[Archived] Other PL happenings 2010-2011

[Guest bluerovers]

What absolute rubbish!

Why was the keeper supposed to take the kick? The referee indicated where the kick should be taken from and that was where Dawson was stood.

How does that translate into the keeper "obviously" taking the kick?

Don't you understand Rev, unless you play for a pub team you won't understand. Having a pair of eyes and a basic knowledge of the rules doesn't count

By the way if anyone wants to see it again, go to 2:10 or so..

[den]

People who play football will say the goal should have been disallowed!

People who dont understand football entirely will say it should be given as a goal!

And to say Turner has no right to kick the ball back to the keeper

It is blatantly obvious the keeper was suppose to take the free kick!

It all just proves again Attwell isn't yet up to it.........yet!

Absolutely!

It does happen sometimes when two players are over a direct free kick and they roll the ball a foot sideways. The defenders then charge the ball down.

The attackers can't then say "sorry we weren't ready"

I'm not talking about that Rev, and I think you know it.

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

Just read through Fifa's rule book, it doesn't help on this issue but was surprised to learn (on an unrelated topic) that if you score an own goal from a direct free kick, it's not a goal but a corner to the opposition. I never knew that!

I saw this happen once, Wimbledon were awarded a few kick in their right back position. The guy taking it ( Wally Downes ) weighed up a long clearance down field and then decided to chip it back to his goalkeeper ( you could do that at this time ). Why, who can say. The goalie had come out of his goal for some reason and the ball sailed over his head into the net. Unfortunately the poor ref got it completely wrong and gave a goal. There was a big row after the game but the goal had to stand.

[LeChuck]

I saw this happen once, Wimbledon were awarded a few kick in their right back position. The guy taking it ( Wally Downes ) weighed up a long clearance down field and then decided to chip it back to his goalkeeper ( you could do that at this time ). Why, who can say. The goalie had come out of his goal for some reason and the ball sailed over his head into the net. Unfortunately the poor ref got it completely wrong and gave a goal. There was a big row after the game but the goal had to stand.

Didn't a similar argument arise a few years ago when Peter Enckelman played for Villa?

It was that game against Birmingham where the ball was thrown to him by one of his defenders and it ended up in the net - there was a huge discussion about whether Enckelman had touched it or not, because if he hadn't then it should have been a corner and not a goal.

I can't remember now whether the correct decision was made, I haven't seen it for ages.

[Guest bluerovers]

Should this have stood? (opens can of worms)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkUDgdg0f2A

[RevidgeBlue]

Rev, just look at the picture.

Are you telling me he's taking a free kick?

I don't know what his intention was but the referee had already pulled the ball back to what he considered the correct position so I don't see how Turner could think he wasn't actually taking the kick.

[nicko]

People who play football will say the goal should have been disallowed!

People who dont understand football entirely will say it should be given as a goal!

And to say Turner has no right to kick the ball back to the keeper

It is blatantly obvious the keeper was suppose to take the free kick!

It all just proves again Attwell isn't yet up to it.........yet!

Turner made the mistake. He kicked the ball from the exact spot. He hadn't signalled to the keeper to come forward either, but that is irrelevant.

Why does the ref get the blame? He played to the rules - checked with his lino.

And if you check Torres was ten yards from where the set-piece was taken from. So he was entitled to play on too.

[brian_gallagher85]

Oh come on, to use a shiltoism it was near as dammit

My point was that he didn't actually have his back to goal so should have been more aware of where the keeper was.

Either way I was happy with the game ending 2-2 as it means that two of our rivals for a decent top end finish both dropped points. Bruce also should remember that his lot were 2-1 up at a stage.

Also I don't think there was as much talk about Tevez's "goal" on the goal line at Ewood a few years back.

[modes98]

That picture tells the entire story.

Can anybody hand on heart tell me that looks like a player taking a free kick?

There is no way he was taking the free kick and had the ref been looking at the incident then he would have known that.

The ref should be looking at the play at all times, as he was running with his back to the play then I think it is fair to assume that he is not ready and therefore play is not in progress, especially considering he stopped them taking a quick free kick from about 3 yards away from where it was taken from.

Both Turner and Torres are to blame as well though. Turner should have just run off without kicking it and Torres shouldn't have been so unsporting, but then what do you expect.

[den]

Why does the ref get the blame? He played to the rules - checked with his lino.

Because every other referee in the world [probably], would have used common sense and realised that he wasn't taking the free kick. He was rolling it back for the keeper to take it. But hey, if people really think Turner was intending that to be the free kick, there's no point in discussing it.

[brian_gallagher85]

Should this have stood? (opens can of worms)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkUDgdg0f2A

Off course, as should his latest "effort"

[Hi Mack]

Don't you understand Rev, unless you play for a pub team you won't understand. Having a pair of eyes and a basic knowledge of the rules doesn't count

By the way if anyone wants to see it again, go to 2:10 or so..

So if a player throws the ball under arm to a player on the pitch 9who is about to take the throwing) it should count as a foul throw?

This is an extreme example but you get the point? or not?

Ps I dont play Sunday league football, so not in as much detail as yours..............FAIL

[Doaksie]

To be honest, I would like to think a little common sense would prevail in a situation such as this. I understand it was abiding with the letter of the law, which is the counter argument, but if it had happened against Rovers I wouldn't be best pleased. The ref didn't see it, just blow the whistle and let's start again chaps.

Just use your noggin ref, eh. What's next, yellow cards for goal celebrations for a 90th minute winner? Oh...

I just wonder what Hooch would make of all this.

[Guest bluerovers]

So if a player throws the ball under arm to a player on the pitch 9who is about to take the throwing) it should count as a foul throw?

This is an extreme example but you get the point? or not?

Ps I dont play Sunday league football, so not in as much detail as yours..............FAIL

Firstly, well done for not recognizing sarcasm (that was more there).

Secondly there is a big difference because as we have now established, the free kick (or throw in) is being taken when the ref is satisfied that it has been. In the example of the throw in, which I must say I don't think happens much (in my experience the player not taking the throw will roll it down the back of one arm so it rolls backward off their hand & never comes on the pitch) but anyway, if he were to throw it under arms forward onto the pitch to a team mate the intention would be clearer than in Dawson's incident, therefore the ref is less likely to be statisfied the ball was back in play as he was in the Turner incident.

[CrazyIvan]

To be honest, I would like to think a little common sense would prevail in a situation such as this. I understand it was abiding with the letter of the law, which is the counter argument, but if it had happened against Rovers I wouldn't be best pleased. The ref didn't see it, just blow the whistle and let's start again chaps.

Just use your noggin ref, eh. What's next, yellow cards for goal celebrations for a 90th minute winner? Oh...

Spot on...

[Guest bluerovers]

To be honest, I would like to think a little common sense would prevail in a situation such as this.

I agree, if only Turner had used some.

See no one's answered my previous question by the way..

If the ball was in the right place why not run forward leaving the ball and let the keeper come to it to take it? What benefit is it to kick it to the keeper for him to only have to replace it back on the spot Turner kicked it away from anyway?

[nicko]

Because every other referee in the world [probably], would have used common sense and realised that he wasn't taking the free kick. He was rolling it back for the keeper to take it. But hey, if people really think Turner was intending that to be the free kick, there's no point in discussing it.

It's not up to the referee to 'realise' what Turner meant to do...

Turner took a kick at the ball on the spot the referee had told him to take the free kick from. So the ball was in play.

This crap about passing it BACK 10-25 yards to let the keeper take it instead is nonsense. Who give up ground to take a free kick? And since when did the Sunderland keeper come up to the halfway circle to take free kicks?

The bottom line is that Turner had a bad moment.

No-one else is to blame.

[den]

It's not up to the referee to 'realise' what Turner meant to do...

Turner took a kick at the ball on the spot the referee had told him to take the free kick from. So the ball was in play.

This crap about passing it BACK 10-25 yards to let the keeper take it instead is nonsense. Who give up ground to take a free kick? And since when did the Sunderland keeper come up to the halfway circle to take free kicks?

The bottom line is that Turner had a bad moment.

No-one else is to blame.

Turner wasn't giving up ground, he was giving the ball to the keeper. You don't really think he was taking the free kick by backheeling it a few feet and walking away with his back turned?

[nicko]

Turner wasn't giving up ground, he was giving the ball to the keeper. You don't really think he was taking the free kick by backheeling it a few feet and walking away with his back turned?

Turner knocked the ball back ten yards from the spot where the free kick was meant to be taken...work that one out.

Was the keeper coming up to take it? No. He was well inside his box.

Was there a signal to him? No.

Turner just went blank and knocked the ball backwards.

What he INTENDED to do is neither here nor there. He was at the spot where the set-piece was to be taken from...and made an arse of it.

It was like when Arsenal cocked up the smart penalty trick they tried to pull a few years ago. Should they have taken it again. Or were we all right to laugh at their smugness?

You get casual, you take the consequences.

End of.

[den]

Turner took a kick at the ball on the spot the referee had told him to take the free kick from. So the ball was in play.

well if you're arguing that technically the kick had been taken, then you would also argue that if a player taking a throw in, throws the ball onto the pitch under arm, for someone else to take it, it has to be a foul throw, because it's not for the referee to realise what the original player intended to do, is it? Yes/no?

[Exiled_Rover]

Awful refereeing, but then that's what I've come to expect from our officials.

[nicko]

well if you're arguing that technically the kick had been taken, then you would also argue that if a player taking a throw in, throws the ball onto the pitch under arm, for someone else to take it, it has to be a foul throw, because it's not for the referee to realise what the original player intended to do, is it? Yes/no?

Taking a free kick and taking a throw-in are different animals.

In this case Turner had tried to pull a fast one by moving the free kick forward and then being told to put it back on the spot.

Suddenly this master tactician centre half decides the keeper should take it instead...

Yeah, right.

No, he had a blond moment and was caught out.

All of his cover stories, Steve Bruce's '25-yard back nonsense' and a baffled Belgian keeper tells me so too.

And, anyway, why would a player go off the pitch to throw a ball under-arm to a team-mate who is on it? A bit surreal.

[den]

And, anyway, why would a player go off the pitch to throw a ball under-arm to a team-mate who is on it? A bit surreal.

Under arm, side arm, one handed - it happens. Still waiting as to whether the ref should use a bit of logic and realise that he wasn't actually taking the throw in, that he was just knocking it to another player?

[gumboots]

No, he had a blond moment and was caught out.

On behalf of blonds everywhere I resent the implication that footballers are ever more intelligent than your average blond. More likely if a blond does something dozy he/she should be referred to as having a footballer moment.

[den]

Nice one Gumboots.