The9

Both of these.

If I can't be arsed to run around and play I'm not going to be arsed to run around and train others...

Ho hum, if you need something done... he clearly has no idea what's happening behind Schneiderlin and was just guessing.

Actually I don't think it was a dive, he just fell over when trying to go for the ball he'd flicked up. It was "Edds", btw. He didn't even try for the penalty, just fell over backwards when trying to regain his balance after dinking the ball into the air away from Seaborne. The ref certainly looked like a cheat for giving it after the decisions he'd been giving all the way through though. And for the umpteenth time, he doesn't have a perfect view, Schneiderlin is in the way.

Most of them had given up complaining by then.

I suspect that the ref was looking straight at the number 19 in the middle of Schneiderlin's back at the time, seeing as he was stood between the ref and the incident and he clearly couldn't see a thing. Where's that photo ?

I do, it's a corner ! All comes under that "ball not in play until touched by another player" umbrella in practice. You can't score direct from a throw in either, and I was surprised Peter Enckelman wasn't arguing that one in the Birmingham derby a few years ago when it went under his foot, it worked in our favour this season too when one went straight in.

We didn't have time last time, you've got no excuses not to pitch up at Fleming Park on a Sunday at the very least this year.

And all ruled out as pointless or impractical. And you forgot the advancing 10-yard rule on freekicks. All tried, none adopted. The only stuff they ever implement is the stuff they just DO, like the backpass law. And I'm against 3rd party technology and artificial breaks in games. Strangely Sky seem to be all for it, I wonder why ?

Oh, and Mark Clattenburg says: http://www.refworld.com/ask/mark-clattenburg/8/1 If there was an obstruction in the penalty box would you give a penalty or a indirect free-kick? If there is obstruction in the penalty area then it would be a Indirect Free Kick but if there was contact in the process of a player trying to obstruct another player then it would be a penalty kick.

Law 12 of the Laws of Football states: 'An indirect free kick is also awarded to the opposing team if a player, in the opinion of the referee: impedes the progress of an opponent. It's not "obstruction" any more apparently, it's "impeding". Pretty sure Seaborne wasn't doing that either. 6th August 2002 : http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/sport/article-346995-don-puts-indirect-free-kicks-into-touch.do Amazing how something like that sticks, but the statutory red card for sliding tackles and tackles from behind disappeared some time between 1994 when it was first a directive and 2000 when some fcker took out my knee ligaments two footed and knee-high as I was shielding the ball... :mad: PS It came in at the same time as "daylight", which is no longer in use.

That doesn't mean it's not in the laws. You might have added "offside" to the list, something someone around me obviously wasn't aware of on Saturday when advising Kelvin to "shoooooooooooooooooooooooot" from a subsequent free-kick. Though if your point was about conceding indirect free-kicks in your own box, then obviously offside isn't going to be one of them.

I just Googled to check and there's nothing to suggest he is, though weirdly he's the only FA Cup Final ref since 1986 who doesn't have his own Wiki page. I assume that's due to the endless war of words between Spurs and Forest fans that would have gone on on his page...

Obstruction is an indirect free-kick. What they did a few years ago IIRC was advise that indirect free-kicks shouldn't be given for offences inside the box, which of course makes very little sense. I'll see if I can find the exact wording... There was a lot more defender's leg in the Fonte incident (he at least moved it towards the player rather than just standing there), and it was also less of a dive than two of Moore's plummets in the box prior to that.

Personally I'm against the use of technology as it takes the game away from grass-roots and means the game we play in parks isn't the same as the one played in the World Cup Final, as well as removing the simplicity of football, which is part of its attraction. But equally, I'm not sure how technology would improve things when we've got lots of Saints fans saying Fonte dived, lots saying it's a penalty, and some people still thinking Seaborne had anything to do with theirs being given. There's still differences of opinion after repeated viewings. Also, do you review the free kick that probably wasn't that was given prior to their first goal ? Do you retrospectively send off their centre back for fouling Barnard when he was running through prior to the backpass that also wasn't given ? Do you do that at the time ? That game would still be going on! The ref was crap, no doubt, but rating him as poor using a decent performance system that rewards accurate decision making rather than things like "looking smart" and "being decisive" (whether decisively wrong or not) is the key, so a useless idiot like him only gets to ruin parks matches, not artificially grafting more stopping and starting onto it - nor more bloody officials who don't have the balls to give decent decisions when standing next to the goals, either, for that matter. I note now that Sour Mash has captured my argument in about 2 sentences, so fair play to him for that.

28_F, it can be obstruction if you don't move, but obstruction (which it wasn't) is an indirect free-kick anyway.

Tevez at West Ham ? :confused:

Similar position to me, on the right of the stand. Fonte one looked like a tug on him and then a poor tackle with Fonte going to ground under challenge, and the contact seems to be supported by the photos on the OS gallery. The Barnard one, even from the back row of the not very big but steep stand, still only about 20 yards away, was two handed, blatant, obvious and a penalty in any game anywhere in the world - but no-one one the left side of our stand would have seen what the defender did because Barnard's body was in the way. Considering all of our fans were at the wrong end for the pen, 90% of them seem to have seen it as it was and called it right without the aid of a replay, their bloke teeing up an overhead kick and falling over instead, with Seaborne nothing but an incidental object in the near vicinity. The ref's view of the pen was clearly worse than that, as proven from the pic on here that showed Schneiderlin obscuring his view, which presumably was also his excuse for NOT giving the shirt pulling/fouling on Barnard when running through (see OS gallery), or the back pass immediately after it.

Brilliant, I'm not sure there's a word of that I actually agree with apart from us being "wasteful".

I'd love to know what you think about Moore then, he dived AT a Saints player in the first half during a corner to try and get a pen when the defender wasn't even looking at him, and threw himself on the floor for another one in the second half which even the OS described in derisory terms. At least Fonte's incident included a (foul) challenge.

Don't forget "go back to Dyno-Rod", thanks to the colour of his kit.

Lol, that was *my* idea, to replace "der der der der "

Seaborne stood still and deliberately didn't move precisely so he couldn't be accused of tripping him, and the bloke fell over backwards off his standing leg in an attempt to do an overhead kick. Their bloke dinked it up in the air and then fell/dived over backwards, half trying to do an overhead and half just falling over because he was already off balance from the dink. The most important part is, (unlike Nick Halling who said on commentary the "ref was well-placed to give it" on BBC), we've already seen the photos from behind the goalline which show that the ref's view was obscured by Schneiderlin. So what the ref saw was the ball going in the air, and a Tranmere player fall over in between two Saints shirts (one of which was 5 yards away but blocking his view). It was never a penalty. He had an even worse view from behind of the backpass-cum-assault on Barnard which could have been a red card and/or indirect free-kick in the box, but he decided to wave play on for that one... he was appalling, mainly in their favour, all match long. PS @ the OP, try "worst".

Just to add to the fun, I was at the match and when I put my Sky Sports iPhone app on it said Tranmere 1-2 Saints but had the 2 correct scorers listed for Tranmere and only one for Saints. And the more I recall about the game, and am reminded by other people (had forgotten the backpass, Barnard getting fouled immediately before, AND all of Moore's dives in the box), the worse the ref was.

Looks like I had a better view from the back row of the stand at the opposite end than the ref did 10 yards away with Scheiderlin stood in the way. Absolutely, definitely wasn't a penalty and those pics show why he gave it, because he couldn't see.