A&H

WHU vs Man City

J

Jtpetherick1

Well-Known Member
Very decent refereeing (in the first 29) from Taylor/team. BUT I AM SICK OF BT SPORT:

On the WHU goal not being disallowed for handball Peter Walton tells us that it's not been disallowed owing to 'no clear evidence'. Wrong. It's because it didn't lead directly to a goal.
29th minute, Taylor plays a great advantage after a shirt pull/rugby tackle and BT up in arms about no yellow card. Clearly neither commentators nor their 'expert' referee aware that an advantage cannot see a yellow for SPA.
I know the decisions were correct but fans don't - BT just stirring up controversy.
 
The Referee Store
Whilst you're right, That lack of yellow card just doesn't sit right.
The city player has literally tried to wrestle the player to the ground. The attacked is slowed down, manages to get a pass out wide and the attack fizzles out. Weak advantage.
Possession is not advantage.
Whatever the laws saw, that kind of clear cheating deserves a caution and the fans want it.
At our level, not cautioning here can only.harm match control.
 
deusex said:
Whilst you're right, That lack of yellow card just doesn't sit right.
The city player has literally tried to wrestle the player to the ground. The attacked is slowed down, manages to get a pass out wide and the attack fizzles out. Weak advantage.
Possession is not advantage.
Whatever the laws saw, that kind of clear cheating deserves a caution and the fans want it.
At our level, not cautioning here can only.harm match control.
Click to expand...

But that's all irrelevant. Taylor would be wrong in law to caution. It's a stupid law and I despise it but that cannot be a caution. And I disagree, it's a good advantage - none of the WHU players wanted him to go back after the attack was fizzled out.
 
Jtpetherick1 said:
But that's all irrelevant. Taylor would be wrong in law to caution. It's a stupid law and I despise it but that cannot be a caution. And I disagree, it's a good advantage - none of the WHU players wanted him to go back after the attack was fizzled out.
Click to expand...
I haven’t seen the game but I instantly think of Muller who was booked in the champions league final for the same thing. Can’t book for SPA but can book for holding.
 
Degnann said:
I haven’t seen the game but I instantly think of Muller who was booked in the champions league final for the same thing. Can’t book for SPA but can book for holding.
Click to expand...
No you can't, only if it was a disciplinary as well. CL Final was last year's rules.
 
So was it handball? I can't believe with all those cameras they only got one angle. How did it shoot sideways off the top of his thigh?
 
bloovee said:
No you can't, only if it was a disciplinary as well. CL Final was last year's rules.
Click to expand...
I believe the restart “mini tournament” was under the new season rules.
Also this is from the champions league final post.
010F1DF9-4A4E-4DA9-83E5-0EF62F850FE3.png
 
Laws should be called Rules and if there's a clear attempt to cheat, a card is coming out regardless of the SPA consideration
At for BT Sport... Room 101 is being way too generous. The channel is very irritating even on mute!
 
Last edited:
Degnann said:
Yes yes. Tomato potato.
Click to expand...

Disagree with just brushing this aside. We fault commentators for misuse of language that doesn’t track with the Laws, which leads to fan confusion. Newbie refs come on here to learn—we don’t want them walking away thinking that holding is a cautionable offense, as that can get them in trouble. (I do agree that holding that is SPAA can also be more than just SPAA to warrant a USB caution.)
 
socal lurker said:
Disagree with just brushing this aside. We fault commentators for misuse of language that doesn’t track with the Laws, which leads to fan confusion. Newbie refs come on here to learn—we don’t want them walking away thinking that holding is a cautionable offense, as that can get them in trouble. (I do agree that holding that is SPAA can also be more than just SPAA to warrant a USB caution.)
Click to expand...
I am a newbie ref.
I do appreciate you helping out with my language.
My reply wasn’t meant to be brushing yours aside. Apologies
 
Jtpetherick1 said:
But that's all irrelevant. Taylor would be wrong in law to caution. It's a stupid law and I despise it but that cannot be a caution. And I disagree, it's a good advantage - none of the WHU players wanted him to go back after the attack was fizzled out.
Click to expand...
Erm, I've acknowledged the current law so not sure how my comments are irrelevant?
Oh I guess Moyes was going mental for nothing? The advantage was weak. The players didn't appeal because they don't know the rules and assumed a caution was coming.
 
Degnann said:
I am a newbie ref.
I do appreciate you helping out with my language.
My reply wasn’t meant to be brushing yours aside. Apologies
Click to expand...
No apology needed! I think focusing on proper language will help you develop—it means in the heat of the moment you have the right question in your head, not a pretty close to right question. And it means when you explain it, you’re right in Law, rather than getting someone who knows the Laws who knows what you explained isn’t right (even if the call itself was right). I think you’ll find hanging out on here will help a lot in having those right questions in your head.
 
Jtpetherick1 said:
But that's all irrelevant. Taylor would be wrong in law to caution. It's a stupid law and I despise it but that cannot be a caution. And I disagree, it's a good advantage - none of the WHU players wanted him to go back after the attack was fizzled out.
Click to expand...
Taylor would be wrong in law to caution only for SPA since he played advantage. If he cautions this for USB-which I feel he should have done-the caution is still warranted.

in a case like this, I would ask myself if I would have cautioned the offense on its own/in a vacuum. I would have done so in my games.
 
deusex said:
Erm, I've acknowledged the current law so not sure how my comments are irrelevant?
Oh I guess Moyes was going mental for nothing? The advantage was weak. The players didn't appeal because they don't know the rules and assumed a caution was coming.
Click to expand...
They’re irrelevant because whether or not Taylor wants to issue a yellow card, red card or give the player a hug and gift him a unicorn he is obliged to follow the laws of the game. What ‘fans want’ is irrelevant. In Europe, he’d probably caution him for a ‘lack of respect for the game’ but that just doesn’t happen in the UK. And Moyes going ballistic didn’t happen until after the restart and lack of a caution...
 
Jtpetherick1 said:
They’re irrelevant because whether or not Taylor wants to issue a yellow card, red card or give the player a hug and gift him a unicorn he is obliged to follow the laws of the game. What ‘fans want’ is irrelevant. In Europe, he’d probably caution him for a ‘lack of respect for the game’ but that just doesn’t happen in the UK. And Moyes going ballistic didn’t happen until after the restart and lack of a caution...
Click to expand...
And when the fourth official explained why it wasn't a caution was he any less ballistic? "Whose stupid idea was that?" But you'd think people paid to commentate could have spent an hour during the summer looking at the changes - if only so they could sound like experts rather than idiots.

What was Walton doing? Does he not have a feed to the commentary box?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top