apart from that there isn't much of a grey area (there are obvious ones that could be questioned, but these are few and far between)

But a video ref will mean a second opinion. Also, it's more difficult to justify a blatantly wrong decision if you're able to watch the thing play back in slo-mo.

[Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult]

There have always been shít refs. Clive Thomas springs to mind. He was utterly incompetent, but - and this is crucial - he was even-handedly incompetent. Dean is not.

I hate tin foil hates but that stats chap on Arseblog showing the pens 4 and against by Dean for the top 6 over c.50 matches did make me wonder.

[Pokster]

But a video ref will mean a second opinion. Also, it's more difficult to justify a blatantly wrong decision if you're able to watch the thing play back in slo-mo.

So I have seen some ex refs say no pen on Wednesday, and others say Pen... so what happens when we get Video ref and the onfield ref says pen, and views it again and still says pen, and the video ref says no pen?

[redgunamo]

I think so. There is certainly an odd reluctance to introduce things that would remove some of the subjectivity, such as video replays. These have been shown to be effective in other games (indeed, to add another level of tension and excitement) and yet football continues to resist them. Why? I suspect there's an attachment to the antiquated in football that is at odds with its modern image.

Simply, football doesn't need it, at least until other sports overtake it. Or even threaten to catch up.

[Ash]

It will never take away the ref's opinion... who is to say when contact becomes a foul? Are we going to have 4 or 5 pens every game from shirt pulling at corners?


If every contact in the box is a pen then Spurs could have had a hat-full last night, even excluding the usual corner tussling. At one point the big dribbly lad was literally hauled to the ground.

[Burney]

Partially that was Blatter holding the game back - he refused to countenance the idea of technology and his word was law. No coincidence that we will have VAR at the World Cup and everywhere from next season now he is out of the way. Though it is still a pretty flawed system at the moment from what I have seen in the German game.

And the laws will remain the same regardless, despite some of them being ridiculous. I mean in the cold light of day, we can admit that Hector "probably" fouled the cheating little Belgian **** the other night, but in what insane system should that equate to almost an automatic goal (or with Cech in nets, an dead-cert goal). Makes very little sense

I agree. I've long felt the rules on penalties are ludicrous. Shirt pulling at a corner is not the same offence as scything someone down just as they're about to shoot. Equally, the idea that an offence one side of an arbitrary white line should mean a free kick that could (but is unlikely to) result in a goal, but committed six inches further forward is almost certainly a goal is just very silly.

[Pokster]

If every contact in the box is a pen then Spurs could have had a hat-full night, even excluding the usual corner tussling. At one point the big dribbly lad was literally hauled to the ground.

Heard there were a couple of balls to hand that weren't given last night... would be better if they banned all slow mo and then we couldn't over analyse every decision

[Luis Anaconda]

So I have seen some ex refs say no pen on Wednesday, and others say Pen... so what happens when we get Video ref and the onfield ref says pen, and views it again and still says pen, and the video ref says no pen?

Not how it works - either the onfield ref accepts a recommendation from the VAR or, as in most instances, reviews the incident on a screen at the side of the pitch. Ultimately, onfield ref has final decision no matter what

[Burney]

So I have seen some ex refs say no pen on Wednesday, and others say Pen... so what happens when we get Video ref and the onfield ref says pen, and views it again and still says pen, and the video ref says no pen?

My guess is that the video ref will be allowed to make recommendations to the on-field ref and give him the opportunity to change his decision. That's how I'd do it at first anyway.

[Pokster]

Not how it works - either the onfield ref accepts a recommendation from the VAR or, as in most instances, reviews the incident on a screen at the side of the pitch. Ultimately, onfield ref has final decision no matter what

Sounds better... how does it work on offside? Do they just play on and try to score or if it only when the ball goes straight in the net and nobody can say the offside flag changed the way they played?

[redgunamo]

Sounds better... how does it work on offside? Do they just play on and try to score or if it only when the ball goes straight in the net and nobody can say the offside flag changed the way they played?

Irrelevant. We will have video officiating because some football bigwig's nephew owns a playback-video equipment firm, not because it will solve anything.

[Ash]

Irrelevant. We will have video officiating because some football bigwig's nephew owns a playback-video equipment firm, not because it will solve anything.

Are you suggesting ... gasp .... corruption?

[Burney]

Sounds better... how does it work on offside? Do they just play on and try to score or if it only when the ball goes straight in the net and nobody can say the offside flag changed the way they played?

Offside's another one. It's completely impossible for one man to be looking in two places at once. That they get it right as often as they do is remarkable given that they're invariably guessing. There at least you must concede there is a role for technology?

[SWv2]

Partially that was Blatter holding the game back - he refused to countenance the idea of technology and his word was law. No coincidence that we will have VAR at the World Cup and everywhere from next season now he is out of the way. Though it is still a pretty flawed system at the moment from what I have seen in the German game.

And the laws will remain the same regardless, despite some of them being ridiculous. I mean in the cold light of day, we can admit that Hector "probably" fouled the cheating little Belgian **** the other night, but in what insane system should that equate to almost an automatic goal (or with Cech in nets, an dead-cert goal). Makes very little sense

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.

[Burney]

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.

But it's certainly böllocks that you can chop a guy down when he's through on goal in one place and - while you will probably get a red card - there's only a slim chance they'll score from the resulting free-kick, but do it just in the box and it's a near-certain goal? That just makes no sense. I'd argue there's a good case for being able to award a penalty for certain offences wherever they occur on the pitch. Any straight red card offence should be a penalty imo - as should things you want to eliminate from the game like deliberate time-wasting, diving, etc.

[Sir C]

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.

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

[redgunamo]

Are you suggesting ... gasp .... corruption?

Just business. Everyone's in on it, so it can't be wrong, can it.

[redgunamo]

offences committed when the ball is in play."

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

Succinct genius, really.



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

[Sir C]

offences committed when the ball is in play."

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

Succinct genius, really.

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.

[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.

[Ash]

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.

Grazing the other fellas boot while going for a 50-50 ball in the air is arguably not nailed-on careless, reckless or using excessive force imo.

Maybe it could be considered careless to touch an opponent at all. Cue the "they're making it a non-contact sport, Jeff" from the 'proper football men'.

[SWv2]

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.

Of course. But he did kick him. The force with which he kicked him open to debate.

Remember the kick Beckham lashed out on Simeone in the WC, hardly one to break a leg, still a kick. Off.

The laws are wrong when coupled with the fact that they are then interpreted as appropriate by individuals. You will get different opinions here, apart from the West Brom pen which universally has been accepted as the wrong decision, so why should we not expect two referees to perhaps judge the same incident differently.

The endless slo-mo and analysis during matches coupled with the equally endless post-match analysis, done largely by bodies which love to encourage a bit of friction and furore, will be the ruination of the game.

The very last people we should listen to, or be influenced by, is managers of either team on the pitch. Wenger was on his feet roaring and complaining about the Bellerin incident, what 50-100 yards away, not sure. Thing is the same manager had been on his feet roaring and complaining about the Maitland Niles incident which was clearly never a penalty.

See also Klopp post Lovren / Everton.

[redgunamo]

Of course. But he did kick him. The force with which he kicked him open to debate.

Remember the kick Beckham lashed out on Simeone in the WC, hardly one to break a leg, still a kick. Off.

The laws are wrong when coupled with the fact that they are then interpreted as appropriate by individuals. You will get different opinions here, apart from the West Brom pen which universally has been accepted as the wrong decision, so why should we not expect two referees to perhaps judge the same incident differently.

The endless slo-mo and analysis during matches coupled with the equally endless post-match analysis, done largely by bodies which love to encourage a bit of friction and furore, will be the ruination of the game.

The very last people we should listen to, or be influenced by, is managers of either team on the pitch. Wenger was on his feet roaring and complaining about the Bellerin incident, what 50-100 yards away, not sure. Thing is the same manager had been on his feet roaring and complaining about the Maitland Niles incident which was clearly never a penalty.

See also Klopp post Lovren / Everton.

That's right, I think. It's all pantomine stuff anyway. Especially nowadays, when it doesn't make much difference to anything either way. One can't even really argue that livelihoods are at stake anymore.

[taxman10]

I thought the lino always looked along the line and the ref told him in his earpiece when the pass was made so he’s not looking in 2 places at once. No idea how they did it before the headsets came in though

[redgunamo]

I thought the lino always looked along the line and the ref told him in his earpiece when the pass was made so he’s not looking in 2 places at once. No idea how they did it before the headsets came in though

Nobody cared so long as Manchester United won, I think.