[Archived] Other PL happenings 2010-2011

[RevidgeBlue]

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.

Is it not blondes?

[brian_gallagher85]

Yes it is. The old francais creeping in there gumboots?

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

Applying the letter of the law?

[Guest bluerovers]

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?

I'll ask for a THIRD TIME!!!

If the ball was in the right place already, 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 back 10-15 yards towards the keeper for him to only have to walk it back up and put it back on the spot Turner kicked it away from anyway? Please tell me what the point of doing that would be

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.

Spot on..

[Exiled_Rover]

Yes it is. The old francais creeping in there gumboots?

Applying the letter of the law?

Ignoring common sense. They apply the letter of the law when it suits them.

[Stuart]

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?

Have you never been to a Rovers game? Robbo does it every week!

No way should a goal have been given. It's just wrong.

Having said that sportsmanship died a long time ago so I'm not surprised by Torres.

[BuckyRover]

I think the reason he kicked it slightly backwards was to indicate to the keeper that he was leaving it for him.

The referee wasn't even looking at the ball. If he didn't know what had happened, he should have just blown his whistle.

[Guest bluerovers]

I think the reason he kicked it slightly backwards was to indicate to the keeper that he was leaving it for him.

Well it didn't work as the keeper had no idea it was meant for him.

The referee wasn't even looking at the ball. If he didn't know what had happened, he should have just blown his whistle.

No, the ref should have let play continue and then consulted his lineman(who was looking at the incident) ASAP. That is what he did and the lino judged the free kick to have been taken.

Let me flip this situation around, should a player who is taking a free kick from 20 yards out be allowed to take a practice shot to 'test his range' even if he says "ref this isn't my intended free kick, I'm just mucking about"?

[Hughesy]

Who care about the decision - it cost Sunderland 2 points and thats a good thing for us!

[rebelmswar]

Who care about the decision - it cost Sunderland 2 points and thats a good thing for us!

And it was hilarious.

[darwenblueswearehere]

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!

Anyone who's played football beyond Blackburn Combination standard will know that the Sunderland lad make a complete hash of it.........

[BuckyRover]

I think in the laws of the game the ball was active so the goal should stand. But I do believe in this instance the spirit of the game was compromised.

But as others have pointed out, it was very funny.

[Guest bluerovers]

And it was hilarious.

Good point

[deryck guyler's spoon]

It also gave Steve Bruce another opportunity to demonstrate that he is a bit of a tosser.

[rebelmswar]

It also gave Steve Bruce another opportunity to demonstrate that he is a bit of a tosser.

And that he cant string a full sentence together without grunting and scratching himself.

[Doaksie]

It also gave Steve Bruce another opportunity to demonstrate that he is a bit of a tosser.

Yeah, it put his nose right out of joint...

[Guest bluerovers]

He was pretty good in the Carry On Films though

[philipl]

Anything that upsets Steve Bruce is fine by me.

[deryck guyler's spoon]

He was pretty good in the Carry On Films though

I thought it was just me who thought he looked like the Cribbins!

[nicko]

I thought this paragraph from a report on Attwell being 'dropped' for next weekend's games was very significant. In other words, he got the 'goal' right but messed up over Gerrard...

Significantly, while Attwell was given instant official backing for his decision to allow Liverpool's controversial first goal, there has been no defence from the Professional Game Match Officials Board for his failure to send off Steven Gerrard, who elbowed Danny Welbeck. Because Attwell showed only a yellow card, there can be no retrospective charge for the England captain.

[modes98]

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

The keeper was walking towards the ball. He got to the edge of the box and stopped as torres picked the ball up and appealed to the ref.

Let me flip this situation around, should a player who is taking a free kick from 20 yards out be allowed to take a practice shot to 'test his range' even if he says "ref this isn't my intended free kick, I'm just mucking about"?

Not a valid comparison. Tapping a ball for someone else to take a free kick is not the same as taking the free kick to test your range. Turner didn't intend to gain but merely to allow the free kick to be taken by his keeper.

his failure to send off Steven Gerrard, who elbowed Danny Welbeck. Because Attwell showed only a yellow card, there can be no retrospective charge for the England captain.

Surprise Surprise. Gerrard and Liverpool may as well get a free pass.

[LeChuck]

Surprise Surprise. Gerrard and Liverpool may as well get a free pass.

That's been the law ever since I can remember, if the referee has seen and dealt with it then the FA can't intervene. Nothing to do with Liverpool getting a 'free pass'.

Having said that, I think the rule is complete ###### (especially when it comes to retrospectively punishing diving).

[DE.]

"Stevie G" is seemingly above the law in terms of criminal justice, why would it be any different on a football pitch?

[Guest bluerovers]

The keeper was walking towards the ball. He got to the edge of the box and stopped as torres picked the ball up and appealed to the ref.[/Quote]

He should have been jogging if he intended to take it. Just watched the replay again and the keeper is strolling about aimlessly when Turner back heels it.

Not a valid comparison. Tapping a ball for someone else to take a free kick is not the same as taking the free kick to test your range. Turner didn't intend to gain but merely to allow the free kick to be taken by his keeper.

The "anti-goal" side of the argument have given the example of a when a player throws the ball to another player for a throw in, that's why I offered a counter that was equally invalid.

[den]

I'll ask for a THIRD TIME!!!

If the ball was in the right place already, 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 back 10-15 yards towards the keeper for him to only have to walk it back up and put it back on the spot Turner kicked it away from anyway? Please tell me what the point of doing that would be

The reason no-one answered is because it's totally irrelevant. As is your post below.

He should have been jogging if he intended to take it. Just watched the replay again and the keeper is strolling about aimlessly when Turner back heels it.

Anyway, the whole reason this incident got so much coverage was because the ref, in most people's opinion, got it totally wrong. If he had simply blown his whistle and told Turner to take the free kick again, we wouldn't even be discussing it, - because that was the obvious thing to do and is what virtually every other ref would have done in those circumstances.

-----and that's me done on the subject

[Guest bluerovers]

Den niether point can be irrelevant when they directly answer the posts they were quoted against.

You claimed that Turner was 'kicking it back' so his keeper could take it so my question is completely valid, what would be the point/advantage/desire to do what you are claiming, it makes no sense.

The other quote was valid as the claim was that the keeper was coming to take the kick when Turner heeled it, IMO the keeper had no clue and was not acting like he did.