[Archived] Other PL happenings 2010-2011

[nicko]

What does our resident journalist think of this?:

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/473881-beware-sensationalist-football-stories-by-the-daily-star

I have never read the Star on Sunday.

And I am not going to start now.

Interesting spot though...

[Iceman]

Spot on, this shouldn't be a question of bad refereeing but bad sportmanship. This reminds me of when we scored against Arsenal back in the 90s after a Sutton throw in that by rights we should have thrown back to them (I think we did but pressured them straight away, got the ball and scored). It was a breach of bad sportsmanship not bad refereeing and I'd put this incident in the same bracket.

again I ask the question, IF Rovers were needing a draw, and the ref allowed play to continue in that type of situation, would you complain? The ref got it right, the kick was taken, ball was rolling and in play. What is Torres suppose to do? stop, and say sorry ref, he wanted the keeper to take it?

The incident you mentioned with Rovers are completely different. There is no law in the game, that says, if you kick a ball out to allow another player who is injured, to be attended to, and then have the team throw the ball back to you. Its just something that is done, to show appreciation for stopping the play. The Pool incident, was allowed to continue, because it says that if a ref indicates that play is to be re started either by blowing on his whistle or hand gesture, and a player kicks the ball while in the field of play, the game shall have been restarted.

[Guest bluerovers]

Iceman, you know I've been agreeing with you on the Torres incident right?

[Montfort]

How can you blame Torres? He took a chance, looked at the ref, and played on.

I do blame Torres. He should never have gone for the ball in the first place because the intention of the Sunderland player was clear. I grant you if he looked at the referree and was given the nod to play on, the situation becomes more ambiguous. But Torres did not have to go for the ball in the first place. He was seeking to gain an unfair advantage or at least "pushing the envelope" or whatever the phrase is nowadays. If Torres, or anyone else for that matter, wants to play in an environment where anything goes and you take what you can get away with, so be it. But if this is the case I don't want any howls of outrightous indignation the next time Torres gets pulled down on his way to the box. And yes, even if it were a Blackburn player that gained an advantage from such a ploy, it would still be wrong. I might say it through gritted teeth, but it would be wrong.

[mhead]

In the Arsenal example, at the time Arsenal were blatantly wasting time. We were getting frustrated with them and after the throw-in from us to them they again were'taking their time' so Sutton quite rightly improved the situation by getting in their face and nicking the ball.A tuesday evening in Winter in London as I remember and we were getting anxious in the last 5 minutes away at Arsenal...good days.

[jodrell]

Spot on, this shouldn't be a question of bad refereeing but bad sportmanship. This reminds me of when we scored against Arsenal back in the 90s after a Sutton throw in that by rights we should have thrown back to them (I think we did but pressured them straight away, got the ball and scored). It was a breach of bad sportsmanship not bad refereeing and I'd put this incident in the same bracket.

A few points on the Arsenal game Yes we DID throw the ball back to them but they decided to try waste and time time by going to the corner flag. We needed points to stay up, what do peole think, ok Arsenal hears three points and we will go down for you. The only bad sportsmanship was from Arsenal.Fantastic in the away end and picked up a few quid from the Arsenal fans as well.

[Guest bluerovers]

Running the ball into the corner when you're winning by one goal at the end of the game is a normal tactic, every team does it including Rovers.

How many time have you shouted at a Rovers player for NOT running into the corner when we're 1-0 up in the 90th? I have plenty of times, it's not cheating or bad sportmanship.

[Neil Weaver]

As far as I know, nobody on here has the ability to read Turner's, the ref's, or Torres's mind, so we'll never know exactly what happened. More to the point though how often do we get a free kick in a similar position and it's left for Robbo to launch it? Fairly often isn't it. Now I must admit I've never noticed exactly what happens (does a defender pick the ball up, kick it to roughly the right place, leave the ball completely) but it's a fair bet the players - both ours and our opponents - will take note now. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see a similar controversy soon and it's not beyond the realms of possibility that it involves us.

[jodrell]

Bluerovers you have compleatly missed my point in your original post you said it was bad sporsmanship from Rovers trying to get the ball back. We gave the ball back so no bad sportsmanship.Yes I agree about going into the corner time wasting winds me up. MY point is, was tring to get the ball back or time wasting bad sportsmanship.Whith Wenger if it goes against Him it,s clear as day if it goes for him he seems to be Stevie Wonder.

[Ricky]

Bluerovers, you really are missing the point here aren't you

[nicko]

As far as I know, nobody on here has the ability to read Turner's, the ref's, or Torres's mind, so we'll never know exactly what happened. More to the point though how often do we get a free kick in a similar position and it's left for Robbo to launch it? Fairly often isn't it. Now I must admit I've never noticed exactly what happens (does a defender pick the ball up, kick it to roughly the right place, leave the ball completely) but it's a fair bet the players - both ours and our opponents - will take note now. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see a similar controversy soon and it's not beyond the realms of possibility that it involves us.

It's not about mind-reading.

Turner tried to take a quick free kick, five yards on - no goalkeeper in sight to take it incidentally - and was stopped and then given the exact spot to take the free kick from.

Turner kicked the ball - no matter how casually - so it is down to him.

The ref did the right thing, waved play on and checked with his linesman.

[Guest bluerovers]

Bluerovers you have compleatly missed my point in your original post you said it was bad sporsmanship from Rovers trying to get the ball back. We gave the ball back so no bad sportsmanship.Yes I agree about going into the corner time wasting winds me up. MY point is, was tring to get the ball back or time wasting bad sportsmanship.Whith Wenger if it goes against Him it,s clear as day if it goes for him he seems to be Stevie Wonder.

I didn't miss your point at all...

You think running the ball into the corner flags to defend a lead at the end of a game is bad sportsmanship, I disagree as all teamsdto it and I think it's reasonable given the right circumstances.

So therefore I do not agree that Arsenal were being bad sportsmen by doing it and thus we were not vindicated by breaching the unwritten rule regarding throw ins after an injury as you are saying we were.

Finally, that unwritten rule doesn't just state that you throw it back to the oppo, but also that you let them restart play in a regular fashion by passing it or running with it, NOT tackling them a split second after their first touch.

Bluerovers, you really are missing the point here aren't you

Not at all

[Ricky]

We threw the ball back to them, which was the right thing to do.

They then took the ball into the corner in an attempt to waste time, we rightly went and won the ball back and scored a perfectly good goal.

You do seem intent on arguing every point on every thread at the moment. You seem to have serious issues backing down when you're clearly wrong... you're not my missus are you???

[jodrell]

Bluerovers WHERE have I said Rovers had been breaching the unwritten rule regarding throw ins? As for giving them time we gave them plenty of time to do what ever they wanted to do whith the ball. IMO Rovers did NOTHING wrong Arsenal wanted to time waste And got punished.By the way we scored from the resulting corner and they could not defend it.

[RevidgeBlue]

I'm sorry but you're completely and utterly wrong. It was blatantly obvious what was going on, do you really think he did a flimsy back heel with no power trying to pass it forty yards back to his keeper? Do me a favour.

Every single pundit/player and manager who has commented on it has said how ridiculous it was and how it should never have stood, but you have the confidence to state it was a 'definite goal.'

Really?

The free kick was initially taken from the wrong position. The referee stopped play and waved it back to the correct position which was where Turner was stood.

If Turner had wanted the keeper to take the freekick he could have just run off and left it. However, as soon as he played the ball, no matter how hard, play became live.

[Guest bluerovers]

We threw the ball back to them, which was the right thing to do.

They then took the ball into the corner in an attempt to waste time, we rightly went and won the ball back and scored a perfectly good goal.

You do seem intent on arguing every point on every thread at the moment. You seem to have serious issues backing down when you're clearly wrong... you're not my missus are you???

I'm arguing because you are re-writing history!

your account is totally in accurate and would not have even been mentioned by anybody had it happened that way. It was a controversial goal or don't you rememebr? Arsenal did NOT take the throw in unhindered, run into the corner where we then then fairly tackled them. No, in fact Sutton chased down the throw immediately and won a coner from it!

Here

Wikipedia

Sutton was involved in controversy in the final game of the 1996–97 season against Arsenal. Late in the game with the "Gunners" leading by a single goal, the ball was kicked out of play by Arsenal to allow an injured team-mate to receive treatment. Under the unwritten sportsmanship rule, Arsenal would expect the ball to be returned to them unhindered. However, Sutton chased the ball instead of allowing it to be thrown back to Arsenal and won a corner from his efforts.

BBC

It is the same Chris Sutton that incensed Arsenal by violating an unwritten rule of sportsmanship when he chased down a throw-in after the Gunners had put the ball out of play to allow an injured player to receive treatment. Rovers won a corner from which they scored and Sutton was unrepentant.

It was a controversial incident for a reason and most other fans at the time thought it was wrong of us. Why are you trying to misrepresent what actually happened?

Bluerovers WHERE have I said Rovers had been breaching the unwritten rule regarding throw ins? As for giving them time we gave them plenty of time to do what ever they wanted to do whith the ball. IMO Rovers did NOTHING wrong Arsenal wanted to time waste And got punished.By the way we scored from the resulting corner and they could not defend it.

Sutton chased down the throw-in which made the defender put it out for a corner. How does that = plenty of time.This notion that we threw the ball back to them, they controlled it then ran off to the corner where we then pressued them is compltete b*llocks!

[rebelmswar]

Im glad he did it, couldn't care less how and why it happened.

It was necessary at the time.

[Guest bluerovers]

Im glad he did it, couldn't care less how and why it happened.

It was necessary at the time.

Me too rebel and I cheered when it happened and wound my Arsenal mates up over it, that doesn't mean I have to pretend it wasn't bad sportsmanship though.

[den]

I'm sorry but you're completely and utterly wrong. It was blatantly obvious what was going on, do you really think he did a flimsy back heel with no power trying to pass it forty yards back to his keeper? Do me a favour.

Every single pundit/player and manager who has commented on it has said how ridiculous it was and how it should never have stood, but you have the confidence to state it was a 'definite goal.'

Really?

Correct Shillito.

If we follow the letter of the law, as some people argue on here, then as soon as any player actually touches the ball for a free kick, even if he's simply rolling the ball over with his foot, then the ball is in play and the opposition have the right to tackle. That's ridiculous. The referee has to decide whether the player has intentionally taken the free kick. If you take the line that that particular free kick was legitimate, then, for instance, how many foul throws should go against us when Diouf readies himself to take the throw in, then throws the ball infield to Pedersen to take the throw instead? Doesn't happen does it - yet according to the people on here it should do.

No, the ref must be happy that the free kick has been taken intentionally. If he isn't, he should order it to be taken again.

[Guest bluerovers]

Den a lot of those touches you mention happen BEFORE the ref has blown or held his hand up to signal that the free kick can be taken. It's just stupid to touch it after the ref has signaled the free kick should be taken.

[den]

Den a lot of those touches you mention happen BEFORE the ref has blown or held his hand up to signal that the free kick can be taken. It's just stupid to touch it after the ref has signaled the free kick should be taken.

My point still stands bluerovers. The ref's don't blow or signal for most free kicks. Lots of quick free kicks are allowed, so it's nothing to do with blowing the whistle. He must be satisfied that the free kick was actually taken intentionally. What about the throw in scenario I mentioned, what's the difference?

[Guest bluerovers]

My point still stands bluerovers. The ref's don't blow or signal for most free kicks. Lots of quick free kicks are allowed, so it's nothing to do with blowing the whistle. He must be satisfied that the free kick was actually taken intentionally. What about the throw in scenario I mentioned, what's the difference?

Even so, in this case both Atwell and his linesman, who he consulted at length, were satisfied that the free kick had been taken so the goal should have stood by your own definition (which was the opposite of what Shilto was saying).

The difference with your secnario is it's much more obvious to see it's a change of taker (no player would pass the ball underarm and one handed as a throw in would they) plus I would suspect Pedersen shouts "I'll take it" or makes some other gesture at the ref to let him know what's going on before hand. Turner had just been speaking to the ref, he could have said "the keeper's taking in", picked it up and thrown it and I'm sure no goal would have been given.

Besides, the ball had just been moved to that spot by the ref after Sunderland tried to take it closer so thinking he could move it again was stupid.

[RevidgeBlue]

My point still stands bluerovers. The ref's don't blow or signal for most free kicks. Lots of quick free kicks are allowed,

Correct.

Contradicting your own point there Den. What you're effectively saying is that the players can choose when to restart play not the ref.

The referee indicated where Turner should take the free kick from. He clearly doesn't then have the right to flick the ball back to a different position and yet claim at the same time the ball isn't live.

[den]

Correct.

Contradicting your own point there Den. What you're effectively saying is that the players can choose when to restart play not the ref.

The referee indicated where Turner should take the free kick from. He clearly doesn't then have the right to flick the ball back to a different position and yet claim at the same time the ball isn't live.

Of course he has the right to knock the ball to another player. As long as the player then takes it from the right place, what's the problem?

So, no-one's answered yet - if a player rolls the ball over before he's going to take the free kick, is the ball in play immediately? If not, why not?

[Guest bluerovers]

Of course he has the right to knock the ball to another player. As long as the player then takes it from the right place, what's the problem?

Because in this case the ball was already in the right place, hence kicking it constituted taking then free kick.

So, no-one's answered yet - if a player rolls the ball over before he's going to take the free kick, is the ball in play immediately? If not, why not?

If it's with his foot then he has taken the free kick, if it's with his hands it's obvious that he's repositioning it.