WPM R18 vs Brisbane Roar | Thu 6th Feb | 5:00pm | RoF - Kids Go Free!
251 replies·11,587 views
about 1 year ago
The interferrnce of the dead ball is the biggest time waster in football and it drives me crazy. How often do you see defenders pick up the ball, walk away with it and then lob it back in the general direction of the attacker. Its against the rules and it never gets inforced. IMO you touch a dead ball and its a yellow card. I do like the minimalist way AL refs are refereeing contacts this season. Fenix
theprof
There has been clear insyructions from the league bosses to let the play flow more, not that this has anything to do with the non-calls that we should have got. It creates a more physical game, which I dont mind. But the non-pen call was just daft - with or with out possession, the raised leg impedes the attacker getting to the ball, which he could then have scored with. Pen all fudgeing day
If those instructions are true,then the way to "make the game flow" is to penalise keepers and defenders who hold it up , contrary to the rules. The rules say someone who delays a restart " is booked". Not "may be" booked,but is always booked. Not applying the rules is slowing the game down.
about 1 year ago· edited about 1 year ago· History
A lot of talk about the non-penalty - have to say I was just as enraged as most of you but honestly, if we'd got it and scored it are you confident we'd have won the game instead of drawn as we did? I'm not sure.
A lot of talk about the non-penalty - have to say I was just as enraged as most of you but honestly, if we'd got it and scored it are you confident we'd have won the game instead of drawn as we did? I'm not sure.
100% we win that game had either pen shout been given (handball or Ishige's). Roar had very little going forward and a second goal kills them and lifts us. instead roar get the refs support and lift and we look frustrated and deflated.
Wasn't that penalty shout before we scored? So there is no guarantee we get another goal if that penalty was given (and scored, let's not forget, the Nix are good at missing pens). You'd have a point if we'd been 1-0 up when it happened.theprof
LT01
A lot of talk about the non-penalty - have to say I was just as enraged as most of you but honestly, if we'd got it and scored it are you confident we'd have won the game instead of drawn as we did? I'm not sure.
100% we win that game had either pen shout been given (handball or Ishige's). Roar had very little going forward and a second goal kills them and lifts us. instead roar get the refs support and lift and we look frustrated and deflated.
you're right pen and hand ball shouts were at 0-0 but I hoestly think we would have lifted had one of them been given. The frustration levels shot through the roof after both were declined.
Was sitting right at the front today and man Marco looked good in his skinny jeans when he walked past. When I’m sick and injured I wear tracksuit trousers.
Payne showed what we miss from senior players. His first cross from the right caused panic and a chance.
Candy looked good when he came on, he created 2 good chances by running at their defender. Although he seems a carbon copy of walker so I’m not sure how they both get in the team.
Piper excellent game. Obviously been told to take a chance and run at people, and it paid off a couple of times.
As mentioned here, we miss rufer’s passing ability. No one else can seem to pick out kosta with a through pass.
Rua conchie I’m sorry but he looks out of his depth. He’s kind of on the small side, got caught a few times.
Also not sure what Luke KH’s best position is? Was amusing to see him beaten to a header though.
... but he was pairing the skinny jeans with socks and sandals, which might suggest an inability to wear shoes for medical reasons.
I've never reffed or coached, and last time I was on the pitch as a player Rob Muldoon was PM, but with that disclaimer I'm trying to understand Morgan's reasoning for that no-pen call. Not whether he was right, but the thought process he'd need to follow to justify it.
A direct free kick is awarded if a player commits any of the following offences against an opponent in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force: [...]
tackles or challenges
[...] If an offence involves contact it is penalised by a direct free kick or penalty kick.
Careless is when a player shows a lack of attention or consideration when making a challenge or acts without precaution. No disciplinary sanction is needed
Reckless is when a player acts with disregard to the danger to, or consequences for, an opponent and must be cautioned
Using excessive force is when a player exceeds the necessary use of force and endangers the safety of an opponent and must be sent off
A direct free kick is awarded if a player commits any of the following offences: [...]
impedes an opponent with contact
Morgan acknowledged there was contact, so he must've concluded the Roar player didn't impede Ishige. I guess he's relying on the definition further down under Indirect Free Kicks?
Impeding the progress of an opponent means moving into the opponent’s path to obstruct, block, slow down or force a change of direction when the ball is not within playing distance of either player.
So then he's back to the more subjective question of was the challenge careless, reckless or using excessive force. Obviously it's not excessive force or it would've been an instant red, so he has to determine if the challenge was careless or reckless.
It doesn't look like there was any "lack of attention or consideration" involved, so the ref is left asking himself if there was "disregard to the danger to, or consequences for, an opponent" - I guess his reasoning would have to be that there wasn't disregard, therefore no offence was commited, therefore the "If an offence involves contact it is penalised" bit doesn't apply?
Again, not asking if the call was correct but about how the rules would be applied - thanks for any insights from anyone who understands this stuff better than I do (which is a low bar!).
You missed the relevant part of Law 13
"impedes an opponent with contact". Which the defender clearly did!
not just one defender but two. No one has really mentioned the #24 sticking out his arm in an effort to impede Ishige and making contact that perhaps upset Ishige balance. That was a deliberate action that was not an attempt to play or challenge for the ball. The only way to stop those types of actions is to punish them and here was an opportunity to do so. Similarly the Callan Elilott from two weeks ago where the deliberate shirt pull went unpunished.