Question for the referees on here


Status
Not open for further replies.
Definitely should be a red card for that, he denied an actual goal not just an opportunity. I think that part of the rule about it excluding a keeper who deliberately handles in his own area is there to state the obvious, i.e. that the keeper is allowed to deliberately handle the ball anyway as long as he is in his own area. Again it is always going to be down to interpretation, but if you get players sent off for making two footed tackles and getting the ball then that should be a red. We'd all be in uproar if it happened to us last week.
 
Definitely should be a red card for that, he denied an actual goal not just an opportunity. I think that part of the rule about it excluding a keeper who deliberately handles in his own area is there to state the obvious, i.e. that the keeper is allowed to deliberately handle the ball anyway as long as he is in his own area. Again it is always going to be down to interpretation, but if you get players sent off for making two footed tackles and getting the ball then that should be a red. We'd all be in uproar if it happened to us last week.
But, if you like up, the rules state it is not a red card... So how should it definitely be a red card?
 
But, if you like up, the rules state it is not a red card... So how should it definitely be a red card?

I think peados and rapists should be hung , but the laws of the country state they serve time in prison. Looking at that objectively it should be a red card.
 
Definitely should be a red card for that, he denied an actual goal not just an opportunity. I think that part of the rule about it excluding a keeper who deliberately handles in his own area is there to state the obvious, i.e. that the keeper is allowed to deliberately handle the ball anyway as long as he is in his own area. Again it is always going to be down to interpretation, but if you get players sent off for making two footed tackles and getting the ball then that should be a red. We'd all be in uproar if it happened to us last week.

We wouldn't like, because we know the rules.
 
We wouldn't like, because we know the rules.

As I've stated above though I'm not sure that rule is referring to situations like this.

"• denying the opposing team a goal or an obvious goalscoring opportunity
by deliberately handling the ball (this does not apply to a goalkeeper within
his own penalty area)"

I think it's just stating the obvious that the keeper is allowed to handle the ball in his area.
 
As I've stated above though I'm not sure that rule is referring to situations like this.

"• denying the opposing team a goal or an obvious goalscoring opportunity
by deliberately handling the ball (this does not apply to a goalkeeper within
his own penalty area)"

I think it's just stating the obvious that the keeper is allowed to handle the ball in his area.

I agree that part does not refer to the situation today
 
As I've stated above though I'm not sure that rule is referring to situations like this.

"• denying the opposing team a goal or an obvious goalscoring opportunity
by deliberately handling the ball (this does not apply to a goalkeeper within
his own penalty area)"

I think it's just stating the obvious that the keeper is allowed to handle the ball in his area.

Then why have a backpass rule if it can't be applied?
 
Definitely should be a red card for that, he denied an actual goal not just an opportunity. I think that part of the rule about it excluding a keeper who deliberately handles in his own area is there to state the obvious, i.e. that the keeper is allowed to deliberately handle the ball anyway as long as he is in his own area. Again it is always going to be down to interpretation, but if you get players sent off for making two footed tackles and getting the ball then that should be a red. We'd all be in uproar if it happened to us last week.

Seeing as the rules say it shouldn't I am staggered you have come to that conclusion
 
It is a technical offence, the same as being offside or doing a foul throw. It isn't a caution able offence.

Gordon prevented one against Wolves, from a Richardson back pass, and there was no caution.
 
that Graham Poll link has convinced me.

Now on to important matters, Dowd has proved himself shite yet again, boiled my piss when he checked his watch after the walking bog brush's 3rd or 4th sly foul and decided in wasn't late enough in the match to dish out a card
 
It can't be handball he is a goalie and he was in the penalty area.
Anyway what is he supposed to do ? How did he know the ref was going to rule it a deliberate backpass.

The ball was played back to him by our player it was clearly a pass to Mig & it's only a goal scoring opportunity if the attacking team are denied
 
At the time I couldn't understand why Mig was shown a yellow, then the award to Everton was an indirect free kick. Being in the NWC, I thought I must have missed something.

As someone mentioned earlier, it's a technical offence and not a foul.

Very strange decision by Dowd.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top