|
Post by Vermelho20312505 on Feb 12, 2020 15:22:20 GMT
Whenever there is discussion around which direction a player was going it drives me insane. These are professional footballers who amazingly can kick the ball in various different directions very easily. The Charlton player who took McClean down clearly recognised that it was a serious situation hence the challenge. These kind of fouls should be cut out and refs can do it by punishing appropriately. Should have been a red. But that’s not what the rule is. The ref did punish appropriately. What you’re advocating is a change in the rule. No. In my view it was a clear goalscoring opportunity. McClean had to merely pass the ball into the centre of the field where a host of Stoke players were waiting to shoot unchallenged. That's clear in my view.
|
|
|
Post by estrangedsonoffaye on Feb 12, 2020 15:23:56 GMT
Whenever there is discussion around which direction a player was going it drives me insane. These are professional footballers who amazingly can kick the ball in various different directions very easily. The Charlton player who took McClean down clearly recognised that it was a serious situation hence the challenge. These kind of fouls should be cut out and refs can do it by punishing appropriately. Should have been a red. But that’s not what the rule is. The ref did punish appropriately. What you’re advocating is a change in the rule. He clearly indicated that he was making the decision based on the direction McClean was going in to, he pointed towards the touchline. Whether the rules has merit or not (bit like the VAR handball decisions) is debatable, but the application of the rule is not in question.
|
|
|
Post by mickmillslovechild on Feb 12, 2020 15:26:28 GMT
Whenever there is discussion around which direction a player was going it drives me insane. These are professional footballers who amazingly can kick the ball in various different directions very easily. The Charlton player who took McClean down clearly recognised that it was a serious situation hence the challenge. These kind of fouls should be cut out and refs can do it by punishing appropriately. Should have been a red.
What you've described is a cynical foul.
These are punished appropriately already (by a yellow card) unless it also prevents an obvious, goalscoring opportunity (a red card).
If you're saying that every player that commits a cynical foul anywhere on the pitch should be red carded, we'll see dozens of them every week up and down the country.
Cynical fouls have ALWAYS been part of the game (well, since i started watching in the early 80s at least) and are an expected part of most games (hence fans and commentators saying things like "He's took a yellow for the team there....he'll be happy enough to take a yellow for that" etc).
The issue isn't cynical fouls at all, it's the grey area surrounding what does/doesn't consitute an obvious goalscoring opportunity that's the problem. The main problem with that is that the ref has to take 5 things into account in terms of "Obvious goalscoring opportunity":
1) Is it an offence punishable by a free kick/penalty 2) The distance from where the offence took place to goal 3) If the fouled player would be believed to be able to continue to be in control of the ball if he hadn't been fouled 4) If the player's direction was moving towards goal before the foul 5) Apart from the fouling player, are there any other players who may have been able to get back and defend that attack, if the person hadn't been fouled
To expect a ref to accurately process all of the information regarding the foul, measure that information against all of the 5 criteria and then decide on a red or yellow all within a few seconds is plain daft IMO, especially as there are now extra rules to consider if the foul occurs within the penalty area i.e. they have to take into account all of the 5 above and then determine if the "foul" was a genuine attempt to play the ball (yellow and a pen) or a deliberate foul with no intent to play the ball fairly (a red card).
We criticise refs all the time, but to be fair to them a lot of the interpretations of the rules nowadays are so much more intricate than they were in days gone by, you can see why mistakes are made (or things that are actually correct but we, as fans, deem them to be incorrect).
|
|
|
Post by mickmillslovechild on Feb 12, 2020 15:29:47 GMT
But that’s not what the rule is. The ref did punish appropriately. What you’re advocating is a change in the rule. No. In my view it was a clear goalscoring opportunity. McClean had to merely pass the ball into the centre of the field where a host of Stoke players were waiting to shoot unchallenged. That's clear in my view.
I'm afraid that your view will be different to someone else's view...that's why they set down 5 areas that have to be considered by the ref before deciding on a red.
The ref's don't tend to go by the views of the fans of the team that have been fouled, i'm afriad.
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Feb 12, 2020 15:41:50 GMT
But that’s not what the rule is. The ref did punish appropriately. What you’re advocating is a change in the rule. No. In my view it was a clear goalscoring opportunity. McClean had to merely pass the ball into the centre of the field where a host of Stoke players were waiting to shoot unchallenged. That's clear in my view. Not what the rule is
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Feb 12, 2020 15:48:15 GMT
But that’s not what the rule is. The ref did punish appropriately. What you’re advocating is a change in the rule. No. In my view it was a clear goalscoring opportunity. McClean had to merely pass the ball into the centre of the field where a host of Stoke players were waiting to shoot unchallenged. That's clear in my view. You’re even damned by your own words here - if it’s necessary for the player to make a pass then he clearly doesn’t have an obvious goal-scoring opportunity in that moment does he.
|
|
|
Post by mickmillslovechild on Feb 12, 2020 16:09:29 GMT
No. In my view it was a clear goalscoring opportunity. McClean had to merely pass the ball into the centre of the field where a host of Stoke players were waiting to shoot unchallenged. That's clear in my view. You’re even damned by your own words here - if it’s necessary for the player to make a pass then he clearly doesn’t have an obvious goal-scoring opportunity in that moment does he.
Correct.
If it was taking into account other players around the pitch who are free and could have been passed to by the fouled player, they'd potentially end up having to give reds for "Denying an obvious goalscoring opportunity" for fouls inside your own half!
You can just hear Kyle Walker now: "I know i was fouled right by my own penalty area, but Sterling was free in the centre circle and probably would have gone on to score if i'd been allowed to pass it 60 yards to him ref. Has to be a red"
|
|
|
CGO rule
Feb 12, 2020 16:32:23 GMT
via mobile
Post by Vermelho20312505 on Feb 12, 2020 16:32:23 GMT
You’re even damned by your own words here - if it’s necessary for the player to make a pass then he clearly doesn’t have an obvious goal-scoring opportunity in that moment does he. Correct. If it was taking into account other players around the pitch who are free and could have been passed to by the fouled player, they'd potentially end up having to give reds for "Denying an obvious goalscoring opportunity" for fouls inside your own half! You can just hear Kyle Walker now: "I know i was fouled right by my own penalty area, but Sterling was free in the centre circle and probably would have gone on to score if i'd been allowed to pass it 60 yards to him ref. Has to be a red"
Funny that. The referees taking into account other players on the pitch and whether they would or would not have been able to intervene is precisely what they do when determining whether it was an obvious goalscoring opportunity (exhibit A being the second cynical foul in the same game). So it obviously only applies one way then?
|
|
|
CGO rule
Feb 12, 2020 16:33:29 GMT
via mobile
Post by Vermelho20312505 on Feb 12, 2020 16:33:29 GMT
Correct. If it was taking into account other players around the pitch who are free and could have been passed to by the fouled player, they'd potentially end up having to give reds for "Denying an obvious goalscoring opportunity" for fouls inside your own half! You can just hear Kyle Walker now: "I know i was fouled right by my own penalty area, but Sterling was free in the centre circle and probably would have gone on to score if i'd been allowed to pass it 60 yards to him ref. Has to be a red"
Funny that. The referees taking into account other players on the pitch and whether they would or would not have been able to intervene is precisely what they do when determining whether it was an obvious goalscoring opportunity (exhibit A being the second cynical foul in the same game). So it obviously only applies one way then? Are you also saying that you can't deny a clear goalscoring opportunity in your own half? For example if a player runs clear from a clearance and is in his own half?
|
|
|
Post by AlliG on Feb 12, 2020 16:35:07 GMT
Funny that. The referees taking into account other players on the pitch and whether they would or would not have been able to intervene is precisely what they do when determining whether it was an obvious goalscoring opportunity (exhibit A being the second cynical foul in the same game). So it obviously only applies one way then? Are you also saying that you can't deny a clear goalscoring opportunity in your own half? For example if a player runs clear from a clearance and is in his own half? It is hard enough to consider a Stoke player having a clear goalscoring opportunity when he is in the six yard box never mind in his own half.
|
|
|
CGO rule
Feb 12, 2020 16:35:28 GMT
via mobile
Post by Vermelho20312505 on Feb 12, 2020 16:35:28 GMT
No. In my view it was a clear goalscoring opportunity. McClean had to merely pass the ball into the centre of the field where a host of Stoke players were waiting to shoot unchallenged. That's clear in my view. You’re even damned by your own words here - if it’s necessary for the player to make a pass then he clearly doesn’t have an obvious goal-scoring opportunity in that moment does he. I wasn't aware that it was THE player that was fouled that must have the clear goalscoring opportunity. Is that your position? Also, is passing harder than shooting? Doesn't the player usually still have to shoot when he is fouled? Maybe refs shouldn't assume they'd be capable of that and issue yellows in such instances.
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Feb 12, 2020 16:38:53 GMT
Correct. If it was taking into account other players around the pitch who are free and could have been passed to by the fouled player, they'd potentially end up having to give reds for "Denying an obvious goalscoring opportunity" for fouls inside your own half! You can just hear Kyle Walker now: "I know i was fouled right by my own penalty area, but Sterling was free in the centre circle and probably would have gone on to score if i'd been allowed to pass it 60 yards to him ref. Has to be a red"
Funny that. The referees taking into account other players on the pitch and whether they would or would not have been able to intervene is precisely what they do when determining whether it was an obvious goalscoring opportunity (exhibit A being the second cynical foul in the same game). So it obviously only applies one way then? Yes, it only applies one way, for obvious reasons.
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Feb 12, 2020 16:44:50 GMT
You’re even damned by your own words here - if it’s necessary for the player to make a pass then he clearly doesn’t have an obvious goal-scoring opportunity in that moment does he. I wasn't aware that it was THE player that was fouled that must have the clear goalscoring opportunity. You're making it very clear that there's a lot about this rule that you weren't aware of
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Feb 12, 2020 16:49:18 GMT
Funny that. The referees taking into account other players on the pitch and whether they would or would not have been able to intervene is precisely what they do when determining whether it was an obvious goalscoring opportunity (exhibit A being the second cynical foul in the same game). So it obviously only applies one way then? Are you also saying that you can't deny a clear goalscoring opportunity in your own half? For example if a player runs clear from a clearance and is in his own half? At that distance it would be extremely unlikely for an official to adjudge it an obvious GSO, yes. Could maybe happen if every other opposing player was 20 or 30 yards behind an onrushing forward (possibly including the goalkeeper) but it would be very rare.
|
|
|
Post by mickmillslovechild on Feb 12, 2020 17:02:45 GMT
You’re even damned by your own words here - if it’s necessary for the player to make a pass then he clearly doesn’t have an obvious goal-scoring opportunity in that moment does he. I wasn't aware that it was THE player that was fouled that must have the clear goalscoring opportunity. Is that your position? Also, is passing harder than shooting? Doesn't the player usually still have to shoot when he is fouled? Maybe refs shouldn't assume they'd be capable of that and issue yellows in such instances.
Out of interest...why are you gettin so arsey with me and Potterlog?
We don't make the rules you know!
I get that you don't like the rules (many don't) and find it frustrating but.......all we did was explain them as people were asking.
You are also aware that your viewpoint means absolutely fuck all to those who DO make the rules? It's not like you can scream and shout on here and suddenly they'll change the rules for you, because you want to interpret things differently.
Whether or not they are red cards is down to the rules of the game. It isn't about what anyone's "position" on the matter is; IT'S THE RULES! It isn't us just making shit up, we're reading from the laws of the game (they're freely available to anyone online. You could actually check yourself)
|
|
|
CGO rule
Feb 12, 2020 17:09:52 GMT
via mobile
Post by Royal Donut on Feb 12, 2020 17:09:52 GMT
Funny that. The referees taking into account other players on the pitch and whether they would or would not have been able to intervene is precisely what they do when determining whether it was an obvious goalscoring opportunity (exhibit A being the second cynical foul in the same game). So it obviously only applies one way then? Yes, it only applies one way, for obvious reasons. The only thing obvious is that is the threat at goal, because of the multiple players that are free. In fact in other situations it would have been a red card but harder to score. Maybe the rule needs changing I'm not sure. But within a few passes it's a certain goal.
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Feb 12, 2020 17:18:51 GMT
Yes, it only applies one way, for obvious reasons. The only thing obvious is that is the threat at goal, because of the multiple players that are free. In fact in other situations it would have been a red card but harder to score. Maybe the rule needs changing I'm not sure. But within a few passes it's a certain goal. Think about some of our players' passing ability and see if you can spot the flaw in your last sentence! The rule is fine.
|
|
|
CGO rule
Feb 12, 2020 17:20:16 GMT
via mobile
Post by Frogger Theft Auto on Feb 12, 2020 17:20:16 GMT
Stoke had one of these go against us at Swansea last season, James was taken out 'by the last man' but a mile from goal and going the wrong way.
I think the suspension was overturned but still annoying.
|
|
|
Post by Royal Donut on Feb 12, 2020 18:23:00 GMT
The only thing obvious is that is the threat at goal, because of the multiple players that are free. In fact in other situations it would have been a red card but harder to score. Maybe the rule needs changing I'm not sure. But within a few passes it's a certain goal. Think about some of our players' passing ability and see if you can spot the flaw in your last sentence! The rule is fine. Yes the rule is perfect
|
|
|
Post by lordb on Feb 12, 2020 19:09:32 GMT
The only thing obvious is that is the threat at goal, because of the multiple players that are free. In fact in other situations it would have been a red card but harder to score. Maybe the rule needs changing I'm not sure. But within a few passes it's a certain goal. Think about some of our players' passing ability and see if you can spot the flaw in your last sentence! The rule is fine. The rule is fine... however it was a clear goal scoring opportunity and a red card should have been dished out😁
|
|