Swindon v Hartlepool Matchday Thread

[ronnie21]

i must have missed the games he (Kanu) has managed to deliver in then. He certainly has a better physical presence than McNamee (so do Munchkins), he has quality until he plays the final ball/shoot. Then he is gash.

Agree Amankawah was doing well. Strange one that.

I meant that several of them had a poor game tonight, I have not seen anything in Kanu to get excited about!

[RobertT]

you'd think some sort of motion towards the ball and offending high foot would have to be brought it to change it to dangerous play...

Yep, some sort of intent for it to be dangerous, rather than just sticking a boot in the air.  It wasn't, in pretty much everyones opinion, but it still allows a stupid ref the scope.

[Batch]

Doesn't have to be contact to change it from Dangerous Play, it can be a direct free kick if the Ref believed the player to know the opposition player was in proximity.  It's hardly ever given, but I have seen it before end in a direct free kick.  As I said, if the ref is giving everything it doesn't take a genius to understand you stop commiting any borderline fouls.  Not saying it would be given as a penalty ever again, but Ifil was playing into his hands.

That's not how the Laws read,

Playing in a dangerous manner is defi ned as any action that, while
trying to play the ball, threatens injury to someone (including the
player himself). It is committed with an opponent nearby and prevents
the opponent from playing the ball for fear of injury.
A scissors or bicycle kick is permissible provided that, in the opinion of
the referee, it is not dangerous to an opponent.
Playing in a dangerous manner involves no physical contact between
the players. If there is physical contact, the action becomes an offence
punishable with a direct free kick or penalty kick. In the case of physical
contact, the referee should carefully consider the high probability that
misconduct has also been committed.
Disciplinary sanctions
• If a player plays in a dangerous manner in a “normal” challenge,
the referee should not take any disciplinary action. If the action is
made with obvious risk of injury, the referee should caution the
player
• If a player denies an obvious goal-scoring opportunity by playing
in a dangerous manner, the referee should send off the player
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.

Ifil was playing like a prize dong for much of the second half. And the amount of free kicks we gave away around the box was unbelievable.

[ronnie21]

Yep, some sort of intent for it to be dangerous, rather than just sticking a boot in the air.  It wasn't, in pretty much everyones opinion, but it still allows a bent ref the scope.

Agreed

[adje]

  Only a handful should survive the cull in the summer.

That,unfortunately,is becoming more and more obvious each game

[Bennett]

Yep, some sort of intent for it to be dangerous, rather than just sticking a boot in the air.  It wasn't, in pretty much everyones opinion, but it still allows a stupid ref the scope.

i can see where you're coming from...on that basis i think most attempts to kick a ball should be outlawed...atleast we'd end up with 11 "men" on the pitch after each game

[RobertT]

Wrong, only obstruction in the box can be classed as an offense that can be a pen in the box but an IDFK elsewhere.

only becomes a direct offense if he makes contact with the attacker in which case it changes to kicking an opponent.

thats still dangerous play, or else every high foot with players 10 mts away would be given on that description

No, the player would have to be in very close proximity and the ref would have to believe the defender was trying to be dangerous as opposed to his actions simply being dangerous.  It's not an iterpetation that fits with tonight, but it's not black and white, and when a ref is intent on blowing up every 20 secs you run the risk.

It's not that being in the box is the issue, that offence can be a direct free kick anywhere on the field and I have seen it given more than once.

[Bennett]

who's going to forward this to the FA fao Mr A Hall (could possible be pronounced Hole)

[pauld]

Agree with Jan and Nemo. I'd deduct points from both teams for bringing the game into disrepute by being utter shite and make the ref physically eat a rule book before sending him to referee IDF V Hamas "friendlies". He was as clueless as everyone has said but we got exactly what we deserved from that game - nothing.

[DiV]

the ball bounced up and Ifil booted is clear because we were under pressure.

thats as complicated as it gets, Ifil kicked the ball.

None of this dangerous play shite, or whether a player was close to him. Ifil got punished for kicking the ball.

Worst fucking decision I have ever seen and I saw us sign Aaron Brown!!

[RobertT]

Batch, the rules on direct free kick also mention dangerous, and Ref's are given guidance notes beyond the text of those laws.  Ultimately they are allowed an "opinion" on whether the play was dangerous or whether the player was trying to be dangerous (or something like that).  high feet ends up as indirect 99.99% of the time, and if no contact is made it's hardly ever anything but indirect.  If the ref thought you were sticking the boot up knowingly trying to impede a player, rather than just an attempt to clear the ball, then he can use the Direct Free kick.  As I've said, tonight's challenge should have been Indirect, the ref was wrong, but Ifil should not have offered him the opportunity in the first place.  We could still have conceeded from a free kick, just as Brez could and possibly should have saved the penalty.

[Bennett]

you're forgetting it was outside the box dv

[Div]

No, the player would have to be in very close proximity and the ref would have to believe the defender was trying to be dangerous as opposed to his actions simply being dangerous.  It's not an iterpetation that fits with tonight, but it's not black and white, and when a ref is intent on blowing up every 20 secs you run the risk.

It's not that being in the box is the issue, that offence can be a direct free kick anywhere on the field and I have seen it given more than once.

So your introducing a brand new law, direct free kicks for purposely creating Dangerous play; indirect free kciks for accidental dangerous foul play.

You know how wrong that is? whether you are purposely doing it or not, its always indirect.

bored of explaining now

[DiV]

doesnt matter if it was on the fucking moon.

In football you are allowed to kick the ball.

[Batch]

I can't see the word dangerous in the direct free kick section, but I'll leave it there Rob. It doesn't matter now, it's done.

doesnt matter if it was on the fucking moon.

In football you are allowed to kick the ball.

I agree, but you could so how it could be argued his boot was high thus preventing an attacker heading the ball.