Motd

[paulwantsapint]

Motd just showed Lallana's goal & said it should have stood for a fair challenge as keeper dropped it

 

Looked like the sort of thing Boruc wouldn't bottle & would have knocked the player over instead of dropping it

[The9]

Motd just showed Lallana's goal & said it should have stood for a fair challenge as keeper dropped it

 

Looked like the sort of thing Boruc wouldn't bottle & would have knocked the player over instead of dropping it

 

It was pretty obvious it was a legit goal from every angle I saw, Lallana didn't handball and he didn't touch the keeper, who just dropped the ball.

 

So you're saying Boruc would have conceded a penalty?

[shurlock]

That the keeper gets the benefit is such a default position now that I don't ever expect to score from similar situations. That said, Halsey who was much closer to the incident seemed OK with the challenge.

[Tamesaint]

It happened right in front of me. The bald headed lino's flag went up immediately but it was one of those instances when if you didn't see that you got very excited as nothing wrong seemed to have occurred.

 

Halsey shoud have overruled the slaphead.

[brmbrm]

Lino flagged handball?

[Jonnyboy]

Does danyone know of an Internet stream where I could watch last night's motd? Cheers

[WALK DMC]

Does danyone know of an Internet stream where I could watch last night's motd? Cheers

 

Try http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xz6nkv_swansea-vs-southampton-0-0-motd_sport?search_algo=2#.UXO4VMsaySM

[Miltonroader07]

Officials get things right and wrong, the lino had a crap view and unless you are 100% keep ya flag down. Having said that a lot of officials (and I speak with experience) will have the mentality, if in doubt go with the defence !!!

[de-fence]

I just don't know what the lino thought he was doing getting involved here. Think its a case of know your place. It happened in the 6 yard box, that's referee territory. He can't have been that sure about it either seeing as he got it wrong. Unless he saw something that he knew would explicitly rule out the goal then he shouldn't flag. If he just thought the coming together was too heavy that's not his decision to make.

[angelman]

Officials get things right and wrong, the lino had a crap view and unless you are 100% keep ya flag down. Having said that a lot of officials (and I speak with experience) will have the mentality, if in doubt go with the defence !!!

 

 

If in doubt, why not go with the ref?

[Hedgehog]

not saying who is right or wrong but we all expect the lino to have an opinion in instances whether the ball has crossed the line, especially if it is to be in our favour. But then who am i to judge as my eyesight isn't that good at distances.

[Whitey Grandad]

The lino has a flag but the ref has the whistle.

[Deano6]

The lino has a flag but the ref has the whistle.

 

And what do the players have?

[wild-saint]

It was pretty obvious it was a legit goal from every angle I saw, Lallana didn't handball and he didn't touch the keeper, who just dropped the ball.

 

So you're saying Boruc would have conceded a penalty?

 

interestingly reading the swansea forum even with the benefit of the motd replays many say the lino was right to rule it out. footy is still a funny old game

[The9]

interestingly reading the swansea forum even with the benefit of the motd replays many say the lino was right to rule it out. footy is still a funny old game

 

To be fair 90% of them were rugby fans 5 years ago and south walian fans are some of the most one-eyed bullsh1tters I know of when it comes to bias, so I wouldn't put much stock in what they say .

 

All the tv replays showed was that although Lallana jumped with his arms up, didn't touch the keeper and didn't handle the ball. The lino clearly flagged for what he thought looked like a foul which didn't occur, the ref should have gone to check what the foul was for with the lino and then decided if he had a better view.

 

Long and short, if that had happened with two outfielders in the centre circle the amount of contact wouldn't have been worth a free kick. The only thing it could legitimately have been disallowed for is unsporting behaviour for Lallana waving his arms in front of the keeper's vision, but Lallana didn't get booked, and it's a heck of a stretch anyway. I can't be bothered to go back and see if the ref gave an indirect free kick (arm up) but I bet he didn't.

[Golden Balls]

Why the lino thought his view was better than the refs I'll never know. Very odd for him to give it.

[Bucks Saint]

Dont the lino and ref have a comms link (at least in the Prem?). I dont know why the lino did not flag, then say to ref it looked like handball, and the ref can say either fair enough, i missed it, or, no way, i saw it and there was no handball? Would take all of 5 seconds for the ref to decide. Or he could run over to the lino for a longer chat = 30 seconds.

[Pedro]

So would Halsey have disallowed JR's goal at Reading. It is swings and roundabouts, noted that it was Halsey's first Prem game for disciplinary reasons since that missed tackle by that youngster.

[The9]

So would Halsey have disallowed JR's goal at Reading. It is swings and roundabouts, noted that it was Halsey's first Prem game for disciplinary reasons since that missed tackle by that youngster.

 

Halsey might have disallowed Rodriguez's goal at Reading, there was at least an argument that it was dangerous - no such argument can be made for Lallana's goal and it shouldn't have been disallowed by any referee. That's not an even argument.

 

Not sure anyone's actually said Halsey was disciplined. For the record I didn't even think the McManaman clearance was even a foul, never mind a red card and the worst tackle in the history of the universe or whatever boll0cks spin the media tried to put on it. It was just a clearance, proportionate force was used for whacking the ball up the pitch so there was no recklessness, he GOT the ball, then Haidara ran into his outstretched boot afterwards, and it was mostly Haidara's fault he got injured. There's no way McManaman's actions were "dangerous", or every non-tappy clearance ever made in football is a foul.

 

As a comparison, Zamora's boot up red card was much worse, he knew the player was there, he knows raising your boot that high is likely to be a foul, he still decided to wave his leg in there and likely kick the bloke in the head for some reason. All McManaman did was clear the ball and have an accidental collision with the person trying to block the clearance.

[Sour Mash]

Halsey might have disallowed Rodriguez's goal at Reading, there was at least an argument that it was dangerous - no such argument can be made for Lallana's goal and it shouldn't have been disallowed by any referee. That's not an even argument.

 

Not sure anyone's actually said Halsey was disciplined. For the record I didn't even think the McManaman clearance was even a foul, never mind a red card and the worst tackle in the history of the universe or whatever boll0cks spin the media tried to put on it. It was just a clearance, proportionate force was used for whacking the ball up the pitch so there was no recklessness, he GOT the ball, then Haidara ran into his outstretched boot afterwards, and it was mostly Haidara's fault he got injured. There's no way McManaman's actions were "dangerous", or every non-tappy clearance ever made in football is a foul.

You've got to be joking. Or I'd suggest watching it again.

[This Charming Man]

Halsey might have disallowed Rodriguez's goal at Reading, there was at least an argument that it was dangerous - no such argument can be made for Lallana's goal and it shouldn't have been disallowed by any referee. That's not an even argument.

 

Not sure anyone's actually said Halsey was disciplined. For the record I didn't even think the McManaman clearance was even a foul, never mind a red card and the worst tackle in the history of the universe or whatever boll0cks spin the media tried to put on it. It was just a clearance, proportionate force was used for whacking the ball up the pitch so there was no recklessness, he GOT the ball, then Haidara ran into his outstretched boot afterwards, and it was mostly Haidara's fault he got injured. There's no way McManaman's actions were "dangerous", or every non-tappy clearance ever made in football is a foul.

 

As a comparison, Zamora's boot up red card was much worse, he knew the player was there, he knows raising your boot that high is likely to be a foul, he still decided to wave his leg in there and likely kick the bloke in the head for some reason. All McManaman did was clear the ball and have an accidental collision with the person trying to block the clearance.

 

Ridiculous.

[The9]

I've seen it plenty of times, either there's nothing in the laws of football that says you can't hoof a ball hard in which case it isn't a foul, or there is, and all players hoofing the ball need to be expected to get sent off for people running into their boot occasionally.

[Pat from Poole]

I would not advise arguing with The9 about the McManaman tackle against Newcastle. I have argued with him about it for quite a long time, he is fairly entrenched in his view on this.

[Chez]

Halsey wasn't going to give a free kick, but had not choice once the lino flagged. He could have conferred with him, but he just took the easy way out and just awarded the free kick. I don't think Halsey even knew what the lino was flagging about- a push or handball.

[The9]

I would not advise arguing with The9 about the McManaman tackle against Newcastle. I have argued with him about it for quite a long time, he is fairly entrenched in his view on this.

 

No "fairly" about it, my mind is absolutely made up. Modern football is full of wusses, illogical interpretations of the laws, pandering hive-mindset media whores and referees who issue cards based on outcomes not actions, which frankly, is not the point. I'll treat every incident on its merits, pertaining to the contents of the actual Laws of the Game, not whether someone gets injured as a result of a fair (albeit mis-hit) clearance.

Edited 22 April, 2013 by The9

[The9]

Halsey wasn't going to give a free kick, but had not choice once the lino flagged. He could have conferred with him, but he just took the easy way out and just awarded the free kick. I don't think Halsey even knew what the lino was flagging about- a push or handball.

 

I don't think the lino did either. He should at least have spoken to him. He did definitely flag for a foul (flag pointed up the pitch) and not the ball going out (flag pointed at the 6 yard box for a goal kick) didn't he ?

[This Charming Man]

I've seen it plenty of times, either there's nothing in the laws of football that says you can't hoof a ball hard in which case it isn't a foul, or there is, and all players hoofing the ball need to be expected to get sent off for people running into their boot occasionally.

 

I see where you're coming from now. A bit like when Suarez was walking around biting thin air yesterday and Ivanovic went and put his arm in his mouth.

[niceandfriendly]

I see where you're coming from now. A bit like when Suarez was walking around biting thin air yesterday and Ivanovic went and put his arm in his mouth.

 

That was bang out of order from Ivanovich to be fair. Likewise when Pistorious' missus ran into his bullets whilst he was practicing his shooting.

[Saint Garrett]

Halsey might have disallowed Rodriguez's goal at Reading, there was at least an argument that it was dangerous - no such argument can be made for Lallana's goal and it shouldn't have been disallowed by any referee. That's not an even argument.

 

Not sure anyone's actually said Halsey was disciplined. For the record I didn't even think the McManaman clearance was even a foul, never mind a red card and the worst tackle in the history of the universe or whatever boll0cks spin the media tried to put on it. It was just a clearance, proportionate force was used for whacking the ball up the pitch so there was no recklessness, he GOT the ball, then Haidara ran into his outstretched boot afterwards, and it was mostly Haidara's fault he got injured. There's no way McManaman's actions were "dangerous", or every non-tappy clearance ever made in football is a foul.

 

As a comparison, Zamora's boot up red card was much worse, he knew the player was there, he knows raising your boot that high is likely to be a foul, he still decided to wave his leg in there and likely kick the bloke in the head for some reason. All McManaman did was clear the ball and have an accidental collision with the person trying to block the clearance.

 

Thats ridiculous. Mcmanamans tackle was a leg breaker and deserved to be banned for a few games. Zamora's was bad as well.

[The9]

I see where you're coming from now. A bit like when Suarez was walking around biting thin air yesterday and Ivanovic went and put his arm in his mouth.

 

No, completely different to that. I'd be impressed if anyone could make a case that Suarez did that accidentally.

[The9]

Thats ridiculous. Mcmanamans tackle was a leg breaker and deserved to be banned for a few games. Zamora's was bad as well.

 

It wasn't even a tackle, it was a clearance.

[Saint Garrett]

It wasn't even a tackle, it was a clearance.

 

So if that happened to one of our players, you would be saying fair cop and good tackle? Crazy.

[Appy]

The9 has lost the ****ing plot.

[svetigpung]

i must admit while watching it on tv my first impression was that Lallana had knocked it in with his hand. No doubt thats what the lino thought had happen also.

And after all the replays on MOTD there was no good angle showing exactly what occured but the photos do seem to show the goalie just dropped it.

 

I am all for linos helping out , as they normally dont help the ref even when its right in front of them. However here he was miles from the action. Pillock!

[The9]

So if that happened to one of our players, you would be saying fair cop and good tackle? Crazy.

 

I would say it was a reckless and uncontrolled clearance because I'm biased towards Saints, and call for red cards after every hoofed clearance, to be consistent with my interpretation of that challenge. Why isn't everyone up in arms about these vicious clearances if they're all so dangerous and potentially career-ending ?

 

Just for the record, Haidara came back from this "horror tackle" within 3 weeks and has suffered no lasting damage. Unlike Steve Stone who wrecked his knee falling over backwards with no-one near him - which nowadays would probably lead to the player nearest him getting sent off for causing dangerous vibrations, or something.

 

Also, there's a very specific difference between the follow through on McManaman's challenge and, say, Gazza's first minute ball-kick and deliberate boot-into chest in the '91 FA Cup Final , which was definitely deliberate and pre-meditated, and nowadays would, and should, be a straight red as well. (3:55 here : )

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8h2dh623wZE&list=PL0B000D8E7CC76F4C

 

If you can't tell the difference between that and McManaman's, well that's probably the issue here.

Edited 22 April, 2013 by The9

[Saint Garrett]

Wow you've lost the plot. He was very very lucky he was only out for 3 weeks. It was a dreadful tackle which wasn't a clearance at all. You can tell by the shape of his swing. He went in side footed which wouldn't happen if he went in to clear it. He went in to catch him I've no doubt about that. Horror tackle which deserved to be banned for 5 games IMO.

[The9]

Wow you've lost the plot. He was very very lucky he was only out for 3 weeks. It was a dreadful tackle which wasn't a clearance at all. You can tell by the shape of his swing. He went in side footed which wouldn't happen if he went in to clear it. He went in to catch him I've no doubt about that. Horror tackle which deserved to be banned for 5 games IMO.

 

Utter nonsense.

[The9]

To clarify why he "it was a tackle" is nonsense...

 

I just rewatched it. A lot. McManaman's facing diagonally off the pitch and running at 45 degrees to "up the pitch", he needed to go side-footed to clear the ball and keep it in play, as if he'd hit it with the laces he'd have just whacked it against Haidara or straight off the pitch. So he went side-footed at first. Then...

 

...Both players are initially hurtling into the challenge rapidly, and after McManaman starts his swing to clear the ball, there is a small amount of backspin on the ball which means it is further from McManaman than he's expecting, so he ends up stretching and mostly (but not entirely) missing the ball. Haidara as the attacker quickly stops his forward motion to cut right, and is trying to finesse the ball rather than just get rid of it up the pitch, and is off balance, cutting the deflected ball across his body left footed back towards his own goal just after McManaman makes contact with it.

 

Because McManaman was then stretching as well as already mid-clearance and didn't read the spin, he barely clips the ball, and his leg is then dangling in midair with little weight on his standing leg due to the stretch.

 

Haidara choosing to cut the ball back puts him right in the way of the stretching McManaman, and what happens next is what happens when a fast moving player going forward collides with another fast moving player in the process of changing direction - which in this case is a messy collision between McManaman's kicking (right) foot pivoting off Haidara's calf on the Newcastle player's standing (left) leg, causing McManaman to lose balance on his left foot as the two players run into each other at high speed, and lifting McManaman into the air, thus making the collision look even worse than it was, as it gives the appearance of a two-footed challenge.

To get back to the original point about refs, what Halsey saw was someone trying to clear the ball, barely doing it, and two fast moving players colliding with each other inevitably, but nevertheless accidentally. However, according to the laws of the game it was a foul, because even kicking someone accidentally is now against the rules. I still don't think there was any intent to even tackle - I expect McManaman's intent was to knock the ball up the pitch and then fall over, possibly anticipating a glancing collision with Haidara in passing.

 

But that doesn't matter - unfortunately (IMO) referees are no longer asked to judge intent, they are asked to judge on, in this case, if someone "kicks an opponent in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force". This is a relatively new change following the dumping of "intent" and then "proportionate force" which were judged as legally dubious where FIFA or individual referees might be held accountable for injury in a court of law.

 

As we've seen, the "careless, reckless or using excessive force" clause now leads to referees adjudicating on outcomes (ie injury) and not the incident itself. Although Halsey didn't, presumably as he only saw "a collision" and decided both players took appropriate measures of care - which I guess you have to say is wrong.

 

So there you go, checked the Laws, and Halsey got it wrong according to the Laws, and though I don't think that's the way challenges should be judged, can't argue with that. I still don't think it was a "horror tackle", but it WAS a foul.

[Pat from Poole]

To clarify why he "it was a tackle" is nonsense...

 

I just rewatched it. A lot. McManaman's facing diagonally off the pitch and running at 45 degrees to "up the pitch", he needed to go side-footed to clear the ball and keep it in play, as if he'd hit it with the laces he'd have just whacked it against Haidara or straight off the pitch. So he went side-footed at first. Then...

 

...Both players are initially hurtling into the challenge rapidly, and after McManaman starts his swing to clear the ball, there is a small amount of backspin on the ball which means it is further from McManaman than he's expecting, so he ends up stretching and mostly (but not entirely) missing the ball. Haidara as the attacker quickly stops his forward motion to cut right, and is trying to finesse the ball rather than just get rid of it up the pitch, and is off balance, cutting the deflected ball across his body left footed back towards his own goal just after McManaman makes contact with it.

 

Because McManaman was then stretching as well as already mid-clearance and didn't read the spin, he barely clips the ball, and his leg is then dangling in midair with little weight on his standing leg due to the stretch.

 

Haidara choosing to cut the ball back puts him right in the way of the stretching McManaman, and what happens next is what happens when a fast moving player going forward collides with another fast moving player in the process of changing direction - which in this case is a messy collision between McManaman's kicking (right) foot pivoting off Haidara's calf on the Newcastle player's standing (left) leg, causing McManaman to lose balance on his left foot as the two players run into each other at high speed, and lifting McManaman into the air, thus making the collision look even worse than it was, as it gives the appearance of a two-footed challenge.

To get back to the original point about refs, what Halsey saw was someone trying to clear the ball, barely doing it, and two fast moving players colliding with each other inevitably, but nevertheless accidentally. However, according to the laws of the game it was a foul, because even kicking someone accidentally is now against the rules. I still don't think there was any intent to even tackle - I expect McManaman's intent was to knock the ball up the pitch and then fall over, possibly anticipating a glancing collision with Haidara in passing.

 

But that doesn't matter - unfortunately (IMO) referees are no longer asked to judge intent, they are asked to judge on, in this case, if someone "kicks an opponent in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force". This is a relatively new change following the dumping of "intent" and then "proportionate force" which were judged as legally dubious where FIFA or individual referees might be held accountable for injury in a court of law.

 

As we've seen, the "careless, reckless or using excessive force" clause now leads to referees adjudicating on outcomes (ie injury) and not the incident itself. Although Halsey didn't, presumably as he only saw "a collision" and decided both players took appropriate measures of care - which I guess you have to say is wrong.

 

So there you go, checked the Laws, and Halsey got it wrong according to the Laws, and though I don't think that's the way challenges should be judged, can't argue with that. I still don't think it was a "horror tackle", but it WAS a foul.

 

Halsey didn't see it, one of the other players was in the way. If he had, he would have sent him off.

[Sour Mash]

Utter nonsense.

He's right though, you've either lost the plot or are on some sort of wind up for attention.

[The9]

Halsey didn't see it, one of the other players was in the way. If he had, he would have sent him off.

 

What was the lino doing ? Sleeping ?

[The9]

He's right though, you've either lost the plot or are on some sort of wind up for attention.

 

Neither, though I do occasionally like to point out inconsistencies in logical arguments around the Laws.

 

For instance, Rafael stuck his boot out a couple of inches off the floor to cushion a high ball in Man U v Villa, and in doing so, booted Agbonlahor on the foot. Rafael was completely oblivious to the Villa player, was clearly just controlling the ball in a passive and routine manner, but there WAS contact, and Agbonlahor was hopping around in pain for a good few seconds. According to the Laws of the game, Rafael was at the very least careless because he failed to take care that Agbonlahor was injured in the collision (because he didn't know he was there) and a free kick should have been given and Rafael booked.

 

That is obviously an absolute nonsense (especially if you saw the innocuous nature of the piece of control) and it simply isn't possible for players to be in situations where they are able to "take care" in what is still, at the moment, a contact sport. But the yellow card and free kick it is the only possible interpretation as soon as you take intent out and suddenly bring needing to have care for your opponent into the equation.

 

The McManaman situation is an extension of that. If he'd cleanly cleared the ball, not clipped it, and the two had run into each other with a similarly messy collision, legs flailing and serious injury to one player from an accidental collision where the ball was cleanly played, should that also be a red card ? The player(s) have clearly been reckless in going for a challenge knowing there would be a collision, so isn't the right decision according to the laws of the game to send them both off for recklessness ?

[Sour Mash]

Neither, though I do occasionally like to point out inconsistencies in logical arguments around the Laws.

 

For instance, Rafael stuck his boot out a couple of inches off the floor to cushion a high ball in Man U v Villa, and in doing so, booted Agbonlahor on the foot. Rafael was completely oblivious to the Villa player, was clearly just controlling the ball in a passive and routine manner, but there WAS contact, and Agbonlahor was hopping around in pain for a good few seconds. According to the Laws of the game, Rafael was at the very least careless because he failed to take care that Agbonlahor was injured in the collision (because he didn't know he was there) and a free kick should have been given and Rafael booked.

 

That is obviously an absolute nonsense (especially if you saw the innocuous nature of the piece of control) and it simply isn't possible for players to be in situations where they are able to "take care" in what is still, at the moment, a contact sport. But the yellow card and free kick it is the only possible interpretation as soon as you take intent out and suddenly bring needing to have care for your opponent into the equation.

 

The McManaman situation is an extension of that. If he'd cleanly cleared the ball, not clipped it, and the two had run into each other with a similarly messy collision, legs flailing and serious injury to one player from an accidental collision where the ball was cleanly played, should that also be a red card ? The player(s) have clearly been reckless in going for a challenge knowing there would be a collision, so isn't the right decision according to the laws of the game to send them both off for recklessness ?

No, because one of the players - McManaman - barely touches the ball, but goes in studs up, two-thirds up Haidara's leg at pace - he doesn't clear the ball, he doesn't come close to clearing it. It's a sending off all day long, anyone can see that.

[The9]

No, because one of the players - McManaman - barely touches the ball, but goes in studs up, two-thirds up Haidara's leg at pace - he doesn't clear the ball, he doesn't come close to clearing it. It's a sending off all day long, anyone can see that.

 

The point is that the element of that challenge which makes it a sending off as it is specified in the Laws is still present in an identical challenge where he clears the ball and the players just collide. The Laws don't make any provision at all for "studs up" "two thirds up leg" or "at pace", just "care" and "recklessness".

 

Also, if Halsey "couldn't see the challenge", surely he saw the "pace" involved and that there was a collision, and didn't need to have seen the contact with Haidara to evaluate recklessness if he could see McManaman running into a 50/50 at that speed ?

 

I see to recall Marsden getting sent off for a two footed lunge which landed a foot short of Vieira at St Mary's once... I guess that was the "attempting to kick an opponent intent" days.

[Sour Mash]

The point is that the element of that challenge which makes it a sending off as it is specified in the Laws is still present in an identical challenge where he clears the ball and the players just collide. The Laws don't make any provision at all for "studs up" "two thirds up leg" or "at pace", just "care" and "recklessness".

 

Also, if Halsey "couldn't see the challenge", surely he saw the "pace" involved and that there was a collision, and didn't need to have seen the contact with Haidara to evaluate recklessness if he could see McManaman running into a 50/50 at that speed ?

 

I see to recall Marsden getting sent off for a two footed lunge which landed a foot short of Vieira at St Mary's once... I guess that was the "attempting to kick an opponent intent" days.

I'm surprised you don't know, but to clarify, Serious Foul Play which is a Sending Off offence is classed as "a tackle that endangers the safety of an opponent must be sanctioned as serious foul play" - McMannaman's tackle did that, also "any player who lunges at an opponent in challenging for the ball from the front, from the side or from behind using one or both legs, with excessive force and endangering the safety of an opponent is guilty of serious foul play" - McMannaman's tackle did that. It's a clear sending off.

[PhilippineSaint]

Bring back the 70's when football was a game played by men and watched by youngsters and those past it to play on a saturday. A tackle meant you could take the ball player and ref into the net at the same time and it was a goal

[Appy]

What was the lino doing ? Sleeping ?

 

He was 60 yards away, you really are making an idiot of yourself.

[Pat from Poole]

I did wonder what The9's stance was on the Giroud sending-off on Saturday.

 

To me, that was a slightly less bad tackle, as he seemed to me to get a lot more of the ball than McManaman v Newcastle, but again I thought it was a red card, as the follow-through was potentially career-ending for the opponent.