|
|
Post by andylgr on Oct 30, 2014 13:35:28 GMT
What about that incident when it all kicked off last night when we played the ball back to them after one of their lads was 'injured'.
Bardsley played it in to the corner, their left back jogged backed to the ball whilst their keeper ambled out to take his time in retrieving it. SJW wasn't having any of that, so closed him down and we won a throw.
It looked like after it calmed down that Shawcross ran over to tell Bardsley to throw it back to them for a goal kick, or was it the ref that told him to do it?
|
|
|
|
Post by Jamo on the wing on Oct 30, 2014 14:13:37 GMT
Basically what happened was that the referee allowed the Southampton players to officiate the game and not for the first time during the evening.
|
|
|
|
Post by stokiejoeofalsager on Oct 30, 2014 14:17:26 GMT
We are not legally obliged to return the ball. The fact that the ref stopped the game to award them a free kick for it is completely wrong. The amount of time wasting they were doing from the end of the first half onwards, I don't see why we should.
|
|
|
|
Post by Stoke711 on Oct 30, 2014 14:18:35 GMT
We gave them the ball back, so then we're supposed to wait for them to score before we are allowed to challenge for it again, sod all this kicking out of play, just play the damn game and they can get treated when the play stops. Maybe then some will stop feigning to get the game broken up.
|
|
|
|
Post by andylgr on Oct 30, 2014 14:19:44 GMT
My take on it was that after we returned the ball (rightly or wrongly) they seemed intent on more time wasting and didn't seem to interested in making much of a move to get the game going again. SJW got the crowd going by chasing it down I thought. We gave them the ball back, so then we're supposed to wait for them to score before we are allowed to challenge for it again, sod all this kicking out of play, just play the damn game and they can get treated when the play stops. Maybe then some will stop feigning to get the game broken up. It pisses me off that players can take advantage of the head injury rule or just stay down and either the ref will stop it or the opposition will kick it out, thus killing any momentum they were building up. |
|
|
|
Post by chuckrocky on Oct 30, 2014 14:48:48 GMT
We played the ball into the corner and gave them ample time to deal with it, of course they started taking the piss like they had done since they scored the first goal so Walters decided to hurry them up and he had every right to do it. The referee had no right to ask Bardsley to throw it for a goal kick. Not for the first time he was influenced by the relentless bitching from the Southampton players, especially Tadic who was going ape shit.
|
|
|
|
Post by boskampsflaps on Oct 30, 2014 14:54:58 GMT
As standard, you normally let them have the ball then start the play not kick it in their general direction and chase after it.
|
|
|
|
Post by thebet365 on Oct 30, 2014 15:08:17 GMT
Love the double standards on here, if it was the other way around we'd be going mental. Considering the time wasting we should have kicked the ball back to someone on their team, not float it into space and then chase straight after it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2014 15:08:35 GMT
The problem was the strolling after the ball and trying to put yet more time on the clock which Southampton did all through the second half, I've never seen such blatant tactical time wasting.
|
|
|
|
Post by scfcmacca on Oct 30, 2014 15:26:08 GMT
The ball should be played out for a throw in, no real threat and gives each side a 50-50 chance of play. Not play it their keeper who can then dictate the play
|
|
|
|
Post by Jamo on the wing on Oct 30, 2014 15:33:08 GMT
As standard, you normally let them have the ball then start the play not kick it in their general direction and chase after it. I think given the time wasting and play acting whenever we went near them it was fully justified. They fucked about with it and we made them play. Fair game I reckon. |
|
|
|
Post by metalhead on Oct 30, 2014 15:34:18 GMT
The ball should be played out for a throw in, no real threat and gives each side a 50-50 chance of play. Not play it their keeper who can then dictate the play No, that's what scummers like Arsenal would do. We did the right thing kicking it back. However we should have actually hit it towards their goal. That is the generally accepted rule. You boot it back with some aim towards there goal. The keeper is then forced to catch and release it. You can say they were time wasting but by the letter of the law, the ball was in play. They were under no obligation to speed up. I had no problem closing them down but let's not beat around the bush here. |
|
|
|
Post by stu1959 on Oct 30, 2014 16:12:14 GMT
Checkout the first game at St Mary's you will find Stoke time wasting from the kick off. Have a look at the match not through rose spectacles - regarding the playing the ball back post an injury. They played the ball out we should be sporting and play it back to them not put it to the corner flag and then chase it down FFS !
Crouch led with an elbow for the first booking then went over the top with the second booking Look at Mark Hughes reaction he would know not to be so blatant that's why he was upset.
Let's face it best team on the night won.
|
|
|
|
Post by chuckrocky on Oct 30, 2014 16:19:13 GMT
Checkout the first game at St Mary's you will find Stoke time wasting from the kick off. Have a look at the match not through rose spectacles - regarding the playing the ball back post an injury. They played the ball out we should be sporting and play it back to them not put it to the corner flag and then chase it down FFS ! Crouch led with an elbow for the first booking then went over the top with the second booking Look at Mark Hughes reaction he would know not to be so blatant that's why he was upset. Let's face it best team on the night won. What a load of bollocks, we barely touched the ball in the first half at St Mary's so we couldn't have time wasted even if we wanted to and why would we be time wasting when we spent the majority of the match behind? Yes the best team on the night did win but that doesn't mean we can't discuss controversial incidents during the game. |
|
|
|
Post by 2004 on Oct 30, 2014 16:25:53 GMT
Walters did the right thing. Their player was not injured at all so we should not have given it back to them.
|
|
|
|
Post by march4 on Oct 30, 2014 16:26:23 GMT
I think most of you forgetting what happened before they kicked the ball out of play. The player went down injured and Soton happily carried on attacking until the attack fizzled out. Only then did they kick it out.
In my opinion their actions meant we had no responsibility to kick the ball back to them as they had not kicked the ball out straight away when the player was injured but sought to take advantage of our hesitation due the injured player.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jamo on the wing on Oct 30, 2014 16:29:32 GMT
I think most of you forgetting what happened before they kicked the ball out of play. The player went down injured and Soton happily carried on attacking until the attack fizzled out. Only then did they kick it out. In my opinion their actions meant we had no responsibility to kick the ball back to them as they had not kicked the ball out straight away when the player was injured but sought to take advantage of our hesitation due the injured player. Totally agree, mate. Their constant harassment of the ref and rolling around when it suited made it perfectly reasonable in my eyes. |
|
|
|
Post by Ryan_Shawjosh on Oct 30, 2014 17:11:15 GMT
I know it's poor sportsmanship not to give the ball back but, until he stops play himself, the ref hasn't deemed a player to be too injured that play must be stopped. It just gives teams a chance to time waste as we saw last night. Another rule which has, rightly so, come into play (poor pun intended) which has given players the chance to fake injury and time waste is play having to be stopped for head injuries. I know the rule has been there for a long time but, considering the current focus on head injuries, there is no way a ref is going to risk not stopping play. That Targett fella did a nice bit of faking a head injury last night at one point. The worst thing about time wasting in this way is it's too difficult to prove if a player is exaggerating/faking injury after a genuine collision, more so than it is to judge a dive.
Long story short... f**k 'em.
|
|
|
|
Post by metalhead on Oct 30, 2014 17:28:00 GMT
I know it's poor sportsmanship not to give the ball back but, until he stops play himself, the ref hasn't deemed a player to be too injured that play must be stopped. It just gives teams a chance to time waste as we saw last night. Another rule which has, rightly so, come into play (poor pun intended) which has given players the chance to fake injury and time waste is play having to be stopped for head injuries. I know the rule has been there for a long time but, considering the current focus on head injuries, there is no way a ref is going to risk not stopping play. That Targett fella did a nice bit of faking a head injury last night at one point. The worst thing about time wasting in this way is it's too difficult to prove if a player is exaggerating/faking injury after a genuine collision, more so than it is to judge a dive. Long story short... f**k 'em. I've seen a few teams do it over the years. I'm pretty sure it was Spurs when they were winning 2-1 at the Brit on our 150th anniversary. After they scored, Bale (I think) threw himself on the floor right in front of the Boothen and started rolling around. The ball came to their player (right back, maybe Kyle Walker?) on the right hand side who started driving at our full back (might have been when Wilson played there), all of a sudden two Stoke players were quickly on him, he realized he had no chance of keeping possession, started protecting the ball and trying to time waste. Then once a Stoke player was round him, he kicked the ball out of play and Stoke were obligated to return it. I was absolutely screaming from the Boothen not to return it, but we did. They're not the only ones to be fair. |
|
|
|
Post by Ryan_Shawjosh on Oct 30, 2014 17:41:04 GMT
I know it's poor sportsmanship not to give the ball back but, until he stops play himself, the ref hasn't deemed a player to be too injured that play must be stopped. It just gives teams a chance to time waste as we saw last night. Another rule which has, rightly so, come into play (poor pun intended) which has given players the chance to fake injury and time waste is play having to be stopped for head injuries. I know the rule has been there for a long time but, considering the current focus on head injuries, there is no way a ref is going to risk not stopping play. That Targett fella did a nice bit of faking a head injury last night at one point. The worst thing about time wasting in this way is it's too difficult to prove if a player is exaggerating/faking injury after a genuine collision, more so than it is to judge a dive. Long story short... f**k 'em. I've seen a few teams do it over the years. I'm pretty sure it was Spurs when they were winning 2-1 at the Brit on our 150th anniversary. After they scored, Bale (I think) threw himself on the floor right in front of the Boothen and started rolling around. The ball came to their player (right back, maybe Kyle Walker?) on the right hand side who started driving at our full back (might have been when Wilson played there), all of a sudden two Stoke players were quickly on him, he realized he had no chance of keeping possession, started protecting the ball and trying to time waste. Then once a Stoke player was round him, he kicked the ball out of play and Stoke were obligated to return it. I was absolutely screaming from the Boothen not to return it, but we did. They're not the only ones to be fair. The majority, if not all teams do it but it's so frustrating when it is done against you. You're either forced to accept it and give the ball back and hope they don't take this piss or accept criticism from the media and fans for being unsportsmanlike. |
|
|
|
Post by fca47 on Oct 30, 2014 18:03:14 GMT
It is annoying when teams are using it as a tactic, to kill the game. Soton were play acting to waste time and we still had to give the ball back, it is really up to the ref to not fall for it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Oct 31, 2014 7:32:35 GMT
The ball should be played out for a throw in, no real threat and gives each side a 50-50 chance of play. Not play it their keeper who can then dictate the play No, that's what scummers like Arsenal would do. We did the right thing kicking it back. However we should have actually hit it towards their goal. That is the generally accepted rule. You boot it back with some aim towards there goal. The keeper is then forced to catch and release it. You can say they were time wasting but by the letter of the law, the ball was in play. They were under no obligation to speed up. I had no problem closing them down but let's not beat around the bush here. But if, by the letter of the law, the ball was in play then what did Walters do wrong in trying to play it? I reckon the incident showed two things: First, there needs to be a proper law as to how the game is to be restarted in such cases - and it should be properly restarted, the idea that one side can use the situation to time waste without any comeback from the opposition or the ref, is ridiculous. Why don't the laws just specify that one keeper or another (ref's decision) takes a kick from their own penalty spot? Second, Mason was totally inept in the way he dealt with it. Basically, he connived at Southampton using the throw to their end as a chance to waste time for about 60 seconds or so. We gave them the ball, they wasted time, Walters decided to press the ball so the ref should have waved play on. But a change in the law to specify what MUST happen at the restart would make life so much easier. |
|
|
|
Post by metalhead on Oct 31, 2014 11:16:52 GMT
No, that's what scummers like Arsenal would do. We did the right thing kicking it back. However we should have actually hit it towards their goal. That is the generally accepted rule. You boot it back with some aim towards there goal. The keeper is then forced to catch and release it. You can say they were time wasting but by the letter of the law, the ball was in play. They were under no obligation to speed up. I had no problem closing them down but let's not beat around the bush here. But if, by the letter of the law, the ball was in play then what did Walters do wrong in trying to play it? I reckon the incident showed two things: First, there needs to be a proper law as to how the game is to be restarted in such cases - and it should be properly restarted, the idea that one side can use the situation to time waste without any comeback from the opposition or the ref, is ridiculous. Why don't the laws just specify that one keeper or another (ref's decision) takes a kick from their own penalty spot? Second, Mason was totally inept in the way he dealt with it. Basically, he connived at Southampton using the throw to their end as a chance to waste time for about 60 seconds or so. We gave them the ball, they wasted time, Walters decided to press the ball so the ref should have waved play on. But a change in the law to specify what MUST happen at the restart would make life so much easier. I had no problem with Jon closing them down. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 31, 2014 12:49:52 GMT
Niether did I we played it back and they jogged slowly after it I would chased it too, they had the opportunity to gain control of the ball but chose to wander slowly after it wasting time.
|
|
