| On way home; fcking ref 22:11 - Dec 3 with 8555 views | Charlie1 |
First of all, fair play to them for having a go and making a game.
Secondly, ref tried his best to kill the game. Should've been a pen, red card and also their number 8 red.
That aside, AJ upfront and Carroll ticking it over nicely made for a nice performance and comfortable win. Austin and Barton did ever so well. Carroll keeps it moving nicely and Hoillet whilst frustrating at times, makes a difference to our play. Far more going forward.
Lovely goal by Phillips.
Lots of usual panicking on here after the weekend but we proved it was a one off and we're back on track.
Enjoyed that. |  |
| |  |
| On way home; fcking ref on 13:25 - Dec 4 with 1240 views | joolsyp |
| On way home; fcking ref on 13:04 - Dec 4 by Pommyhoop |
We dont have to play it against Leicester, Forest and Reading. There are plenty of teams we can spank playing 2 strikers in this div.Home and away ( include our last lost game in that). |
Agreed. Nice to have the option to mix it up, I just hope Harry uses it wisely ... |  | | |
| On way home; fcking ref on 13:47 - Dec 4 with 1206 views | PinnerPaul |
| On way home; fcking ref on 22:58 - Dec 3 by gobbles |
I thought Barton was kicked by mistake. Their player was trying to show what the foul was like and Barton walked straight into the kick. |
You what?! The foul was a push/charge from behind, not a kick in the shin (as "demonstrated") !  |  | | |
| On way home; fcking ref on 13:53 - Dec 4 with 1201 views | PinnerPaul |
| On way home; fcking ref on 11:37 - Dec 4 by hoof_hearted |
Are we sure that the ref or assistant didn't give the free kick for a shirt pull or a push before the handball? It seemed so obvious that I want to give him the benefit of the doubt and if that's the case then the decision and outcome was exactly right.
Either way, I am glad we beat 11 men as it would've undermined the result if it was against 10. |
No its not - if a shirt pull its still at least a yellow in that situation and 8/10 refs would give a red. | | | |
| On way home; fcking ref on 14:10 - Dec 4 with 1187 views | ozranger |
Ok folks, you ain't going to like some of my comments here...
1. The Barton incident was nothing but "handbags at ten paces" and was worthy of nothing more than a chat about it. To make something of that is to say that football is played by nancies and we have to protect everyone from any sort of aggression.
2. Was it a penalty? While yes Elphick handled the ball inside the box, he first handled outside and that is quite clear in the highlights (definitely in the extended ones). Thus, the "first" foul, which takes precedence, is outside of the box, not inside. The placement of the ball for the foul was a little bit back, but only possibly a metre from the actual spot. Anyway, if you want to take a fk from here, then I think I would rather be a few more metres back so as to get the ball up and down on target.
As to those who may say, well he played on and should have given the penalty when the second offence occurred, that is purely fantasy. This is exactly the same when a player is fouled in some way outside the box and then again inside before the referee can blow his whistle, or that the attacker falls into the box. Here the first offence always takes precedence, otherwise the offender would not have taken that action as he knows that he has performed the "professional foul" outside the box and thus would not suffer the sanction of a penalty.
3. The second question comes with intent. And here again it is the decision of the officials that the first offence takes precedence over the second (i.e., the handball inside the box). The reason for intent relates to the "was the offending player denying a goal scoring opportunity". Ostensibly, yes, he eventually did so, but at the time of the first offence he was not intending to do so. This is a very messy part of the "last man" rule, that of intent and is similar to when a last man gets his legs accidentally caught up with the attacker, bringing him down. The LOTG have a large number of sections relating to the "interpretation" of the laws and this is an area that still requires a lot of thought. At present, the referee can make a decision as to a send off or no caution. Either he rules that the player denied a goal scoring opportunity intentionally or it was an accident and takes the interpretation in that direction. The former deserves a send off, the latter is just a free kick. In this case, the referee adjudged that latter. I am not defending the referee as I do believe that 99.9% of referee's would have sent the player off. One last thing is that there appears, from evidence of when he returns to the pack of players, that he had forgotten who was the offender and now, if he is not sure and neither is his assistant, then he cannot really send off any player (at random). Thus, possibly he wanted to send someone off, but did not know who.
So, I personally think that it was not a penalty as the first offence occurred outside the box. However, I believe it should have been a send off, but that the referee either took a massive decision with his interpretation or that he did not really know who the defender was, having forgotten. I am not defending him because he has just darn f*'d up, just giving him a possible answer to all of the other comments above. |  | | |
| On way home; fcking ref on 15:22 - Dec 4 with 1139 views | elnombre |
I thought the ref improved significantly once assistant referee Matt Ritchie was substituted... | | | |
| On way home; fcking ref on 15:32 - Dec 4 with 1134 views | PinnerPaul |
| On way home; fcking ref on 14:10 - Dec 4 by ozranger |
Ok folks, you ain't going to like some of my comments here...
1. The Barton incident was nothing but "handbags at ten paces" and was worthy of nothing more than a chat about it. To make something of that is to say that football is played by nancies and we have to protect everyone from any sort of aggression.
2. Was it a penalty? While yes Elphick handled the ball inside the box, he first handled outside and that is quite clear in the highlights (definitely in the extended ones). Thus, the "first" foul, which takes precedence, is outside of the box, not inside. The placement of the ball for the foul was a little bit back, but only possibly a metre from the actual spot. Anyway, if you want to take a fk from here, then I think I would rather be a few more metres back so as to get the ball up and down on target.
As to those who may say, well he played on and should have given the penalty when the second offence occurred, that is purely fantasy. This is exactly the same when a player is fouled in some way outside the box and then again inside before the referee can blow his whistle, or that the attacker falls into the box. Here the first offence always takes precedence, otherwise the offender would not have taken that action as he knows that he has performed the "professional foul" outside the box and thus would not suffer the sanction of a penalty.
3. The second question comes with intent. And here again it is the decision of the officials that the first offence takes precedence over the second (i.e., the handball inside the box). The reason for intent relates to the "was the offending player denying a goal scoring opportunity". Ostensibly, yes, he eventually did so, but at the time of the first offence he was not intending to do so. This is a very messy part of the "last man" rule, that of intent and is similar to when a last man gets his legs accidentally caught up with the attacker, bringing him down. The LOTG have a large number of sections relating to the "interpretation" of the laws and this is an area that still requires a lot of thought. At present, the referee can make a decision as to a send off or no caution. Either he rules that the player denied a goal scoring opportunity intentionally or it was an accident and takes the interpretation in that direction. The former deserves a send off, the latter is just a free kick. In this case, the referee adjudged that latter. I am not defending the referee as I do believe that 99.9% of referee's would have sent the player off. One last thing is that there appears, from evidence of when he returns to the pack of players, that he had forgotten who was the offender and now, if he is not sure and neither is his assistant, then he cannot really send off any player (at random). Thus, possibly he wanted to send someone off, but did not know who.
So, I personally think that it was not a penalty as the first offence occurred outside the box. However, I believe it should have been a send off, but that the referee either took a massive decision with his interpretation or that he did not really know who the defender was, having forgotten. I am not defending him because he has just darn f*'d up, just giving him a possible answer to all of the other comments above. |
OzRanger, with all due respect most of what you say is total nonsense.
As a referee for 11 years I can categorically state that intent relates to only ONE offence, that of handball.
You mention "guidelines" , not quite the correct terminology but I forgive you that but I don't your opinion on first/second offences , which frankly is just made up.
The "guidelines" state that if a foul starts outside the PA but continues inside the box then a penalty is awarded.
There is no mention of 1st/2nd offence, only that if two offences take place at the same time the the referee punishes the most serious one.
Finally, kicking someone when ball out of play is not "handbags", could be classed as yellow, 8/10 refs would call red, but no card was just wrong.
I don't normally criticise refs, for obvious reasons, but in these two cases ref was wrong in law, which at this level is simply not good enough. | | | |
| On way home; fcking ref on 15:58 - Dec 4 with 1115 views | Harbour |
| On way home; fcking ref on 15:32 - Dec 4 by PinnerPaul |
OzRanger, with all due respect most of what you say is total nonsense.
As a referee for 11 years I can categorically state that intent relates to only ONE offence, that of handball.
You mention "guidelines" , not quite the correct terminology but I forgive you that but I don't your opinion on first/second offences , which frankly is just made up.
The "guidelines" state that if a foul starts outside the PA but continues inside the box then a penalty is awarded.
There is no mention of 1st/2nd offence, only that if two offences take place at the same time the the referee punishes the most serious one.
Finally, kicking someone when ball out of play is not "handbags", could be classed as yellow, 8/10 refs would call red, but no card was just wrong.
I don't normally criticise refs, for obvious reasons, but in these two cases ref was wrong in law, which at this level is simply not good enough. |
+1 SAW BOTH OFFENCES REF GOT IT WRONG ON BOTH COUNTS...THE KICK ON BRTON WAS A DISGRACE... IF JB HAD DONE IT HE WOULD WALKED | | | |
| On way home; fcking ref on 16:23 - Dec 4 with 1096 views | hoof_hearted |
| On way home; fcking ref on 15:58 - Dec 4 by Harbour |
+1 SAW BOTH OFFENCES REF GOT IT WRONG ON BOTH COUNTS...THE KICK ON BRTON WAS A DISGRACE... IF JB HAD DONE IT HE WOULD WALKED |
If JB had even looked like he might be thinking of pretending to do it he'd have been off (Norwich 2 years ago and the nearly head butt comes to mind).
Then last night he's mentally strong enough and fair minded enough to stay clam and tell the ref to let it go. That's some rehabilitation...so far...until...
 |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| On way home; fcking ref on 16:31 - Dec 4 with 1088 views | Pablo_Hoopsta |
| On way home; fcking ref on 14:10 - Dec 4 by ozranger |
Ok folks, you ain't going to like some of my comments here...
1. The Barton incident was nothing but "handbags at ten paces" and was worthy of nothing more than a chat about it. To make something of that is to say that football is played by nancies and we have to protect everyone from any sort of aggression.
2. Was it a penalty? While yes Elphick handled the ball inside the box, he first handled outside and that is quite clear in the highlights (definitely in the extended ones). Thus, the "first" foul, which takes precedence, is outside of the box, not inside. The placement of the ball for the foul was a little bit back, but only possibly a metre from the actual spot. Anyway, if you want to take a fk from here, then I think I would rather be a few more metres back so as to get the ball up and down on target.
As to those who may say, well he played on and should have given the penalty when the second offence occurred, that is purely fantasy. This is exactly the same when a player is fouled in some way outside the box and then again inside before the referee can blow his whistle, or that the attacker falls into the box. Here the first offence always takes precedence, otherwise the offender would not have taken that action as he knows that he has performed the "professional foul" outside the box and thus would not suffer the sanction of a penalty.
3. The second question comes with intent. And here again it is the decision of the officials that the first offence takes precedence over the second (i.e., the handball inside the box). The reason for intent relates to the "was the offending player denying a goal scoring opportunity". Ostensibly, yes, he eventually did so, but at the time of the first offence he was not intending to do so. This is a very messy part of the "last man" rule, that of intent and is similar to when a last man gets his legs accidentally caught up with the attacker, bringing him down. The LOTG have a large number of sections relating to the "interpretation" of the laws and this is an area that still requires a lot of thought. At present, the referee can make a decision as to a send off or no caution. Either he rules that the player denied a goal scoring opportunity intentionally or it was an accident and takes the interpretation in that direction. The former deserves a send off, the latter is just a free kick. In this case, the referee adjudged that latter. I am not defending the referee as I do believe that 99.9% of referee's would have sent the player off. One last thing is that there appears, from evidence of when he returns to the pack of players, that he had forgotten who was the offender and now, if he is not sure and neither is his assistant, then he cannot really send off any player (at random). Thus, possibly he wanted to send someone off, but did not know who.
So, I personally think that it was not a penalty as the first offence occurred outside the box. However, I believe it should have been a send off, but that the referee either took a massive decision with his interpretation or that he did not really know who the defender was, having forgotten. I am not defending him because he has just darn f*'d up, just giving him a possible answer to all of the other comments above. |
No offence mate, I started reading, but to be honest, I couldnt be arsed to finished that mammoth post after saying it was nothing but handbags and "To make something of that is to say that football is played by nancies". |  | | |
| On way home; fcking ref on 21:16 - Dec 4 with 1028 views | derbyhoop |
I can only go by the extended highlights
1. It certainly wasn't clear that the kick on Barton was deliberate
2. The linesman flagged for the handball, but didn't put the flag across his chest to indicate a penalty. It looked like 2 handballs, the first just outside the box, the second well inside. Going on the first offence, as flagged by the linesman, it's a FK.
3. If that wasn't denying a clear goal scoring opportunity, then I don't know what is? Had to be a red card, no argument.
4. Barton was clearly incensed and the yellow he got 2 minutes later was completely deserved. It's as well he calmed down in the second half.
5. If the ref did a PL game like that he'd be off the list quicker than Howard Webb can award a penalty to Man U at Old Trafford. |  |
| Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the Earth all one’s lifetime. (Mark Twain)
Find me on twitter @derbyhoop |
| |
| On way home; fcking ref on 06:39 - Dec 5 with 976 views | jonno |
| On way home; fcking ref on 21:16 - Dec 4 by derbyhoop |
I can only go by the extended highlights
1. It certainly wasn't clear that the kick on Barton was deliberate
2. The linesman flagged for the handball, but didn't put the flag across his chest to indicate a penalty. It looked like 2 handballs, the first just outside the box, the second well inside. Going on the first offence, as flagged by the linesman, it's a FK.
3. If that wasn't denying a clear goal scoring opportunity, then I don't know what is? Had to be a red card, no argument.
4. Barton was clearly incensed and the yellow he got 2 minutes later was completely deserved. It's as well he calmed down in the second half.
5. If the ref did a PL game like that he'd be off the list quicker than Howard Webb can award a penalty to Man U at Old Trafford. |
I was there and having seen the highlights as well agree with all but no 1 of your points. I can assure you that the kick on Barton was absolutely deliberate and obvious as well. And there's not even an excuse such as "going for the ball" as the game had stopped for a free kick and the ball was nowhere near. It's pretty much the most blatant red card I've seen for a long time; these days if you kick a player like that deliberately - particularly when the ball is out of play - it's an instant red card, no ifs or buts. Astonishing really that Bournemouth weren't down to nine men before half time. And there's still the matter of the assault from behind on Hoillett earlier in the game - the player deliberately ran into Hoillett then went down feigning an injury to avoid any action by the ref. As soon as he saw the ref wasn't going to get a card out he was up and running back to defend the free kick. That was a definite yellow card offence - and even a possible red for dangerous play. |  | | |
| On way home; fcking ref on 17:26 - Dec 5 with 907 views | themodfather |
seen the handball on qpr offy site, the first handball was outside the box, but he then handles it a second time (if the 1st was missed) in the box, either way it stops a goal chance and must be a red (it wasn't and the ref talked to the number 3 and not the villian number 5!!)
so glad this is all irrelevant now, if the cherries had nicked this, oh dear..... | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
