Discussion in 'As Seen on TV' started by Murri O, Nov 8, 2017.
Billy Root loves to feast on the Aussies bowling.. id say 2-2 and a washout somewhere!!
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Now that's over thinking it. Or is it over optimistic...
The question you have to ask here is did he prevent the free kick from being taken or did he intercept it. I would say his close proximity and movement of leg suggests the former.
Caution correct for me.
The rule I've always used is that if he so much as twitches int he direction of the ball's path before it's kicked's, he's failed to retire. The moment it's put into play, it's fair game. I don't really see the ambiguity.
Personally I'd like to see refs in this league crack down on players blocking the kick with their presence - I hate that players always run up to the ball, but it's only ever a card if the opponent actually kicks the ball.
Here, he's clearly stuck his leg out to block the kick. I would seriously hope that there isn't a referee out there who doesn't think this is a yellow.
Had he stood still then there'd still be a good case for a caution for failing to retire! If he was at least moving backwards, however...
I disagree with that @JamesL . You can't be guilty of preventing the free kick from being taken if the free kick has been taken. The ball was kicked, in play and traveled about a yard and a half before it was intercepted/blocked/deflected (or whatever its called).
Its like DOGSO, you can't be guilty of DOGSO if a goal has been scored.
Maybe a different time zone wherever you are, but, in the clip am watching, the leg was out to block/intercept/get in the way of/stop/impede, BEFORE the ball was kicked. In sequence, we have.....defender taking stride to kick dead ball.......blocked extending leg to block ball.....then ball is actually kicked into blocked leg.
We can all dispute opinions about who did what and why and where, but, this is factual, the blocker puts his leg out before the ball is kicked. If you still doubt this, stop the twitter clip exactly on 4 secs. Blockers right foot is about to leave ground, ball has not even been kicked yet !
so disagree all you wish, although how anyone can dispute the sequence of events is a bit bizarre.
Oh, in case its still not clear, you can stop the clip on 9.5 secs also....ball has still not been kicked, yet the blockers right foot is off ground, extended, and only intended to block the ball
England will be lucky to get nil
I am not sure I understand what you are trying to prove or disprove has anything to do with my post. What 'time zone' has to do with this discussion beats me too.
But to ensure you understand my post, can you answer this question (a simple yes or no will do). Was the free kick taken?
The blocker had his leg out to block the ball before the ball was kicked. Stop the clip at either of the 2 places mentioned and this fact will become clear.
Your saying the ball was kicked before it was blocked. Am saying the blocker had his foot out to block before the kick was taken.
I don't believe I am saying that. Can you point out where I said that.
Still waiting for a response to my question.
The ball was kicked, in play and traveled about a yard and a half before it was intercepted/blocked/deflected (or whatever its called).
the right leg is clearly extended before the ball is played. thus the infringement.......
Ok. I see. Let me reword that so there is no misunderstanding. "The ball was kicked, in play and traveled about a yard and a half before it touched the defender's foot"
So now that is clear now. My question still stands. Was the free kick taken?
The free kick was taken and the blocker offended and was correctly yellow carded.
Had the free kick not been taken this clip would not exist.
Free kick taker = doing nothing wrong
Blocker = already had leg out to stop/impede/intercept/halt a set piece at which he was not the required distance away from = doing something wrong (which in this case merits a yc and indeed dismissal)
paint by numbers....
@one i do understand where you're coming from, letter of the law and all that...
but are you saying you'd play on from this or are you just trying to play delivs advocate?
Am done on this one.....if someone wants to play on as this is a legal interception in their game so be it
it appears 9 out of 10 on here, this international class referee, supported by 4th and ARs, and it even appears the player himself (seems to realise what he has done and accepts his fate,) are in agreement a yc is correct, so you do the maths....
That would have been sufficient.
My post says you can not yellow card a player for preventing a free kick from being taken if the free kick has been taken (as you have confirmed).
Are you disputing this?
"Failing to respect the required distance at a restart" is a cautionable offence and can be interpreted as the referee sees fit. End of story. There's a debate to be had about what the correct restart should be, but there's no getting around the fact that a yellow card is correct.
really? he has prevented it....his leg moves to the ball before the ball is played
I am saying I would yellow card for "not respecting the distance" even though i can't really justify it in law.
I am also saying you can not yellow card for delaying the restart in this case as @JamesL seems to suggest.
by your logic, you can only caution a player for preventing a free kick if its NOT been taken !!!!!
"why are you booking me ref" ?
"well, see that free kick that had not been taken yet, you prevented it being taken".
Separate names with a comma.