super-niall
Striker
By committing the foul a goal scoring chance was denied. Fact. The ball went in. So how has the arsenal player remained on the pitch?
Corruption. The player should have went.
It's the FA. What else does anyone expect?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
By committing the foul a goal scoring chance was denied. Fact. The ball went in. So how has the arsenal player remained on the pitch?
I don't "buy" into your points marra. No offense. I didnt see it that way.
Anyways here's the rule.
The referee may play advantage whenever an infringement or offence occurs.
The referee should consider the following circumstances in deciding whether to apply the advantage or stop play:
~ The severity of the offense. If its a straight red then you can stop play and issue the red.
~ the position where the offence was committed: the closer to the opponent's goal, the more effective it can be
~the chances of an immediate, promising attack
~ the atmosphere of the match
The decision to penalise the original offence must be taken within a few
seconds.
If the offence warrants a caution, it must be issued at the next stoppage.
However, unless there is a clear advantage, it is recommended that the referee stops play and cautions the player immediately. If the caution is NOT issued at the next stoppage, it cannot be shown later.
It can't get any clearer mate.
It wasn't allowed because Altidore is a foreign player against an English player, oh hang on.....[DOUBLEPOST=1379187851][/DOUBLEPOST]I'm so f***ing angry about all this, if we had got beat fair and square then so be it, but when it should have been 2-2 and playing against 10 men surely we had a chance to win the game.Refs afraid of upsetting the big teams (and by extension the FA).[DOUBLEPOST=1379173352][/DOUBLEPOST]Refs afraid of upsetting the big teams (and by extension the FA).
Well, from my point of view (the bullet-points in my last post) you've summed up perfectly why I agree with the ref's call.
You have made the rule more clear to me though. I had no idea the atmosphere of the match made a difference to the advantage rule.
Edit: Oh, and thanks for posting that.
No worries mate.
What I can't get my head around is how you can read that and affirm your views even more? I'm simply flabbergasted that you could read that and not hate the ref for making such a huge error. HE PLAYED NO ADVANTAGE. Its in plain simple English that he should have waited and seen until Jozy had no advantage before pulling them back.
How can you not see this?
Indeed.
Imagine the lad had cleared off the line, we got a free kick and Gardner put it in the top corner. There'd be no issue.
The advantage rule is a difficult one.
Corruption doesn't even need to be discussed. Refereeing is a very very hard job. They do occasionally get things wrong.
In my opinion he did. He waited a second or two while the foul was going on, so that he could see whether we'd get an advantage, and then when Altidore turned his back on the ball to face Sagna, assumed that the move was over and blew the whistle.
Corruption. Been saying it for years.
In my opinion he did. He waited a second or two while the foul was going on, so that he could see whether we'd get an advantage, and then when Altidore turned his back on the ball to face Sagna, assumed that the move was over and blew the whistle.
Explain your corruption theory and how it is propogated and allowed to continue.
A second or two? He was on goal in 3-4 seconds man.
Whichever way you see it, the ref has had a mare.I'm not sure why your playing the devil's advocate so vehemently.
With pleasure.
It's no longer in the Premier League's interest for it to be a competition. Because it's such global moneyspinner, certain things have to be guaranteed for the moneyspinning to continue. Would your average Malaysian, Arab or American be interested in West Brom v Stoke, for example, battling it out over the last half dozen games for second place? Course not, they've never heard of them. They want the glamour names, those who were successful during the last cycle (because teams used to have cycles of success, remember?) to stay up there, or the money goes away.
It's very simple to nudge a football match in the way you want it to go. A decision here or there, stopping one team's momentum and encouraging another. Add to that the fact that referees have no consequences to their actions other than a week refereeing in the championship, and the question becomes why we believe that it's not corrupt. It's more and more blatant every year. This is why I want every technological aid at their disposal, let's make them more accountable, everything can be hidden behind 'I didn't see it clearly'. Well we all saw it clearly ten seconds afterwards, why can't they?
The ref definitely had a mare, I'm with you on that one. Sagna should certainly have been sent off.
I'm not playing devil's advocate as such, I'm just saying I can see how it happened the way it did with regard to the advantage side of the incident.
Once the ref had blown his whistle he certainly couldn't have then awarded the goal, and on another day he might've been slower blowing his whistle and it would've been a goal.
So do you think refs are told by the powers that be to favor big teams?
I think there's certainly pressure of some description, whether it's direct or indirect I don't know. How often do you see an outrageous decision like this afternoon's go against a big club when it's playing a little club? I'm struggling to think of any.
I think there's certainly pressure of some description, whether it's direct or indirect I don't know. How often do you see an outrageous decision like this afternoon's go against a big club when it's playing a little club? I'm struggling to think of any.
So when you think about the amount of refs that have taken charge of a PL game over say 10 years you think not one would have come out and said what you are saying happens.
I would find it staggering, in fact impossible that the FA or PL have told any officials to favour any teams. By now you would have at least one whistle blower who would want to make a name for himself. Its a nonsense conspiracy theory imo
I seem to remember that the referee's payoff after retirement is dependent on them signing a confidentiality agreement. This came up a couple of months back, can't remember the ref in question tbh but he refused it.
Why would a referee need to sign a confidentiality agreement? And why is their money dependent on it?