Agreed Spurs crazy (although Spurs are rubbish!)
Two key points worth discussion:
ONE: The ref claimed he would not tolerate "dissent" but this went as far as to not allow ANY questions as to: who committed the foul in question, what the foul was for, where a free-kick could be taken from. Every 'comment' uttered on the field was dissent. When a conscious decision was made to remove all comments from the field except from the captain, this was still dissent. A quick checking of the definition of dissent, as per the Oxford dictionary stated:
"dissent - verb: express disagreement with a prevailing or official view"
Law 12 of the FIFA Laws of the Game, under 'Showing dissent by word or action' also comments,
"A player who is guilty of dissent by protesting (verbally or non-verbally) against a referee�s decision must be cautioned."
Clearly the use of the word "protesting against a referee's decision", backs up Oxfords definition and the common sense approach to the commonly understood meaning of dissent? A genuine question to an official, to obtain clarity and to allow the smooth flowing of the game is surely constructive?
TWO: An Upper Hutt defender received a ball straight to the face around 30 yards out towards the sideline (a clearance struck by a strong PNGHS defender), which grounded her, resulting in her clutching her head. The referee stated play would not be stopped for this head injury as it was "ball to head."
That's me.
My point (or more opinion really) was that I don't see any Capital 4 Team finding alot of difficulty against any Womens CL team, so I considered your comment "only good enough for Captial 4" a bit, well, conceited. However, each to his/her own....
