[60s 70s Spireite]

clarevoyant., on 15 May 2023 - 07:52 AM, said:

In answer to your 1st para the directive in the attachment posted by Moondog post #1 couldn't be more clearer for this scenario an award of a indirect free kick and red card for the offender. Now you may not agree with the rules but they are the rules and we should have been playing against 10 men for 80+ minutes if the rules had been applied correctly.

The video mentioned by another poster as apparently been used in refs training courses so should, that's should have been seen by our man on Saturday and the incident duly actioned accordingly

It is clear from that, so the question becomes where has that quote come from and how does it tally with the IFAB rules?

[manc_spire]

Sammy Spireite, on 15 May 2023 - 08:21 AM, said:

I think it is harsh to criticise the Lino on that occasion, when king had the ball he was level with the last man (where he should be during live play) and to expect him to keep up with the ball when king shot at what 50/60 mph is a bit far fetched!

The ball looked to be over the line from behind the goal, but to the lino much lower down, running at full pelt, from the opposite side I'm not so sure. He did gesture to the ref as if to say 'I'm not sure' so you can't expect him to guess.

County got done in a similar fashion, 2nd half I think, when their winger got in down the right, and the lino was about 20 yards behind play but still flagged for a goal kick. There's no way he could know for certain.

[dart in the crossbar]

manc_spire, on 15 May 2023 - 09:54 AM, said:

County got done in a similar fashion, 2nd half I think, when their winger got in down the right, and the lino was about 20 yards behind play but still flagged for a goal kick. There's no way he could know for certain.

If in doubt over a decision give the benefit of doubt to the defending side, is the fallback rule I believe. So corner/goalkick? becomes goalkick etc.

[clarevoyant.]

60s 70s Spireite, on 15 May 2023 - 09:17 AM, said:

It is clear from that, so the question becomes where has that quote come from and how does it tally with the IFAB rules?

IFAB.

IFAB oversee rule changes etc and issue to individual FAs accordingly.


The offence being classified as a technical offence and not a penal offence, hence indirect free kick. But being technical still mean the
sanctions are applucable ie in this case a red card.

It was very early in the game maybe he wasn't totally switched on but certainly cocked up,as apparently many if his peers seem to think

The "Italian job" clip posted by moondog as been used as a training clip.

I bet the above is as clear as mud

[dim view]

clarevoyant., on 15 May 2023 - 08:39 AM, said:

Absolutely. Not much he could have done. Maybe steadied himself and concentrated on the situation rather than sprinting and thus 'blurring" his perspective.

It'll have to be put down to that rare commodity!!! bad luck on our part.

With traditional reffing and linoing there are bound to be mistakes but I'd always take 'em on the chin rather than submit to any automated system.

[Bonnyman]

moondog, on 15 May 2023 - 08:32 AM, said:

Footage here

https://twitter.com/...alG9MxMwrQ&s=08

Im not sure thats correct,a chesterfield player cannot enter the box untill it touches an opposition player ,it didnt prevent a goalscoring opportunity

[clarevoyant.]

Bonnyman, on 15 May 2023 - 11:18 AM, said:

Im not sure thats correct,a chesterfield player cannot enter the box untill it touches an opposition player ,it didnt prevent a goalscoring opportunity

Incorrect. The ball is in play as soon as it is played at the goal kick stage All opposing playes have to be outside the box until its played but can enter has soon as it played which is what Dallas did. The keeper wasn't allowed to touch it again, which if he hadn't Dallas would (you would hope) have scored.

[rodney]

clarevoyant., on 15 May 2023 - 11:26 AM, said:

Incorrect. The ball is in play as soon as it is played at the goal kick stage All opposing playes have to be outside the box until its played but can enter has soon as it played which is what Dallas did. The keeper wasn't allowed to touch it again, which if he hadn't Dallas would (you would hope) have scored.

100% spot on

[Norton Blue]

I think some folk are looking for anything to suggest we were robbed

Regarding the indirect free kick as a result of the kicker touching the ball again following a goal kick then The correct actions were followed as per law 16. An indirect free kick should be awarded which it was and there are no requirements to show a card for this technical offence.

The only place you could look for in the rules for a card to be issued is law 12 which states “if the offence was denying the opposing team an obvious goal-scoring opportunity, the player is cautioned for unsporting behaviour; if the offence was interfering with or stopping a promising attack, the player is not cautioned.” As Dallas didn’t have the ball, nor close enough to it, it can’t possibly be considered an obvious goal scoring opportunity. As a result no caution.

[rodney]

clarevoyant., on 15 May 2023 - 11:26 AM, said:

Incorrect. The ball is in play as soon as it is played at the goal kick stage All opposing playes have to be outside the box until its played but can enter has soon as it played which is what Dallas did. The keeper wasn't allowed to touch it again, which if he hadn't Dallas would (you would hope) have scored.

100% spot on

[JonB]

Norton Blue, on 15 May 2023 - 12:15 PM, said:

I think some folk are looking for anything to suggest we were robbed

Regarding the indirect free kick as a result of the kicker touching the ball again following a goal kick then The correct actions were followed as per law 16. An indirect free kick should be awarded which it was and there are no requirements to show a card for this technical offence.

The only place you could look for in the rules for a card to be issued is law 12 which states “if the offence was denying the opposing team an obvious goal-scoring opportunity, the player is cautioned for unsporting behaviour; if the offence was interfering with or stopping a promising attack, the player is not cautioned.” As Dallas didn’t have the ball, nor close enough to it, it can’t possibly be considered an obvious goal scoring opportunity. As a result no caution.

He was closest to the ball that was allowed to touch it legally with no County player close by....

[Norton Blue]

JonB, on 15 May 2023 - 12:31 PM, said:

He was closest to the ball that was allowed to touch it legally with no County player close by....

Doesn’t matter. No OBVIOUS goal scoring opportunity.

[rodney]

Norton Blue, on 15 May 2023 - 12:40 PM, said:

Doesn’t matter. No OBVIOUS goal scoring opportunity.

He was a yard away at the most with no other active player in the box. So a yellow card! That said doesn’t matter….. but the referee was clearly caught cold if he even knew the law. Shouldn’t the free kick have been taken from where the second touch occurred?

[JonB]

Norton Blue, on 15 May 2023 - 12:40 PM, said:

Doesn’t matter. No OBVIOUS goal scoring opportunity.

I'd be inclined to disagree. He's about to take the ball with no defender withing a good few yards of him leaving him effectively 1 on 1 with the keeper 12 yards out from goal. He's definitely capable of getting a shot away in that position so in that reasoning its an obvious goal scoring opportunity.

[clarevoyant.]

Norton Blue, on 15 May 2023 - 12:40 PM, said:

Doesn’t matter. No OBVIOUS goal scoring opportunity.

Rubbish. Are you saying Dallas is crap? Obvious goal scoring opportunity and if not (but dont see how) robbed of a promising attacking situation also red.


PS. We're not looking for something to suggest we was robbed it's there starring you in the face. That's 4 out of 6 big games were we've succumbed to horrendous refing cock ups. Its getting frustratingly boring now

[JonB]

This is the moment he kicks it second time, neither defender is in a position to do anything so comes down to 1 on 1 with keeper. By kicking it second time he stops Dallas taking the ball and having a shot on goal.

[60s 70s Spireite]

What was Slocombe thinking? He must have had a brain freeze, he seems to forget it’s a goal kick, but believe that it’s in open play.
Pity he didn’t stop on for the penalties.

[JonB]

60s 70s Spireite, on 15 May 2023 - 01:11 PM, said:

What was Slocombe thinking? He must have had a brain freeze, he seems to forget it’s a goal kick, but believe that it’s in open play.
Pity he didn’t stop on for the penalties.

I think he knew exactly what he was doing. They went to go short as a centre back comes for it then turns away which Slocombe sees but too late to stop himself kicking it and he nudges it gently forward. He knows Dallas is entitled to then play the ball and is the only one with a chance of getting it so he kicks it again to stop that happening.

Indirect free kick is the right decision for restarting the game...its just the farce of whether Slocombe gets any further punishment for it.

[Bonnyman]

JonB, on 15 May 2023 - 01:01 PM, said:

This is the moment he kicks it second time, neither defender is in a position to do anything so comes down to 1 on 1 with keeper. By kicking it second time he stops Dallas taking the ball and having a shot on goal.

Which beggers question why did the ref put the ball down where he did it wasnt there?

[rodney]

Bonnyman, on 15 May 2023 - 01:18 PM, said:

Which beggers question why did the ref put the ball down where he did it wasnt there?

Because, I’m convinced, he wasn’t sure of the law!! As I’ve said already was at least a yellow, possible red, and free kick should have been 15 yards away from goal