Guest Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 [size=1][size=1]An indirect free kick is also awarded to the opposing team if, in the opinion of[/size][/size][size=1][size=1]the referee, a player:[/size][/size][size=1][size=1]• impedes the progress of an opponent[/size][/size][size=1][size=1]Straight from the FA Website. I rest my case.[/size][/size] Impedes the progess of a player with no physical contact = indirect free kick. In the case of physical contact, the act becomes a offence punished by peno or direct free kick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GboroRam Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 if we keep working on this theory, maybe we can turn it into a sending off for the Forest player and a penalty to us? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianm Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 I think it looked a stonewall penalty, and a red card. Just saying. Well you are wrong definite penalty no argument but the Red Card was a wrong decision intent and obvious goal-scoring opportunity are stated clearly in the rules and this incident there was clear doubt on both these criteria. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donny Ram Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 Just on a similar note Ashley Cole received a yellow card for a foul on Chicarito and no penalty was awarded. I know it was Man U so this is the right decision, but how do you explain the logic of this? Surely giving Cole a yellow card shows there was intent in the challenge and a penalty should have been awarded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RIMBAUD Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 Well you are wrong definite penalty no argument but the Red Card was a wrong decision intent and obvious goal-scoring opportunity are stated clearly in the rules and this incident there was clear doubt on both these criteria. I agree - i'm not even convinced miller would have got it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VulcanRam Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 Just on a similar note Ashley Cole received a yellow card for a foul on Chicarito and no penalty was awarded. I know it was Man U so this is the right decision, but how do you explain the logic of this? Surely giving Cole a yellow card shows there was intent in the challenge and a penalty should have been awarded. As I said in my earlier comment, no penalty because the ball was already out of play when the foul was committed (that was the reason they gave, anyway) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G STAR RAM Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 Easy! When it is comitted by a forward against a defender in his own area. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RamNut Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 not sure it was a pen a 50:50 collision ? frank took one to the nuts definately NOT a sending off Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asanovic Posted September 23, 2011 Share Posted September 23, 2011 Well you are wrong definite penalty no argument but the Red Card was a wrong decision intent and obvious goal-scoring opportunity are stated clearly in the rules and this incident there was clear doubt on both these criteria. Haha! Ok mate calm your knickers, it's just an opinion. I don't think there's a definite wrong or right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VulcanRam Posted September 23, 2011 Share Posted September 23, 2011 Well you are wrong definite penalty no argument but the Red Card was a wrong decision intent and obvious goal-scoring opportunity are stated clearly in the rules and this incident there was clear doubt on both these criteria. This is a most useful post. My son's learning punctuation at school and comes home with a mass of words loosely thrown together and told to insert the correct punctutation marks in order to make some sense of what it says. This will do perfectly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stive Pesley Posted September 23, 2011 Share Posted September 23, 2011 Impedes the progess of a player with no physical contact = indirect free kick. In the case of physical contact, the act becomes a offence punished by peno or direct free kick. Hang on - I'm trying to fathom how you would impede someone's progress WITHOUT physical contact??? Blowing on him? Distracting him with glove puppetry?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WorksopRam Posted September 23, 2011 Share Posted September 23, 2011 Personally, I think it was a stone wall penalty at Forest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asanovic Posted September 23, 2011 Share Posted September 23, 2011 I've been losing sleep over it ever since, if I'm honest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 23, 2011 Share Posted September 23, 2011 Hang on - I'm trying to fathom how you would impede someone's progress WITHOUT physical contact??? Blowing on him? Distracting him with glove puppetry?? Not sure about the blowing, depends what kind I suppose, but yes to the second 'http://www.dcfcfans.co.uk/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':)' /> If a player raises his arms to impede an opponent and steps from one side to side, moving his arms up and down to delay his opponent, forcing him to change course, but does not make "bodily contact", the referee may deem this to be unsporting behaviour and award an indirect free kick from the place where the offence occurred. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianm Posted September 23, 2011 Share Posted September 23, 2011 I agree. If he'd not given the red card i could see a few reasons why. But i'd expect 70% of referees to of given the red. Had it not been a big game then probably 90% of referees! For a brief moment i was hoping 2mins into a rivalry that Frank would get a yellow. But wasn't too suprised that the red came out. At that point it almost made me 1-2 go home. Look at the rules and describe how that qualifies for a red card, it is the interpretation of the rules that is wrong from the refs in this country. I wonder how much influence SKY have in the constant desire for controversy because in the Champions League no way would a sending-off have been the punishment in that incident the rules are applied properly in that competition most of the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianm Posted September 23, 2011 Share Posted September 23, 2011 This is a most useful post. My son's learning punctuation at school and comes home with a mass of words loosely thrown together and told to insert the correct punctutation marks in order to make some sense of what it says. This will do perfectly. I didn't know perfect English was required on a football forum. Are you a teacher or something. What a total weapon to post that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 23, 2011 Share Posted September 23, 2011 Look at the rules and describe how that qualifies for a red card, it is the interpretation of the rules that is wrong from the refs in this country. I wonder how much influence SKY have in the constant desire for controversy because in the Champions League no way would a sending-off have been the punishment in that incident the rules are applied properly in that competition most of the time. What about Jens Lehmann for Arsenal in the Champions league final ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianm Posted September 23, 2011 Share Posted September 23, 2011 What about Jens Lehmann for Arsenal in the Champions league final ? Didn't watch it mate. Tend only to watch the Man United games in the CL. I classed Arsenal at that time as another foreign team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asanovic Posted September 23, 2011 Share Posted September 23, 2011 I didn't know perfect English was required on a football forum. Are you a teacher or something. What a total weapon to post that. Didn't watch it mate. Tend only to watch the Man United games in the CL. I classed Arsenal at that time as another foreign team. IANM FOR PRIME MINISTER. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trekkie_ram Posted September 23, 2011 Share Posted September 23, 2011 For me it was a definite penalty, but I do agree that their guy made the most of it by running into Fielding. Never a sending off, especially when you see Frank's eyes are only on the ball, and he had nowhere else to be. On a side note, I haven't seen a single comment on our 2nd goal - Which if they had scored in the same circumstances, I would be demanding to know why, when the ball curls around a man 5yds offside, clearly blocking the keepers view, that this wasn't seen as an infringement. For me this is the most controversial goal of the game, and not one pundit even noticed it. Can't say I'm disappointed in the outcome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.