Glasgow_Saint Posted 3 February, 2011 Share Posted 3 February, 2011 http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/eng_div_2/9385862.stm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liquidshokk Posted 3 February, 2011 Share Posted 3 February, 2011 The highlights were also available on saints player and the IPhone app last night. Used the iphone app to watch them last night for first time and got me thinking.... the video that is on the app is the same one on player and released at the same time (Before BBC)... dont we pay for the luxury of watching them on player /first on player?? Condsidering thats all i use player for I may aswell cancel and watch them on the app for free. granted if you use player to listen to games then you're getting your moneys worth (Well, when it works). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 3 February, 2011 Share Posted 3 February, 2011 http://www.saintsfc.co.uk/page/player/LatestNews/0,,10280~1662046~36,00.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 3 February, 2011 Share Posted 3 February, 2011 The highlights were also available on saints player and the IPhone app last night. Used the iphone app to watch them last night for first time and got me thinking.... the video that is on the app is the same one on player and released at the same time (Before BBC)... dont we pay for the luxury of watching them on player /first on player?? Condsidering thats all i use player for I may aswell cancel and watch them on the app for free. granted if you use player to listen to games then you're getting your moneys worth (Well, when it works). Is it free on the iPhone app? I've got the official 'Saints/Football League" app but don't think I get video highlights without paying extra? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 3 February, 2011 Share Posted 3 February, 2011 Is it free on the iPhone app? I've got the official 'Saints/Football League" app but don't think I get video highlights without paying extra? Just checked - it's £4.99 to upgrade. Is that a one-off cost? Good value if it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint-scooby Posted 3 February, 2011 Share Posted 3 February, 2011 2.33 long we must be popular Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liquidshokk Posted 3 February, 2011 Share Posted 3 February, 2011 Is it free on the iPhone app? I've got the official 'Saints/Football League" app but don't think I get video highlights without paying extra? Just checked - it's £4.99 to upgrade. Is that a one-off cost? Good value if it is. Ive never logged into the app and pretty sure I didnt ever pay anything. I can watch all the highlight videos for free (???) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liquidshokk Posted 3 February, 2011 Share Posted 3 February, 2011 Ive never logged into the app and pretty sure I didnt ever pay anything. I can watch all the highlight videos for free (???) Just noticed under subscription I have an activation code and a valid until date... If I am subscribed I can only imagine I was drunk at the time!!! Certainly seems like 4.99 for the year as valid until jul 2011 and its not coming out monthly from my account Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 3 February, 2011 Share Posted 3 February, 2011 Ive never logged into the app and pretty sure I didnt ever pay anything. I can watch all the highlight videos for free (???) When I click on 'videos' it takes me to an 'upgrade' screen - £4.99 per season for highlights and other 'bits and bobs'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 3 February, 2011 Share Posted 3 February, 2011 Just noticed under subscription I have an activation code and a valid until date... If I am subscribed I can only imagine I was drunk at the time!!! Certainly seems like 4.99 for the year as valid until jul 2011 and its not coming out monthly from my account I was just about to venture that very scenario.... :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sussexsaint Posted 3 February, 2011 Share Posted 3 February, 2011 Had no idea we hit the woodwork so much! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liquidshokk Posted 3 February, 2011 Share Posted 3 February, 2011 I was just about to venture that very scenario.... :-) So thats where all my moneys been going..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pancake Posted 3 February, 2011 Share Posted 3 February, 2011 Not happy with their goal at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Professor Posted 3 February, 2011 Share Posted 3 February, 2011 (edited) Interesting what you notice on the highlights. (1) Agree with Pancake that the Exeter goal should have been disallowed - Not offside because Nardiello (goalscorer) was not offside when the ball was kicked and the player who was in an offside position reels off to the right and does not interfere with play. BUT the obstruction by Nardiello on Fonte to prevent the CB from getting back to stop the ball before it got to the gaol is so clear that the ref should have seen it, disallowed the goal and given Saints a free kick for obstruction. (2) Exeter should have had a goal earlier in the first half - the miss by Nardiello when 1-on-1 with KD was surprising. (3) Dany N'Guessen's miss when he hit the bar was forgiveable as the keeper had the goal well covered and N'Geussen was only just into the area, and Barnard's follow-up shot onto the bar was also at a distance and more difficult than you would have thought from the press reports. (4) Lambert's winning goal was a great effort by him but very fortunate that the lofted cross came down where it did. Have to say we were very fortunate to get that second goal from such a speculative cross. Conclusion though, is that Exeter's goal was illegal and both of ours were not, so a correct result. IMHO, of course. Edited 3 February, 2011 by Professor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint_clark Posted 3 February, 2011 Share Posted 3 February, 2011 Terrible camerawork for the N'Guessan/Barnard chance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperMikey Posted 3 February, 2011 Share Posted 3 February, 2011 Great header from Rickie for the first - would be nice to see a few more of those going in this season! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Charlie Posted 3 February, 2011 Share Posted 3 February, 2011 Yeah the first goal was actually a lot better than it seemed live. Great run and cross from Dany and a bullet header! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheaf Saint Posted 3 February, 2011 Share Posted 3 February, 2011 Terrible camerawork for the N'Guessan/Barnard chance. True, but the move that lead up to it would have had the pundits coming in their pants if it had been Man Utd or Chelsea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
for_heaven's_Saint Posted 3 February, 2011 Share Posted 3 February, 2011 Terrible camerawork for the N'Guessan/Barnard chance. Plus on Saintsplayer the commentator didn't even notice Barnard's shot hit the bar and just said it had gone over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liquidshokk Posted 3 February, 2011 Share Posted 3 February, 2011 Plus on Saintsplayer the commentator didn't even notice Barnard's shot hit the bar and just said it had gone over. Cos its just dubbed over later so only commentated on the highlight video. he obviously didnt listen or go to the game. tut tut Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 3 February, 2011 Share Posted 3 February, 2011 Well done to KD for putting off their striker to the extent that it bought Fonte enough time to cover, which he would have done had he not been fouled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thesaint sfc Posted 3 February, 2011 Share Posted 3 February, 2011 We got lucky there! Need to step it up a notch! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 3 February, 2011 Share Posted 3 February, 2011 How did the ref not give a free kick for the first goal? Fonte is clearly going to get to the ball. Maybe he won't get enough of a touch, maybe he'll help it in or slice it BUT the defender fouls him and stops him getting anywhere near. Very dodgy. Thanks for the link. It certainly looks like a foul to me. If the ball were in playing distance then Nardiello is entitled to shield it but what he does is an American Football block. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Bad Bob Posted 3 February, 2011 Share Posted 3 February, 2011 Thanks for the link. It certainly looks like a foul to me. If the ball were in playing distance then Nardiello is entitled to shield it but what he does is an American Football block. There's a difference between shielding the ball and making an active move to block someones path. And hasn't this "shielding" rule only come in in the last 5 years or so, didn't it used to be that you were shielding in a ball if you were stationary. Seeing a ball out of play, a la new style, if blatant obstruction IMHO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BotleySaint Posted 3 February, 2011 Share Posted 3 February, 2011 Definite obstruction. Fonte would have stopped the ball going in if Nardiello hadn't blocked him off. It isn't like it was trickling harmfully out of play.. this is as bad as someone blocking off a player who is clean through on goal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pancake Posted 3 February, 2011 Share Posted 3 February, 2011 Definite obstruction. Fonte would have stopped the ball going in if Nardiello hadn't blocked him off. It isn't like it was trickling harmfully out of play.. this is as bad as someone blocking off a player who is clean through on goal. Exactly, if it had been the other way round and Fonte had been "shielding" a ball out of play and knocked over Nardiello in the box, it would have been a penalty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kpturner Posted 3 February, 2011 Share Posted 3 February, 2011 I have my doubts that Fonte would have reached the ball anyway. I thought so at the time, and watching the replay doesn't convince me otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 3 February, 2011 Share Posted 3 February, 2011 There's a difference between shielding the ball and making an active move to block someones path. And hasn't this "shielding" rule only come in in the last 5 years or so, didn't it used to be that you were shielding in a ball if you were stationary. Seeing a ball out of play, a la new style, if blatant obstruction IMHO The ball has to be within playing distance of the player doing the 'obstruction' such that he could play it if he wanted to. I don't like to see it, I think the game would be much better without it. In hockey, I believe, it would actually be called as obstruction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derry Posted 3 February, 2011 Share Posted 3 February, 2011 If Nardiello had been in playing distance of the ball he would have knocked it in rather than bother with Fonte. He saw Fonte late and realised he might clear the ball so blocked him. It was a definite foul. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 3 February, 2011 Share Posted 3 February, 2011 The ball has to be within playing distance of the player doing the 'obstruction' such that he could play it if he wanted to. I don't like to see it, I think the game would be much better without it. In hockey, I believe, it would actually be called as obstruction. Correct, it would. Shielding the ball whilst dribbling is also obstruction. It is also possible to commit obstruction by crossing in front of the player in possession, if they are on your team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kpturner Posted 3 February, 2011 Share Posted 3 February, 2011 Correct, it would. Shielding the ball whilst dribbling is also obstruction. It is also possible to commit obstruction by crossing in front of the player in possession, if they are on your team.Are you talking about hockey, rugby or football now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 3 February, 2011 Share Posted 3 February, 2011 Are you talking about hockey, rugby or football now? Hugball. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 3 February, 2011 Share Posted 3 February, 2011 Are you talking about hockey, rugby or football now? Hockey, old bean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 3 February, 2011 Share Posted 3 February, 2011 Hockey, old bean. Hello, Rupert? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
um pahars Posted 3 February, 2011 Share Posted 3 February, 2011 Peach of a header for Sir Ricky's first goal. How many Saints were there??? A few of my mates ended up in the Home end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 3 February, 2011 Share Posted 3 February, 2011 Hello, Rupert? No, no, I'm just a chalk jockey really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The9 Posted 3 February, 2011 Share Posted 3 February, 2011 From the laws of the game, Law 12. http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/affederation/generic/81/42/36/lawsofthegame_2010_11_e.pdf There is no such thing as obstruction as a specific offence any more, the only way you can commit an "obstruction" indirect free-kick foul is by getting in the way of an opponent WITHOUT touching them, because as soon as you make contact it's now interpreted as a direct free-kick - as it says at the bottom. Impeding the progress of an opponent Impeding the progress of an opponent means moving into the path of the opponent to obstruct, block, slow down or force a change of direction by an opponent when the ball is not within playing distance of either player. All players have a right to their position on the field of play, being in the way of an opponent is not the same as moving into the way of an opponent. Shielding the ball is permitted. A player who places himself between an opponent and the ball for tactical reasons has not committed an offence as long as the ball is kept within playing distance and the player does not hold off the opponent with his arms or body. If the ball is within playing distance, the player may be fairly charged by an opponent. Restart of play • Indirect free kick from the position where the offence occurred (see Law 13 – Position of free kick) • If there is contact, a different offence has been committed, punishable by a direct free kick or penalty kick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deppo Posted 3 February, 2011 Share Posted 3 February, 2011 What is Paul Tisdale wearing? He looks like he's been on Gok's Fashion Fix. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The9 Posted 3 February, 2011 Share Posted 3 February, 2011 (edited) There's a difference between shielding the ball and making an active move to block someones path. And hasn't this "shielding" rule only come in in the last 5 years or so, didn't it used to be that you were shielding in a ball if you were stationary. Seeing a ball out of play, a la new style, if blatant obstruction IMHO Shielding the ball when moving, as long the ball is within playing distance, has been within the laws for as long as I've been playing, and I started in 1980. The only thing that's changed recently is the re-writing of the laws to make obstruction offences basically impossible, so all "obstruction" style fouls are now direct free-kicks (or penalties). I did once play a match for Southampton Uni on Soccer Tour in the US where due to some local zaniness, the obstruction law was being interpreted as it is in Basketball, meaning all on and off the ball obstruction was allowed. It was utterly insane, you'd just get bundled out of the way by a different player blocking your path every time you tried to do anything. We still won 1-0, somehow. Edited 3 February, 2011 by The9 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint J 77 Posted 3 February, 2011 Share Posted 3 February, 2011 What is Paul Tisdale wearing? He looks like he's been on Gok's Fashion Fix. Looks a bit like a modern day Alan Ball flat cap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatch Posted 3 February, 2011 Share Posted 3 February, 2011 You could say that Fonte should have been stronger and knocked the other git out of the way, rather than being pushed around himself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deppo Posted 3 February, 2011 Share Posted 3 February, 2011 Wasn't a foul. Tisdale's hat and scarf brought the game into disrepute though. Can't believe the ref and linesmen missed that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 4 February, 2011 Share Posted 4 February, 2011 Wasn't a foul. Tisdale's hat and scarf brought the game into disrepute though. Can't believe the ref and linesmen missed that. You're so Naughties, Deppo. Get with it, girlfriend! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deppo Posted 4 February, 2011 Share Posted 4 February, 2011 I bet it was one of those women linesman. They probably thought he looked nice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mitch01 Posted 4 February, 2011 Share Posted 4 February, 2011 No foul committed for their goal IMO, he was within his rights to block off the space, Fonte wasn't getting there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boxosponge Posted 4 February, 2011 Share Posted 4 February, 2011 I bet it was one of those women linesman. They probably thought he looked nice. No, not a female in sight. All of the tits were male. Hang about, there were the Grecianettes though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fowllyd Posted 4 February, 2011 Share Posted 4 February, 2011 No foul committed for their goal IMO, he was within his rights to block off the space, Fonte wasn't getting there. Have a look at The9's post quoting the relevant law, then see if you still think that the Exeter scorer was within his rights. Whether Fonte was getting there or not is irrelevant; his run was blocked by a player who was not in a position to play the ball (the crucial criterion). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry the Badger Posted 4 February, 2011 Share Posted 4 February, 2011 No foul committed for their goal IMO, he was within his rights to block off the space, Fonte wasn't getting there. But he didn't "block off the space" he just ran into Fonte. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 4 February, 2011 Share Posted 4 February, 2011 But he didn't "block off the space" he just ran into Fonte. I think that's the point. Imagine the same situation in the middle of the pitch. I'm sure Fonte would be awarded a foul there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint_clark Posted 4 February, 2011 Share Posted 4 February, 2011 "Shielding" the ball requires you to be in control (i.e within playing distance) of it. Nardiello wasn't, so it was obstruction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now