PDA

View Full Version : Sent off for diving!



leaguerefaus
17-04-16, 15:04
Everyone enjoy this. Just happened in the EPL http://www.foxsports.com.au/video/football/epl/vardys-sensational-send-off!516446
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGqQ8OWceio

SimonSmith
17-04-16, 16:04
Yeah.

That ref had a shocker. Got that wrong, and his penalty decisions wrong. O to be a fly on the wall at his debrief.
"So, the one on Reid WAS, but the one on Huth wasn't. Go look up 'consistency'. And then the Carroll decision.... I believe it's called a 'makeup' decision"

Look for Mr Moss to get a rest next week

4eyesbetter
18-04-16, 00:04
The game is impossible to referee when so many people are so determined to cheat. Vardy's was just about the least convincing dive I've seen in the last 20 years, it was like watching Zebedee.

Dickie E
18-04-16, 00:04
was it a straight send off or a 2nd yellow card?

SimonSmith
18-04-16, 00:04
2nd yellow

Dickie E
18-04-16, 01:04
2nd yellow

what I saw, then, was the Blue player fouled who then milked it. YC seems about right to me. So the banner of "Vardy's sensational send-off" is somewhat disingenuous but sells more papers than "Vardy's sensational yellow card".

leaguerefaus
18-04-16, 02:04
I'd just like to see it more often. Yes there was some contact but he threw himself to the ground like he'd been taken out by a sniper in the grandstand.

Ian_Cook
18-04-16, 03:04
The reward for a successful dive is too great. It seems to me that the reward can sometime be far in excess of the foul? Should an attacker brought down as he runs through the corner of the 18 yard box really be rewarded with a penalty kick? .

Soccer could do themselves a big favour by doing away with the penalty kick for bringing a player down in the 18 yard box. Instead, a penalty kick would only be awarded for the illegal actions of the defender if it prevented a probable goal from being scored, i.e

Hand ball to an "on target" shot on goal
Fouling the attacker in the act of shooting

Dickie E
18-04-16, 05:04
The reward for a successful dive is too great. It seems to me that the reward can sometime be far in excess of the foul? Should an attacker brought down as he runs through the corner of the 18 yard box really be rewarded with a penalty kick? .

Soccer could do themselves a big favour by doing away with the penalty kick for bringing a player down in the 18 yard box. Instead, a penalty kick would only be awarded for the illegal actions of the defender if it prevented a probable goal from being scored, i.e

Hand ball to an "on target" shot on goal
Fouling the attacker in the act of shooting

Don't disagree but where would the wall stand if free kick was within 10 yards of the goal?

didds
18-04-16, 10:04
In RU where do the defenders stand if the PK is less than 10m from the tryline may be a starting point to answer that?

RobLev
18-04-16, 14:04
I'd just like to see it more often. Yes there was some contact but he threw himself to the ground like he'd been taken out by a sniper in the grandstand.

Howard Webb in the Times points out that such contact as there was was initiated by Vardy.

Dickie E
18-04-16, 14:04
In soccer, can you have an indirect free kick inches from the goal mouth?

Rich_NL
18-04-16, 14:04
Yep - if the goalkeeper picks up a ball that his own team passed back, for example.

Lee Lifeson-Peart
18-04-16, 14:04
Howard Webb in the Times points out that such contact as there was was initiated by Vardy.

Yet another South Yorkshire referee.

4eyesbetter
18-04-16, 14:04
Free-kicks to the attackers inside the penalty area are an absolute shitfest and should be avoided wherever possible. The beginning of the end in that game for me began with an indirect free-kick about five yards from the goal line.

didds
18-04-16, 14:04
Free-kicks to the attackers inside the penalty area are an absolute shitfest



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jN-ewzz1WbM

didds

pedr
18-04-16, 16:04
Any free kick awarded in the "goal area", the box enclosed by lines six yards from the goal line and six yards from each post, is taken from a point at least six yards from the goal line.

That's still very close to the goal, leading to the scenes in that video!

Ian_Cook
18-04-16, 21:04
I don't even get why that was a FK in the first place? The grey player was already inside the 18yd box when he passed it back from a cross by white.

4eyesbetter
18-04-16, 22:04
You're not allowed to use your feet to intentionally pass the ball to the goalkeeper. It doesn't matter where you are on the pitch. You know, with Law knowledge like that, you might actually make a decent footballer...

(One time I heard "It can't be a back-pass! I was on the goal line and I passed it forward to him!")

Ian_Cook
18-04-16, 23:04
You're not allowed to use your feet to intentionally pass the ball to the goalkeeper. It doesn't matter where you are on the pitch. You know, with Law knowledge like that, you might actually make a decent footballer...

(One time I heard "It can't be a back-pass! I was on the goal line and I passed it forward to him!")


OK, I thought the law was you were not allowed to back pass to the goalie from outside the 18 yd box. Was that ever the Law?

I don't watch enough soccer to be bothered finding out

4eyesbetter
19-04-16, 00:04
No, never. The only time they've tweaked that law was in about 2000 when they also made it so the goalkeeper can't pick the ball up direct from a throw-in.

It's my nominee for "Most Successful Law Change In Any Sport, Ever"; it did exactly what it was designed to do, almost as soon as it was brought in, with no unintended consequences, and with no fuss and bother or rending of garments, even though it completely changed the entire fabric of the sport. It's simple and easy to understand, they got the form and wording of it correct first time round, it's unarguably made football better in every way, and it's now almost impossible to imagine the sport without it.

crossref
19-04-16, 08:04
in that clip - was his pass back actually intentional?

none of the three white players we can see even appealed, it looked unintentional to me.

pedr
19-04-16, 09:04
I think the prevailing interpretation is that the "intention" is about whether the player kicked the ball intentionally, not whether the intent was that the goalkeeper would pick it up - so a ball which hits the defender's feet (or perhaps which is intentionally blocked by him) can be picked up, one which the defender accidentally miss-hits cannot.

Jacko
19-04-16, 16:04
I think the prevailing interpretation is that the "intention" is about whether the player kicked the ball intentionally, not whether the intent was that the goalkeeper would pick it up - so a ball which hits the defender's feet (or perhaps which is intentionally blocked by him) can be picked up, one which the defender accidentally miss-hits cannot.
My understanding is that the absolute opposite of this is the case. A mishit but deliberate kick can be picked up without being adjudged a back pass.

Phil E
19-04-16, 16:04
When I worked at West Brom I spoke to a couple of referees about back passes, because they didn't seem to penalise it. Referees confirmed it's one of those things they never gave because it just made them look like a prat and caused too many issues. I guess like a few laws in our book that we would never blow for.

crossref
19-04-16, 17:04
Here's the Law (or is it a rule? )


An indirect free kick is awarded to the opposing team if a goalkeeper, inside his
own penalty area, commits any of the following four offences:
controls the ball with his hands for more than six seconds before releasing
it from his possession
touches the ball again with his hands after he has released it from his
possession and before it has touched another player
touches the ball with his hands after it has been deliberately kicked to him
by a team-mate
touches the ball with his hands after he has received it directly from a
throw-in taken by a team-mate

that seems to accord with Jacko, and would seem to make the FK in the OP seem rather harsh to me.

4eyesbetter
19-04-16, 21:04
It's an edge case. I could see why he gave it, but you give every possible benefit of the doubt to the defender. A big tackle that just happens to knock the ball back to the goalkeeper is fine, even if you're pretty sure it happened accidentally-on-purpose. That's not what the law's there to stop. The law is there to stop passages of play like this, which against less clued-up (or fit) opponents could last for minutes at a time, with the goalkeeper having it passed back and rolling it out again until the strikers wasted energy by chasing them down.

https://youtu.be/u7HvbpezC08?t=1h49m05s
https://youtu.be/u7HvbpezC08?t=1h56m45s
https://youtu.be/u7HvbpezC08?t=1h58m0s

(A better candidate would be the modern law about the goalkeeper having to release the ball six seconds after taking hold of it; but again, that law is not there so you can have a stopwatch on it and be stupid and persnickety and give loads of indirect free kicks, it's there to threaten the keeper with if they start taking the piss while defending a 1-0 lead.)