10 Nov 09
Originally posted by PalynkaLaw 12 – Fouls & Misconduct
I think that, at best, that's an indirect free-kick.
Of course, we can debate endlessly about the words "attempts", "careless", "reckless" or "excessive force" but any consistent view of the practice of refereeing would realize that only very rash and dangerous challenges are ever awarded a free-kick without contact.
-------
Direct free kick
A direct free kick is awarded to the opposing team if a player commits any of the following six offences in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force:
* kicks or attempts to kick an opponent
* trips or attempts to trip an opponent
* jumps at an opponent
* charges an opponent
* strikes or attempts to strike an opponent
* pushes an opponent
-----
I think it's fairly clear cut. If Ngog had kept running, he'd have been tripped by a sliding tackle which hadn't won the ball. He may also have a broken bone (the most inocuous of tackles can result in that), but he hurdled (dived?!) the tackle. Penalty!
D
10 Nov 09
Originally posted by RagnorakSo predictable and boring. I already commented on that law. Or do you think I chose the cited words in my previous post at random?
Law 12 – Fouls & Misconduct
-------
Direct free kick
A direct free kick is awarded to the opposing team if a player commits any of the following six offences in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force:
* kicks or attempts to kick an opponent
* trips or attempts to trip an opponent
* jumps at an opponent ...[text shortened]... inocuous of tackles can result in that), but he hurdled (dived?!) the tackle. Penalty!
D
A broken bone? 😵
11 Nov 09
Originally posted by RagnorakDoesn't look that clear-cut to me. That wording suggests that intent is not required if contact is made, but intent is required otherwise. And it didn't look intentional to me.
I think it's fairly clear cut. If Ngog had kept running, he'd have been tripped by a sliding tackle which hadn't won the ball. He may also have a broken bone (the most inocuous of tackles can result in that), but he hurdled (dived?!) the tackle. Penalty!
D
Or, that matter, either manager, or any of the referees who have made an official comment. For example Keith Hackett:
"We will sit down and go through what the referee could have done to avoid this error....
"I'll tell you this, I know Peter Walton very well and he will be upset when he views the DVD of this particular decision."
11 Nov 09
Originally posted by RagnorakThat's what YOU are doing when you disregard the practice of refereeing and choose to focus on your personal subjective interpretation of the law. I cited the practice and mentioned the subjectivity of the law. It left you unfazed and you still went right into it.
Why do you think people should form opinions based on a couple of cherry picked words rather than the whole text of the law?
D
Dullards often do that when they miss the point. It's a fact of life.
11 Nov 09
Originally posted by mtthwWell, as the man who issues the interpretations to the referees in the English FA via directives, you have to accept his interpretation of it.
Doesn't look that clear-cut to me. That wording suggests that intent is not required if contact is made, but intent is required otherwise. And it didn't look intentional to me.
Or, that matter, either manager, or any of the referees who have made an official comment. For example Keith Hackett:
"We will sit down and go through what the referee could ha ...[text shortened]... Walton very well and he will be upset when he views the DVD of this particular decision."
I've seen other instances of fouls given on the basis of intent only, although they were given on the basis of the tackle being intentionally dangerous, I guess.
I'm not sure why an attacker should be penalised for trying to avoid a tackle. While Ngog's "avoidance" was a dive, if he hadn't dived, he would definitely have been tripped by Carsley's legs after they had missed the ball.
D
11 Nov 09
Originally posted by PalynkaThat's what I am doing? Umm, reread my post. Twice if you have to.
That's what YOU are doing when you disregard the practice of refereeing and choose to focus on your personal subjective interpretation of the law. I cited the practice and mentioned the subjectivity of the law. It left you unfazed and you still went right into it.
Dullards often do that when they miss the point. It's a fact of life.
I know it's a difficult concept for an egomaniac like your self, but there are other people on the forums reading the posts. Some of whom may not be aware of the exact wording of the law.
And why would my subjectiveness be in favour of Liverpoo? What Ngog did was take all of the media attention and give Gerrard a free dive.
D