Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Just viewed the red card for Puyol and there is only one single word for it:

0 views
Skip to first unread message

Quincy

unread,
Apr 2, 2010, 1:32:44 PM4/2/10
to
Ridiculous!

Which donkey made the rules that you get a red card for this but you
hardly get a yellow card if you go straight into a players feet and
health?

KNIFE!

unread,
Apr 2, 2010, 4:22:04 PM4/2/10
to

Fabregas is a secret German?


Abubakr

unread,
Apr 2, 2010, 5:37:34 PM4/2/10
to

It's a crazy rule. How a spot kick 12 paces out is "a denial of a goal-
scoring opportunity" as opposed to being under severe defensive
pressure when trying to volley a dropping ball that you may or may not
reach, as would have been the case if Puyol hadn't, quite accidently I
might add, tangled with Fabregas, is beyond me.

Alex Heney

unread,
Apr 2, 2010, 5:48:13 PM4/2/10
to
On Fri, 2 Apr 2010 10:32:44 -0700 (PDT), Quincy <ab...@email.de>
wrote:

Rubbish on the latter.

The latter very frequently gets a red card, even when it was a
perfectly legitimate tackle, which didn't actually make any direct
contact.


But the rule requiring a red card for *any* foul which prevents a
clear goal scoring opportunity is simple wrong, I agree.

They got that rule right when they first introduced it, when it was
intended only to catch so called "professional" fouls - which meant
they had to be clearly deliberate rather than just a bit careless or
clumsy.

The later change to any foul was very much a retrograde step in my
view.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Oxymoron: Removable sticker.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

FF

unread,
Apr 3, 2010, 1:32:25 PM4/3/10
to
Alex Heney wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Apr 2010 10:32:44 -0700 (PDT), Quincy <ab...@email.de>
> wrote:
>
> >Ridiculous!
> >
> >Which donkey made the rules that you get a red card for this but you
> >hardly get a yellow card if you go straight into a players feet and
> >health?
>
> Rubbish on the latter.
>
> The latter very frequently gets a red card, even when it was a
> perfectly legitimate tackle, which didn't actually make any direct
> contact.
>
> But the rule requiring a red card for *any* foul which prevents a
> clear goal scoring opportunity is simple wrong, I agree.
>
> They got that rule right when they first introduced it, when it was
> intended only to catch so called "professional" fouls - which meant
> they had to be clearly deliberate rather than just a bit careless or
> clumsy.
>
> The later change to any foul was very much a retrograde step in my
> view.

Spot on penalty, spot on dismissal. This is how all refs should do it,
always. Way to go Busacca.

MH

unread,
Apr 3, 2010, 6:09:08 PM4/3/10
to

A penalty perhaps, but the red card seemed ridiculous. If Puyol was the
last man, then Fabregas was offside.

Alkamista

unread,
Apr 3, 2010, 8:07:41 PM4/3/10
to
> last man, then Fabregas was offside.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Not necessarily. A defender on the near side of the pitch could have
been could've kept Fabregas onside even though he was in no position
to impede Fabregas in any way. In that scenario technically Puyol
would still be last man. Mind you I dont know if there was such a
defender, I am just countering your point. I also think the red card
was extremely harsh.

Opry phantom

unread,
Apr 4, 2010, 2:04:21 AM4/4/10
to
> always. Way to go Busacca.- Hide quoted text -
>

Who is *out* for Barca at NOUS?

Big Les Wade

unread,
Apr 4, 2010, 7:31:36 AM4/4/10
to
Alex Heney <m...@privacy.net> posted

>On Fri, 2 Apr 2010 10:32:44 -0700 (PDT), Quincy <ab...@email.de>
>wrote:
>
>>Ridiculous!
>>
>>Which donkey made the rules that you get a red card for this but you
>>hardly get a yellow card if you go straight into a players feet and
>>health?
>
>Rubbish on the latter.
>
>The latter very frequently gets a red card, even when it was a
>perfectly legitimate tackle, which didn't actually make any direct
>contact.
>
>
>But the rule requiring a red card for *any* foul which prevents a
>clear goal scoring opportunity is simple wrong, I agree.

That isn't the rule. The only fouls which *require* the ref to send the
player off in these circumstances are holding and handball. For all
other fouls, it's up to the ref's discretion.

--
Les
Criticising the government is not illegal, but often on investigation turns out
to be linked to serious offences.

The Truth

unread,
Apr 5, 2010, 9:25:04 AM4/5/10
to
On 4 Apr., 13:31, Big Les Wade <L...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> Alex Heney <m...@privacy.net> posted
>
>
>
> >On Fri, 2 Apr 2010 10:32:44 -0700 (PDT), Quincy <ab...@email.de>
> >wrote:
>
> >>Ridiculous!
>
> >>Which donkey made the rules that you get a red card for this but you
> >>hardly get a yellow card if you go straight into a players feet and
> >>health?
>
> >Rubbish on the latter.
>
> >The latter very frequently gets a red card, even when it was a
> >perfectly legitimate tackle, which didn't actually make any direct
> >contact.
>
> >But the rule requiring a red card for *any* foul which prevents a
> >clear goal scoring opportunity is simple wrong, I agree.
>
> That isn't the rule. The only fouls which *require* the ref to send the
> player off in these circumstances are holding and handball. For all
> other fouls, it's up to the ref's discretion.

Even for handball it shoudn't be that clear. There are different
grades of "deliberation". I

Alex Heney

unread,
Apr 5, 2010, 4:40:41 PM4/5/10
to
On Sun, 4 Apr 2010 12:31:36 +0100, Big Les Wade <L...@nowhere.com>
wrote:

>Alex Heney <m...@privacy.net> posted


>>On Fri, 2 Apr 2010 10:32:44 -0700 (PDT), Quincy <ab...@email.de>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Ridiculous!
>>>
>>>Which donkey made the rules that you get a red card for this but you
>>>hardly get a yellow card if you go straight into a players feet and
>>>health?
>>
>>Rubbish on the latter.
>>
>>The latter very frequently gets a red card, even when it was a
>>perfectly legitimate tackle, which didn't actually make any direct
>>contact.
>>
>>
>>But the rule requiring a red card for *any* foul which prevents a
>>clear goal scoring opportunity is simple wrong, I agree.
>
>That isn't the rule. The only fouls which *require* the ref to send the
>player off in these circumstances are holding and handball. For all
>other fouls, it's up to the ref's discretion.

Sorry Les, but that is simply not true. I wish it was.

From
http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/affederation/federation/81/42/36/lawsofthegameen.pdf

Page number 35 (page 37 of the pdf), under Sending-Off Offences
--------------------------------
denying an obvious goal-scoring opportunity to an opponent moving
towards the player’s goal by an offence punishable by a free kick or a
penalty kick
-----------------------------------


--
Alex Heney, Global Villager

If you can't debug it, deplug it.

Big Les Wade

unread,
Apr 5, 2010, 5:01:49 PM4/5/10
to
Alex Heney <m...@privacy.net> posted
>On Sun, 4 Apr 2010 12:31:36 +0100, Big Les Wade <L...@nowhere.com>
>wrote:
>>Alex Heney <m...@privacy.net> posted
>>>But the rule requiring a red card for *any* foul which prevents a
>>>clear goal scoring opportunity is simple wrong, I agree.
>>
>>That isn't the rule. The only fouls which *require* the ref to send the
>>player off in these circumstances are holding and handball. For all
>>other fouls, it's up to the ref's discretion.
>
>Sorry Les, but that is simply not true. I wish it was.
>
>From
>http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/affederation/federation/81/42/36/lawsoft
>hegameen.pdf
>
>Page number 35 (page 37 of the pdf), under Sending-Off Offences
>--------------------------------
>denying an obvious goal-scoring opportunity to an opponent moving
>towards the player’s goal by an offence punishable by a free kick or a
>penalty kick
>-----------------------------------

Yes, but that section does not say that the player *must* be sent off
for that offence. Only "A player, substitute or substituted player is
sent off if he commits any of the following seven offences:"

I agree that (like all previous versions of the FA rules) it is
ambiguous on its own. However you have to take it in conjunction with
other sections where it is made clear that handling and holding to
prevent a goal qualify as sending-off offences; for other fouls, it is
not stated.

Quincy

unread,
Apr 5, 2010, 5:08:15 PM4/5/10
to

I still don't get it. Before there was the roal for such a goal-
preventing foul:

Free kick + Red card
OR
Penalty + Yellow card

I found this very consistent and don't know why it should be changed.

Alex Heney

unread,
Apr 6, 2010, 7:41:31 PM4/6/10
to
On Mon, 5 Apr 2010 22:01:49 +0100, Big Les Wade <L...@nowhere.com>
wrote:

>Alex Heney <m...@privacy.net> posted
>>On Sun, 4 Apr 2010 12:31:36 +0100, Big Les Wade <L...@nowhere.com>
>>wrote:
>>>Alex Heney <m...@privacy.net> posted
>>>>But the rule requiring a red card for *any* foul which prevents a
>>>>clear goal scoring opportunity is simple wrong, I agree.
>>>
>>>That isn't the rule. The only fouls which *require* the ref to send the
>>>player off in these circumstances are holding and handball. For all
>>>other fouls, it's up to the ref's discretion.
>>
>>Sorry Les, but that is simply not true. I wish it was.
>>
>>From
>>http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/affederation/federation/81/42/36/lawsoft
>>hegameen.pdf
>>
>>Page number 35 (page 37 of the pdf), under Sending-Off Offences
>>--------------------------------
>>denying an obvious goal-scoring opportunity to an opponent moving
>>towards the player’s goal by an offence punishable by a free kick or a
>>penalty kick
>>-----------------------------------
>
>Yes, but that section does not say that the player *must* be sent off
>for that offence. Only "A player, substitute or substituted player is
>sent off if he commits any of the following seven offences:"
>

Sorry, but I disagree with your interpretation. "A player is sent off
if..." means that if he commits any of those offences, then he MUST be
sent off.

If it didn't mean that, then it would say "A player may be sent off
if...".

And also, if it didn't mean that, then there would be NO compulsory
sending off situations, not even for two yellow cards.

And neither the referees nor the professional commentators seem to
think that the ref has any discretion (other than that involved in
deciding whether it was a "clear goal scoring opportunity" of course)

>I agree that (like all previous versions of the FA rules) it is
>ambiguous on its own. However you have to take it in conjunction with
>other sections where it is made clear that handling and holding to
>prevent a goal qualify as sending-off offences; for other fouls, it is
>not stated.

Actually, it doesn't mention "holding". The previous point says:
------------------------------------------
denying the opposing team a goal or an obvious goal-scoring
opportunity by deliberately handling the ball (this does not apply to
a goalkeeper within his own penalty area)
-----------------------------------------

And I believe that the only reason handball is specified separately is
that it includes preventing an actual goal, rather than just a clear
goal scoring opportunity. It is the only type of foul which can
actually prevent the ball going into the net.


--
Alex Heney, Global Villager

Never say, "Oops!"; always say, "Ah, interesting!"

Alex Heney

unread,
Apr 6, 2010, 7:43:52 PM4/6/10
to
On Mon, 5 Apr 2010 14:08:15 -0700 (PDT), Quincy <ab...@email.de>
wrote:

>On 5 Apr., 23:01, Big Les Wade <L...@nowhere.com> wrote:

It was never part of the rules.

Nor was it ever a correct way to apply the rules.

When they first brought in the rule, it was that any *deliberate*
offence preventing a clear goal scoring opportunity was a red card -
regardless of whether the offence occurred inside or outside the
penalty area.


--
Alex Heney, Global Villager

Circular logic will only make you dizzy. - Peri

Quincy

unread,
Apr 6, 2010, 8:19:15 PM4/6/10
to

So then post a link where a player got a red AND a penalty before -
let's say- 1990!

Alex Heney

unread,
Apr 7, 2010, 5:37:41 PM4/7/10
to
On Tue, 6 Apr 2010 17:19:15 -0700 (PDT), Quincy <ab...@email.de>
wrote:

So you want me to post a link to a football story on the internet from
before said internet really got started.

And from a time which IIRC is before the relevant rule was first
introduced anyhow?

What is your point?


--
Alex Heney, Global Villager

How do you make Windows faster ? Throw it harder

0 new messages