noAnyone agree with Padfoot on this???? ........
Bloody Players
- Thread starter WilliamD
- Start date
- Status
Mooseybaby
Retired big bad baldy in all black!
This thread is truly priceless! 
To add to what's already been said, as well as players who leave the field to fetch the ball etc, I guess according to the very letter of the law we should also be carding an u15s player who walks off the pitch in protest after receiving abuse from the opposition's parents as he/she didn't have our permission to leave either!
To add to what's already been said, as well as players who leave the field to fetch the ball etc, I guess according to the very letter of the law we should also be carding an u15s player who walks off the pitch in protest after receiving abuse from the opposition's parents as he/she didn't have our permission to leave either!
Yampy
RefChat Addict
That's exactly what happened to Sulley Muntari in Italy when he walked off after receiving racist abuse from opposition supporters. So yes, there's a precedent already set for that example.
A Freethinker
RefChat Addict
Luis Suarez last weekend, rips his shirt....walks off....referee sanction?
NONE! Hang the ref!!
NONE! Hang the ref!!
A Freethinker
RefChat Addict
What have precedents got to do with it? There are many precedents of players leaving a pitch without caution yet you would still card someone for doing it? Also, precedents can be errors within law so irrelevant when comes to football.
Yampy
RefChat Addict
But there's no error in law. You said yourself in post #75 of this thread that you agreed with @Padfoot inasmuch as the LOTG state it should be a mandatory caution. I also said I agreed with @Padfoot because of the very same thing.
The law might be an ass but it doesn't disguise the fact that a caution should be administered even though the majority here refuse to follow that sanction as described. It seems to me as though a lack of consistency in the application of this law is borne out by people's belief that it is unjust and against 'the spirit of the game'.
I've cautioned (and dismissed) a number of players who could be described as hard done by, but the laws left me with little choice.
And if you'd done a little research, you 'd also have noticed that I am probably wrong about the Sulley Muntari case as the more I looked into it, they more I realised he probably wasn't cautioned for 'leaving the field without permission'.
The law might be an ass but it doesn't disguise the fact that a caution should be administered even though the majority here refuse to follow that sanction as described. It seems to me as though a lack of consistency in the application of this law is borne out by people's belief that it is unjust and against 'the spirit of the game'.
I've cautioned (and dismissed) a number of players who could be described as hard done by, but the laws left me with little choice.
And if you'd done a little research, you 'd also have noticed that I am probably wrong about the Sulley Muntari case as the more I looked into it, they more I realised he probably wasn't cautioned for 'leaving the field without permission'.
The whole Sheffield United team walked off the pitch at Arsenal when the scored the Phantom goal (Anders Limpar) ..... Rather than booking the whole team the FA allowed a replay!!! Surely they should have lined em up Padders and booked the lot of them!!
I sat on a disciplinary hearing years ago after a game had been abandoned. The referee had sent a player off, and several team mates had walked off in protest. The referee cautioned all of them, and then warned that he would abandon the game if they didn't come back on.
The team manager eventually persuaded them to go back on, but you can guess what happened then ...
... yes, he cautioned the first 4 that came back on for doing so without permission and then duly abandoned the game.
The finding of the commission was that in telling the players he would abandon if they didn't come back he had given implicit permission for them to re-enter the field of play. The abandonment was over-ruled for this reason and the game ordered to be replayed, although none of the 11 cautions could be rescinded as there was no provision for a caution to be ruled as wrong.
As an aside, the same commission also overruled the straight red card that caused the whole debacle, although by that point the referee's credibility was well and truly shot to pieces.
The team manager eventually persuaded them to go back on, but you can guess what happened then ...
... yes, he cautioned the first 4 that came back on for doing so without permission and then duly abandoned the game.
The finding of the commission was that in telling the players he would abandon if they didn't come back he had given implicit permission for them to re-enter the field of play. The abandonment was over-ruled for this reason and the game ordered to be replayed, although none of the 11 cautions could be rescinded as there was no provision for a caution to be ruled as wrong.
As an aside, the same commission also overruled the straight red card that caused the whole debacle, although by that point the referee's credibility was well and truly shot to pieces.
Some refs need their bumps feeling!!!
I know I should not of laughed at this but you couldn't make it up
I regulary see Liverpools defence go missing they might be off the FOP. Explains everything!CapnBloodbeard
RefChat Addict
I'm at least okay with that part...but yeah, the 2nd caution was disgraceful.
A Freethinker
RefChat Addict
I thought that is why you were referring to it and I don't do research for others if you make errors in your statements it is you who looks foolish not me. I merely said that precedents can be wrong in law..as proved Sulley wasn't booked hence the precedent is set!
- Status