2016 Chatham Cup
Contact is not a pre-requisite for issuing a red card - it's the nature of the challenge. If the challenge endangers the safety of an opponent, that is serious foul play and is punishable by a red card.
Oh didn't actually realize that, thought it was a yellow if its dangerous but no contact made. What constitutes endangering the safety of an opponent? as in if its within 5 meters of an opponent player? Or the act itself irrespective of the opponents position? or is it 100% refs discretion?
Still with my admittedly green tinted glasses it didn't look like it made contact and with him rolling around on the ground in agony then to job around afterwards without even looking like he had a cramp, that shark still pisses me off something fierce.
Contact is not a pre-requisite for issuing a red card - it's the nature of the challenge. If the challenge endangers the safety of an opponent, that is serious foul play and is punishable by a red card.
Oh didn't actually realize that, thought it was a yellow if its dangerous but no contact made. What constitutes endangering the safety of an opponent? as in if its within 5 meters of an opponent player? Or the act itself irrespective of the opponents position? or is it 100% refs discretion?
Still with my admittedly green tinted glasses it didn't look like it made contact and with him rolling around on the ground in agony then to job around afterwards without even looking like he had a cramp, that shark still pisses me off something fierce.
Comments on SMS's fbook post suggest the Ranger in question said there was definitely contact.
In general (didn't see this one) I agree that making the most of fouls to try to get players carded is rubbish that doesn't help the game in the least.
Comments on SMS's fbook post suggest the Ranger in question said there was definitely contact.
In general (didn't see this one) I agree that making the most of fouls to try to get players carded is rubbish that doesn't help the game in the least.
Based on how much agony he looked like he was in until he stood up post card he would have to say there was contact, else he'd be admitting to simulation resulting in a red.
As I said earlier its tough to say without a replay as you only get one angle at the time and aren't explicitly looking at the time for that detail, but the dive or exaggerating culture in football always pisses me off something fierce and generally for me swings the benefit of the doubt the other way.
Contact is not a pre-requisite for issuing a red card - it's the nature of the challenge. If the challenge endangers the safety of an opponent, that is serious foul play and is punishable by a red card.
Oh didn't actually realize that, thought it was a yellow if its dangerous but no contact made. What constitutes endangering the safety of an opponent? as in if its within 5 meters of an opponent player? Or the act itself irrespective of the opponents position? or is it 100% refs discretion?
Still with my admittedly green tinted glasses it didn't look like it made contact and with him rolling around on the ground in agony then to job around afterwards without even looking like he had a cramp, that shark still pisses me off something fierce.
This is the text from the LotG:
Any player who lunges at an opponent in challenging for the ball from the front, from the side or from behind using one or both legs, with excessive force or endangers the safety of an opponent is guilty of serious foul play.
Contact is not a pre-requisite for issuing a red card - it's the nature of the challenge. If the challenge endangers the safety of an opponent, that is serious foul play and is punishable by a red card.
Oh didn't actually realize that, thought it was a yellow if its dangerous but no contact made. What constitutes endangering the safety of an opponent? as in if its within 5 meters of an opponent player? Or the act itself irrespective of the opponents position? or is it 100% refs discretion?
Still with my admittedly green tinted glasses it didn't look like it made contact and with him rolling around on the ground in agony then to job around afterwards without even looking like he had a cramp, that shark still pisses me off something fierce.
I had a pretty good view of it, from the side, maybe 10 metres away. He got him. Studs into the stomach/groin area.
However, I can see that this could cause a bit of confusion among players and fans who don't always understand/appreciate the intricacies of the LotG.
Often stemming from big name commentators who don't know the rules properly.
I had a pretty good view of it, from the side, maybe 10 metres away. He got him. Studs into the stomach/groin area.
I retract my comment then. From the stands I missed it.
I watched the Wairarapa United v Miramar game and I definitely felt the ref was very inconsistent with his decisions between the teams in favour of Miramar. But I am a Wairarapa supporter and trying to justify my view is a pointless debate. Instead I would like your thoughts in how do you improve the quality and consistency of referees to the satisfaction of the ref's, players and supporters?
We have all had the hitler ref, or the ref who does not protect skilled players , or the one eyed ref or the ref who plain lacks common sense etc.
At present the clubs full out an assessment form after the game where the losing club bags the ref and the winning club thinks he is the next best thing to beer. This gives an indication over a season.
Also the refs are coached but if the coach isn't any good the situation gets worse.
What if an '' INDEPENDENT'' group of three past quality players were also to send an assessment in for each game of the referee, the coaching staff and the players?
I did not see the game but believe the appointed referee was John Rowbury National League referee and number 1 in Wellington, I think he's an excellent referee, 1 of the easiest things to do in Football is bag the referee.
Pretty sure I've never had a ref that invaded Poland or was a central figure of the holocaust
A team in Wairarapas position in that game is always going to feel like they got the wrong end of calls. The crowd seemed to feed off each other in disapproval, and the players probably felt more frustrated or justfied in feeling cheated given the reaction of the crowd too.
As a neutral, I can honestly say the referee had a good game. If things don't go your way the easiest thing to do is to blame the referee, especially if you've had two players sent off. We've all felt that way in various games, myself included.
Who would be a ref.
rapa got lucky v wharf. Swings and roundabouts and all that..
I watched the Wairarapa United v Miramar game and I definitely felt the ref was very inconsistent with his decisions between the teams in favour of Miramar. But I am a Wairarapa supporter and trying to justify my view is a pointless debate. Instead I would like your thoughts in how do you improve the quality and consistency of referees to the satisfaction of the ref's, players and supporters?
We have all had the hitler ref, or the ref who does not protect skilled players , or the one eyed ref or the ref who plain lacks common sense etc.
At present the clubs full out an assessment form after the game where the losing club bags the ref and the winning club thinks he is the next best thing to beer. This gives an indication over a season.
Also the the refs are coached but if the coach isn't any good the situation gets worse.
What if an '' INDEPENDENT'' group of three past quality players were also to send an assessment in for each game of the referee, the coaching staff and the players?
I am not sure Zoro if you were around in the 1970s but there was a family that officiated Central League games in The Wairarapa.
The husband was the referee and the wife and son ran the line for all Masterton home games. I stand corrected but I seem to recall Masterton winning a game 5 to 4 and Masterton scored their 5 goals from penalties.
Went to Birko v ECB.
5-3 after extra time.
1-1 at FT so 6 goals in extra time.
Birko up 4-1 then Bays got it back to 4-3 before Birko scored 5th in 120th minute.
Entertaining game despite conditions with strong wind coming straight down the ground - can't recall totally but think only one goal (the one in the 120th minute) scored into the wind.
Feisty match although perhaps not to the degree of past encounters. Both sides lucky to end up with 11 on the field. Galbraith has lovely touch for a big man but needs to control his emotions. Broderson lucky to stay on for the duration.
Birko supporters obviously did not read the front page of NZ Herald on Saturday morning about referee abuse .
Who is Broderson?
Sorry - meant Bresnahan.
Draw at midday today.
Miramar to Dunedin
N/Wgtn to Christchurch
"Smiley Face"
Quarter Final draw to be played 6-7 August
Three Kings United v North Wellington
Forrest Hill Milford v Birkenhead United
Cashmere Tech v Miramar
Waitakere v Caversham
Nothing in Wellington :(
8th straight away game for Miramar. Got me thinking to when West had a complete run of home games to the final a decade or so back. So I checked. Wests had 10 straight home games between 2004 and 2007 (if you exclude the 06 final as there was no 'draw').
2 buckets draw? our all balls in 1 bucket?
Napier had a good run of away games the other year to make final away
I find a huge fudgeing amount of irony in the fact that as much as people here think they MUST be right because that is what they saw, there is no possible way that the ref can be right based on what he saw.
I reckon there could be a whole bunch of budding professional snooker players in here because even from such a distance and an obscured angle with things in the way, they nail it every time.
After all the educated and knowledgeable comment in this thread regarding the lack of skills and ability of the Wellington referees it is obvious to me that NZF has done the draw to send both surviving Wellington teams out of town for the next round.
Very considerate of them, in my opinion.
After all the educated and knowledgeable comment in this thread regarding the lack of skills and ability of the Wellington referees it is obvious to me that NZF has done the draw to send both surviving Wellington teams out of town for the next round.
Very considerate of them, in my opinion.
The lid of the blind cups appear labeled?
here's my write ups from the 2 games I went to over the weekend
Wairarapa United v Miramar Rangers and Photos
Palmerston North Marist v North Wellington and photos
Shame no games in Wellington in next round just have to hope for 2 Wellington home semi finals!
Was it a case of two draws, one cup...?
to be fair when it's televised it's very hard to suggest any kind of rigging of the draw - there were several years a while back when it was all done without any live element and I think questions were asked and deserved to be.
Actually I still remember when the live draw was on radio and people questioned the draw - so maybe there will always be questions.
NZ Football adopt new Mantra. lol
I find a huge fudgeing amount of irony in the fact that as much as people here think they MUST be right because that is what they saw, there is no possible way that the ref can be right based on what he saw.
I reckon there could be a whole bunch of budding professional snooker players in here because even from such a distance and an obscured angle with things in the way, they nail it every time.
What an absurd comment. Of course people believe what they see.
Are you saying its impossible for a ref to get a call wrong and a spectator closer to the event and at a better angle possibly see it be right? If so that's a stupid thing to say.
And most importantly you are saying its ironic that people believe what they see. So you never believe anything you see in case you are wrong? Life must suck being so indecisive that you can't even trust your eyes. Yea sometimes your eyes deceive you, but I personally don't believe everything I see is wrong, and find the only way to get by is to assume what I see is right until proven otherwise.
Just remember going forward any time you think a ref got a call wrong that you could be wrong. because irrespective of any camera angles you are only seeing it and as above the ref saw what they saw and it would be ironic for you to believe what you see over what the ref saw.
