- This topic has 5 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 1 month ago by
.
-
Posts
-
What exactly is their job ? Barcelona just denied a stone wall penalty not 10 feet in front of said official ??? The other thing I have never understood is why does a player have to actually hit the deck to be awarded a penalty ? Sanchez was clearly fouled prior to being decked by the keeper but because he didn’t fall to the ground no instant decision for a penalty ? Free kicks are awarded for infringements that don’t see a player hitting the deck and so why is this not the case in the box ? How many times do you hear pundits saying ” If he hadn’t decided to stay on his feet and go for goal it would have been a certain penalty ” ?
That pitch is cutting up do they play rugger on it ?
That pitch is cutting up do they play rugger on it ?It’s that Italian defender grass, specially grown to be advantageous to defenders, alot of the Italian clubs use it, as for some reason there’s been a shortage in quality attacking players in Italy of late, but shed loads of world class defenders, aswell as centre halves that have been around since Moses was a lad, Nesta was playing when I was a foetus!! And that seedorf goes back further than John the baptist!
All well and good Mr Doe but I still believe Moses is still a lad :P
…aswell as centre halves that have been around since Moses was a ladCouple of years ago then?
Edit: Didn’t see the post above. Feel a bit silly now.
What exactly is their job ? Barcelona just denied a stone wall penalty not 10 feet in front of said official ??? The other thing I have never understood is why does a player have to actually hit the deck to be awarded a penalty ? Sanchez was clearly fouled prior to being decked by the keeper but because he didn’t fall to the ground no instant decision for a penalty ? Free kicks are awarded for infringements that don’t see a player hitting the deck and so why is this not the case in the box ? How many times do you hear pundits saying ” If he hadn’t decided to stay on his feet and go for goal it would have been a certain penalty ” ?I think they’re there purely to say whether the ball goes in or out of play (or over the line for a goal) & not to come in on any other decision.
If that is the case then it’s a complete waste of money as the assistant is supposed to follow the ball all the way down to the line anyway & to be honest the number of controversial “ball over the line” goals is minimal.
If they aren’t there to assist in instances like last night it seems pointless when its obvious they were fouled, the “normal” officials couldn’t tell & the other one is there staring straight at it & not able to say owt.On the penalties themselves you are told to play advantage as much as possible & so if the player doesn’t go down you are supposed to let play go on & see if they get a shot in at goal or get control of the ball. If they do & then feck it up you can’t then bring play back – in that instance last night, if the ref doesn’t think he was fouled for the second challenge he must think it was the players own error in knocking the bal too far past the keeper.
In my reffing I let a player a few months ago who got fouled near the edge of the penalty area get his shot in (which he skied) before pulling play back for a free-kick. I got docked marks on my assessment for it.
I also remember a 4 (or 5-1) win away at Preston when Barlow got a hat-trick. At 1-0 down & getting battered Barlow got put clean through & the keeper clipped him as he took it round him. Barlow kept his feet, got a shot in & missed. The ref then pulled play back, awarded a penalty, sent the keeper of and Barlow scored the penalty – Preston’s manager was none too happy coz he said an advantage was played, Latics messed it up themselves & then the ref has given another advantage by awarding the pen & sending the keeper off. The manager was reet
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
