| Out of the darkness — Report on 15:14 - Dec 19 with 1882 views | PinnerPaul |
| Out of the darkness — Report on 10:41 - Dec 19 by Northernr |
I will never agree with you on this as you know from our long afternoons in the Crown. JCS only has to play the ball because there's a bloke two feet behind him who will head it into the net if he doesn't - a bloke who's also miles offside. It's offside. |
TBF you DID say in the report, initially, its the law, which it is, but you then oddly blame the poor old AR - he can't make up his own laws.
I explained the non caution for the foul on Tim on another thread..
Its (yet another) recent tweak. Caution would have been for breaking up a promising attack, but as he played advantage attack continued, hence no caution. TBF and to show both sides, if decides the challenge is reckless, even if he plays advantage he can go back and caution for that.
Same as advantage played for DOGSO, and forward gets the opportunity, to score you can't go back and send off - its the same logic.
Added time - in the WC I agree, its nearer 10, but as I pointed out PL have already said that they do not want and that means we will not get added time like we got in the WC.
Yes PGMOL referee the games not the PL, but that ignores the £5M funding PGMOL receive.
Unless Howard Webb's first action in his new job is to go to war with the clubs then I can't see it changing can you? |  | |  |
| Out of the darkness — Report on 15:17 - Dec 19 with 1871 views | PinnerPaul |
| Out of the darkness — Report on 11:20 - Dec 19 by Northernr |
Yeh the law as is now, and as interpreted, means Rblock, and the lino, are probably right. And of course the pedant will tell you "it is not an offence to be in an offside position". But for me, in situations like that, the law is now an ass. He's standing in the six yard box, miles offside, the free kick and returned balls are all aimed towards him, JCS has to react and play at it because he's there, the ball ends up with him, he nearly scores - this is offside. Or, at least, it should be. |
Yes I agree, it is what football expects.
I have often been asked "What am I supposed to do, leave it?" by defenders and the answer is of course, "Yes"
Pedantry it maybe, but it is also the first line of the law, which is put there to (try) and help in situations like this - clearly it doesn't!  | | | |
| Out of the darkness — Report on 15:19 - Dec 19 with 1866 views | PinnerPaul |
| Out of the darkness — Report on 13:25 - Dec 19 by fournil |
Amazing run though it was, Laird's shot that hits the defender was heading more towards the corner post than the back of the net. It's a shame as these rampaging runs of his deserve more than he's been getting this season.
Another astounding report Clive - I continue to be in awe - every week. |
Yes agree - from the comfort of the sofa it should have been a pass to Lyndon - but that's only possible to see from home, not on the pitch or in the stand! | | | |
| Out of the darkness — Report on 16:43 - Dec 19 with 1740 views | ericgen34 |
| Out of the darkness — Report on 11:20 - Dec 19 by Northernr |
Yeh the law as is now, and as interpreted, means Rblock, and the lino, are probably right. And of course the pedant will tell you "it is not an offence to be in an offside position". But for me, in situations like that, the law is now an ass. He's standing in the six yard box, miles offside, the free kick and returned balls are all aimed towards him, JCS has to react and play at it because he's there, the ball ends up with him, he nearly scores - this is offside. Or, at least, it should be. |
Griezmann had a goal cancelled against Tunisia by VAR for exactly that, so either you're right or even the officials themselves don't know any more |  | | |
| Out of the darkness — Report on 17:36 - Dec 19 with 1680 views | OldPedro |
Gutted I didn't go on Saturday. Usually go to Preston with my son, as we live about an hour away, but couldn't go due to a Christmas party.
 |  |
| Extra mature cheddar......a simple cheese for a simple man |
| |
| Out of the darkness — Report on 17:52 - Dec 19 with 1663 views | Burnleyhoop |
| Out of the darkness — Report on 14:46 - Dec 19 by Northernr |
Mellow Magic hasn't done that thankfully. Neither has Smooth. |
Not got Bluetooth?
Great report and I also applaud the 500+ brave souls.
Would love to see the km covered running stats between the Burnley and Preston games as the effort at Deepdale was a joy to behold.
Bizarre how we constantly fluctuate between a side looking like promotion candidates to relegation fodder within days. If we can nail down a bit of consistency for the rest of the season then the gloom can finally lifted.
Christmas sitting in the play offs feels great, considering the pain of the last month.
Have a great Christmas fellow hoops and roll on Boxing Day. It just might be back on! | | | |
| Out of the darkness — Report on 17:52 - Dec 19 with 1655 views | Greenbay |
Ooops downbuttoned you Clive instead of Upbuttoned so to speak.
Most enjoyable. | | | |
| Out of the darkness — Report on 17:58 - Dec 19 with 1651 views | Greenbay |
| Out of the darkness — Report on 07:48 - Dec 19 by ngbqpr |
You have taken a run of the miil Championship Football Match and used it as a foundation stone for an inspired, laugh out loud, often verging on the surreal 15 minute stand up routine. Superb, hat doffed to you for this, and also the other 503. |
Apologies to ngbqpr instead. Obviously got carried away by our victory! | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Out of the darkness — Report on 18:55 - Dec 19 with 1581 views | davman |
| Out of the darkness — Report on 15:17 - Dec 19 by PinnerPaul |
Yes I agree, it is what football expects.
I have often been asked "What am I supposed to do, leave it?" by defenders and the answer is of course, "Yes"
Pedantry it maybe, but it is also the first line of the law, which is put there to (try) and help in situations like this - clearly it doesn't! |
Paul,
Of course you are right, but as I have said on another thread, leaving a ball like that is simply not an option as it leaves idiots to make a decision, which they will invariably get wrong. For added ammo, your man on the line may have got that one right by the letter of the law, but minutes later there was an absolute circus with a throw in. It was close to going out and I think he started to congratulate himself in getting it right in that the ball didn't go out, but almost immediately the Preston player dragged it clearly off the pitch, then pulled it back in play to deflect it back out off the Rangers' defender. Decision? Preston throw. Man, you are a 'kin "professional", you have one job AND IT HAPPENED RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOU.
|  |
| |
| Out of the darkness — Report on 01:38 - Dec 20 with 1306 views | Metallica_Hoop |
Seny's save was pivotal had that gone in I think we'd have lost. |  |
| Beer and Beef has made us what we are - The Prince Regent |
| |
| Out of the darkness — Report on 20:38 - Dec 22 with 1010 views | Northernr |
| Out of the darkness — Report on 15:14 - Dec 19 by PinnerPaul |
TBF you DID say in the report, initially, its the law, which it is, but you then oddly blame the poor old AR - he can't make up his own laws.
I explained the non caution for the foul on Tim on another thread..
Its (yet another) recent tweak. Caution would have been for breaking up a promising attack, but as he played advantage attack continued, hence no caution. TBF and to show both sides, if decides the challenge is reckless, even if he plays advantage he can go back and caution for that.
Same as advantage played for DOGSO, and forward gets the opportunity, to score you can't go back and send off - its the same logic.
Added time - in the WC I agree, its nearer 10, but as I pointed out PL have already said that they do not want and that means we will not get added time like we got in the WC.
Yes PGMOL referee the games not the PL, but that ignores the £5M funding PGMOL receive.
Unless Howard Webb's first action in his new job is to go to war with the clubs then I can't see it changing can you? |
Ok 34 mins Man City v Liverpool, Man City on the attack, Liverpool player deliberately fouls Palmer in back play, advantage is waved and played, attack breaks up. Next stoppage, referee goes back and shows a yelllow. Shirt pull so not reckless. |  | | |
| Out of the darkness — Report on 16:21 - Dec 23 with 840 views | PinnerPaul |
| Out of the darkness — Report on 20:38 - Dec 22 by Northernr |
Ok 34 mins Man City v Liverpool, Man City on the attack, Liverpool player deliberately fouls Palmer in back play, advantage is waved and played, attack breaks up. Next stoppage, referee goes back and shows a yelllow. Shirt pull so not reckless. |
I'm going mad - thought I had replied.
Good question, think it would be put down as reckless as not a challenge for the ball, which you could, just about, call the PNE one, or the catch all , not acting in the spirit of the game. | | | |
| Out of the darkness — Report on 21:53 - Dec 23 with 774 views | Northernr |
| Out of the darkness — Report on 16:21 - Dec 23 by PinnerPaul |
I'm going mad - thought I had replied.
Good question, think it would be put down as reckless as not a challenge for the ball, which you could, just about, call the PNE one, or the catch all , not acting in the spirit of the game. |
I think the more simple answer is the referee at Preston was wrong. | | | |
| Out of the darkness — Report on 10:26 - Dec 24 with 610 views | PinnerPaul |
| Out of the darkness — Report on 21:53 - Dec 23 by Northernr |
I think the more simple answer is the referee at Preston was wrong. |
No, I don't think he was, as explained previously, he would have had to call it reckless, which, in theory you could argue it was. One of my friends at RefChat implies that it was in fact the Man City ref who was wrong. He asked the IFAB the very question you asked , obviously relating to another incident - but it was still shirt pulling - here are the questions and what they said. As you can see (as we like to do!) the IFAB have rather hedged their bets, but reading it, you could argue both a caution and non caution are correct, as indeed you can for the PNE incident.
Man City Vs Liverpool
IFAB response when previously asked
"
Can prolonged shirt pulling be considered unsporting behaviour in it's own right or does it need to
stop or interfere with a promising attack? It could be USB in its own right especially if it provokes a notable reaction
If it can be unsporting behaviour in it's own right then can you answer the below scenarios?
1) If an advantage is played on a shirt pulling offence that would've stopped a promising attack if play was stopped, can the player still be cautioned if the referee considered it to be unsporting behaviour? In theory it could but the ‘spirit’ of the Law would not expect a caution, which might be difficult to justify
2) An advantage is played from a shirt pulling offence that involves a non-promising attack, can the player be cautioned for unsporting behaviour? Yes, it could but in the same way that every ‘foul’ is not a caution then every shirt pull is not a caution
" | | | |
| Out of the darkness — Report on 10:34 - Dec 24 with 605 views | Northernr |
| Out of the darkness — Report on 10:26 - Dec 24 by PinnerPaul |
No, I don't think he was, as explained previously, he would have had to call it reckless, which, in theory you could argue it was. One of my friends at RefChat implies that it was in fact the Man City ref who was wrong. He asked the IFAB the very question you asked , obviously relating to another incident - but it was still shirt pulling - here are the questions and what they said. As you can see (as we like to do!) the IFAB have rather hedged their bets, but reading it, you could argue both a caution and non caution are correct, as indeed you can for the PNE incident.
Man City Vs Liverpool
IFAB response when previously asked
"
Can prolonged shirt pulling be considered unsporting behaviour in it's own right or does it need to
stop or interfere with a promising attack? It could be USB in its own right especially if it provokes a notable reaction
If it can be unsporting behaviour in it's own right then can you answer the below scenarios?
1) If an advantage is played on a shirt pulling offence that would've stopped a promising attack if play was stopped, can the player still be cautioned if the referee considered it to be unsporting behaviour? In theory it could but the ‘spirit’ of the Law would not expect a caution, which might be difficult to justify
2) An advantage is played from a shirt pulling offence that involves a non-promising attack, can the player be cautioned for unsporting behaviour? Yes, it could but in the same way that every ‘foul’ is not a caution then every shirt pull is not a caution
" |
I just can't see how both can be correct, it's nuts. In fact it's even more nuts than that because the Man City one which was booked was a prolonged shirt pull, which with the best will in the world isn't going to hurt anybody, whereas the Preston one which wasn't he's slid in and tried to take him out at the ankle. Mad. | | | |
| Out of the darkness — Report on 10:42 - Dec 24 with 597 views | PinnerPaul |
| Out of the darkness — Report on 10:34 - Dec 24 by Northernr |
I just can't see how both can be correct, it's nuts. In fact it's even more nuts than that because the Man City one which was booked was a prolonged shirt pull, which with the best will in the world isn't going to hurt anybody, whereas the Preston one which wasn't he's slid in and tried to take him out at the ankle. Mad. |
You can argue both, both ways I think.
As I say, if you're the ref and you see the PNE challenge like that, its perfectly acceptable to call it reckless, if BPA as I thought then its not. I think observer would support us both if we put our cases forward for our respective decisions - maybe that's part of the problem of falling standards you allude to - I think not (as below) but appreciate where you're coming from.
Same as Man city, if its 'just' BPA, you've played advantage then no caution, if prolonged and likely to cause a reaction, then its OK to caution.
A more general point, I feel, is that these incidents, like many penalty decisions are not black and white - 100% right or 100% wrong - hence, as we said on another thread, the futility of using VAR to "correct" all "wrong" decisions. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
