Manchester United v Tottenham Hotspur (EPL) 5.15pm 25/4/09 Setanta Sp 1

everdead.ie

Maybe he did say it but they weren't interested:pac:

Draupnir

Fair play to Webb and all, but does this mean that you can get the man as long as you get the ball aswell?

Mitch Connor

Draupnir wrote: »

Fair play to Webb and all, but does this mean that you can get the man as long as you get the ball aswell?

As long as you get the merest of touches on the ball, you can now take the player out too, regardless of the opposition getting the first touch o the ball.

Theresalwaysone

Draupnir wrote: »

Fair play to Webb and all, but does this mean that you can get the man as long as you get the ball aswell?

Mitch Connor wrote: »

As long as you get the merest of touches on the ball, you can now take the player out too, regardless of the opposition getting the first touch o the ball.

Wait. Wasn't it always if you get the ball first then it doesnt matter what happens to the man? You cant go through a man to get the ball for example but you can go through the ball to get the man... so to speak.

Mitch Connor

Theresalwaysone wrote: »

Wait. Wasn't it always if you get the ball first then it doesnt matter what happens to the man? You cant go through a man to get the ball for example but you can go through the ball to get the man... so to speak.

Not sure anymore. tackling is going the way of the offside rule...

http://www.jeffwinterentertainmentandmedia.co.uk/other/0809010.html

PISSING AGAINST THE WIND
Jeff Winter; 28 Apr 2009

I am sure that I have used this title before but what the hell. I can’t think of a better way to describe my feelings.

We live in a nasty world. People are not happy and the lack of money/jobs has put many people on edge.

A policeman friend of mine says that a long hot summer is not what is required as many expect violence as people lash out as their dissatisfaction with life festers and comes to a boil.

Whatever the reason, we are all angry and less tolerant of anything.

When it comes to football, we all know better. We can all pick better teams and know better tactics than the professionals and obviously, when it comes to referees, everybody knows how easy a job it is to do, and could do a darn site better than the “****” who control our matches at present.

Every week, I receive scores of emails. They are mostly on the same subject, just the names of the teams and senders change depending on which team has lost out due to a perceived dubious decision.

Much of these comments are fuelled by bias and belief of what the so-called experts have fed them with their factually incorrect comments.

However, there are many occasions, perhaps far too many occasions, when the officials have got it wrong. Human error is what it’s called - at least I hope that is what it is.

If I were to read and believe everything I see, it is part of a much bigger conspiracy against anyone outside the “Top Four”.

I call them that because despite being labelled the “Big Four”, they are actually, without doubt, the top four because they are a class apart from the rest.

Everton and Villa are creeping towards them and Spurs and Manchester City might have the finances to throw down a challenge eventually but the rest of the sides in the Premier League are purely there to make up the numbers.

Refereeing decisions - good, bad or indifferent - are not going to change what is a very predictable League.v Sure, the odd result here and there gives everybody hope but did anyone seriously think that the “Big Four” would not be the “Top Four”?

Following Saturday’s Manchester United v Spurs game I quickly received my first two emails:

************************

From: Bad decisions DO NOT even themselves out over the season

So much for Howard Webb supposedly being the best Premiership official. He proved today that he is firmly in Man Utd's pocket.

************************

From: David

Hi Jeff

How can one corrupt referee be allowed to change the course of the Premiership and will Howard Webb get a medal as part of Man Utd's title winning team?

************************

Comments such as these are now common place. Indeed, this article will encourage more to spout their bile as they look for reasons why their own side did not win.

When a referee makes an honest decision and someone does not like it, then the answer is obvious; he is corrupt, bent, useless etc.

Grow up!! You sound as pathetic as a spoilt kid who has not got his way!!

Howard Webb has cost Liverpool the title, has he? To be honest, I don’t remember him playing up front for Liverpool in the home games when they failed to beat vastly inferior opposition. I also don't recall him starring in the defence that let Arsenal run riot last Tuesday night.

No, the ref has been and always will be the easy target.

Before everyone rants on and lists the 101 decisions that have gone against their side this season, think on and recall the ones that have gone your way as well.

Perhaps they do not even themselves out perfectly but then list the number of cock-ups that your side has made in defence and the number of goal chances that have been missed.

Are all the players who make these mistakes corrupt, or are they just useless?

Many state that there is too much money at stake and that video technology is the answer to everything. Well, if players did not cheat and dive at any given opportunity and if referees were perfect, then perhaps we would not need to bring that subject up after every decision.

It ain’t going happen because the authorities have said it won’t.

The clubs could not afford it anyway and it would kill the flow of the game. Most importantly, however, is that it would cost too many ex-players their lucrative jobs as 'experts'!!

The latest to emerge is Craig Burley, a poor man's Andy Gray, who spouted his bile whilst doing co-commentary with Jon Champion at the Manchester United v Spurs game.

It was "the penalty incident that changed the game" he said. Do me a favour, Manchester United were running them ragged and it was only a matter of time before Spurs capitulated and United ran away with it!!

According to Burley though, it was not a difficult decision - anyone could see it!!

Well, excuse me, but when you have watched an incident on numerous occasions from the benefit of an elevated position, and when you have slowed it down, then perhaps things might appear clearer. Ah ha, video technology - that would have sorted it!!

But was it a penalty or not? In my opinion - which is not borne out of bias for any club involved in the title race (actually I would have liked to see Liverpool win it!) - is that it was a penalty.

Howard Webb would see the keeper - the erratic Gomes by the way - throw himself at the feet of Carrick and then up-end him. Does anyone disagree that the keeper actually brought him down? Carrick did not dive, he was clattered.

Yet thanks to slow motion video technology, we can now see that the keeper actually got a touch on the ball which makes it alright. Or does it?

I thought that we had been educated by the Law makers - a point that Burley and Co. constantly forget - that if you take the ball and the man, it is reckless and therefore a foul.

It most certainly is when an outfield player does it and it is definitely the case if the incident occurs outside the penalty area.

So are there different rules for keepers and when offences occur inside the box? Don’t answer that one.

Whatever it was, the decision does not make the referee corrupt or a United supporter, although that is the easy option for the idiots who neither know nor care about the game, just the result.

Howard Webb is an excellent referee who, whilst not being perfect, has gained universal respect for how he controls games.

He has made and will make mistakes - all refs do (even Collina) - but he gets the majority of high profile games, both domestically and abroad, because of his ability.

Of the ten games between the "Big/Top Four" this season, he has taken charge of six of them, plus a whole host of other big derby games. This week he is officiating a UEFA Cup semi-final as well.

I know that he wanted to go on TV after Saturday’s game to put his point of view across but the authorities would not allow him to do so. This in itself tells a story.

Don’t get me wrong, if you have read my articles this season you will know that I feel very strongly that all is not well in the refereeing world. This is largely due to weak leadership and the lack of support from the authorities.

There are also some refs who, in my opinion, are not good enough to be doing the big games but as in all other aspects of life, their faces fit.

Some do seem to bottle it when it comes to making a decision against one of the big boys - more about Arsenal v Boro in my column for the Evening Gazette on Friday!!

However, Howard Webb most certainly does not fit into that category. He is an excellent official (in fact he is our best). He is an honest man who has worked very hard to get to where he is.

Perhaps the dickheads who describe people who do a job that they would never have the balls or ability to do themselves should think of that before throwing infantile comments around.

There you are, I am sure that my words will have changed many minds!! Or am I just pissing against the wind?

Theresalwaysone

Mitch Connor wrote: »

Not sure anymore. tackling is going the way of the offside rule...

http://www.jeffwinterentertainmentandmedia.co.uk/other/0809010.html

Xavi made a great tackle last night, winning the ball, spinning on the ground and simlutaneously clattering Malouda. Im not sure how the rule applies there.


How many people here here have actually reffed a game before? I had to take charge of a game a few weeks ago, two actually, one for the soccer/poker forum game and one other u.16 game at home.

It is a ridiculously hard job. The amount of variables that factor into every single decision is mind boggling. I was at sixes and sevens after about 5 minutes. Every decision you make is scrutinised by the line, the players and by yourself. I would hate to do that job and the worst thing about it is, you only know you've done your job well when no one says ANYTHING to you.

Fook that.

A7X

I thought that we had been educated by the Law makers - a point that Burley and Co. constantly forget - that if you take the ball and the man, it is reckless and therefore a foul.

It most certainly is when an outfield player does it and it is definitely the case if the incident occurs outside the penalty area.

So are there different rules for keepers and when offences occur inside the box? Don’t answer that one.

I think this is the most important part of that article and one which comes up time and time again.

The amount of fouls that happen now a days within the box are alot and most of them aren't given, when clearly if they were outside the box they would be a free straight away.

It's just that they are match changing decisions, but unless the "law's" are changed ref's need to start giving them.

Also, one that really "grinds my gear's" is when, say in the box for a corner or free, a defender and an attacker are pulling at each other and the foul could go either way, guess who gets it the majority of the time? The defender get's the free.

It's unreal. People can say that ref's are only human, and I agree, but the reality of it is that once the play is in the box their mentality about the situation changes.

SuprSi

I thought that we had been educated by the Law makers - a point that Burley and Co. constantly forget - that if you take the ball and the man, it is reckless and therefore a foul.

It most certainly is when an outfield player does it and it is definitely the case if the incident occurs outside the penalty area

Who has been educating people this way? With this logic, you can't take the ball before the man, you can't take the ball after the man, so when can you take the ball? Are we to resort to asking nicely if we can tip the ball away from the opposing player?

Maybe they're trying to do away with what most would consider a fair tackle - ball followed by man. Unless the studs are up, it's high, from behind, or with anything other than the lower leg (excluding keepers of course), anything goes as far as I'm concerned when the ball is taken first.

Liam O

SuprSi wrote: »

Who has been educating people this way? With this logic, you can't take the ball before the man, you can't take the ball after the man, so when can you take the ball? Are we to resort to asking nicely if we can tip the ball away from the opposing player?

Maybe they're trying to do away with what most would consider a fair tackle - ball followed by man. Unless the studs are up, it's high, from behind, or with anything other than the lower leg (excluding keepers of course), anything goes as far as I'm concerned when the ball is taken first.

right so let's say a player dives in 2 footed and his left foot gets a touch on the ball and his right foot crunches the opposing player's leg then it's legal? Palacios at the weekend. Let's say he hits Ronaldo with that lunge but also taps the ball, does that make it ok?

ROCKMAN

SuprSi wrote: »

Who has been educating people this way? With this logic, you can't take the ball before the man, you can't take the ball after the man, so when can you take the ball? Are we to resort to asking nicely if we can tip the ball away from the opposing player?

Maybe they're trying to do away with what most would consider a fair tackle - ball followed by man. Unless the studs are up, it's high, from behind, or with anything other than the lower leg (excluding keepers of course), anything goes as far as I'm concerned when the ball is taken first.[/QUOTE]


Jesus, So a player can jump for a ball and once he gets his head to the ball first , he can follow through with an elbow and cause as much injury as he can And you'll be happy :(:(


LADS GAME WAS SATURDAY ITS NOW WEDNESDAY....... BUILD A BRIDGE

onemorechance

It was momentum that had Man United up there in the first place for the incorrect penalty decision, so it was not the penalty decision that gave them the momentum to go on and win the game.

SuprSi

Liam O wrote: »

right so let's say a player dives in 2 footed and his left foot gets a touch on the ball and his right foot crunches the opposing player's leg then it's legal? Palacios at the weekend. Let's say he hits Ronaldo with that lunge but also taps the ball, does that make it ok?

Generally speaking when a player dives in two footed he's done so with either a) studs showing or b) a high tackle, both things I've described as being wrong. Palacios should have seen red for his tackle, whether he connected with the ball (or the player) or not - it was a shocking tackle and Ronaldo was lucky to get out of the way.

Pro. F

Jeff Winter wrote:

I thought that we had been educated by the Law makers ... that if you take the ball and the man, it is reckless and therefore a foul.

Laws of the Game wrote:

“Reckless” means that the player has acted with complete disregard to the danger to, or consequences for, his opponent

That would be a no then. Link to Laws

SuprSi

ROCKMAN wrote: »

Jesus, So a player can jump for a ball and once he gets his head to the ball first , he can follow through with an elbow and cause as much injury as he can And you'll be happy :(:(

Now you're just being ridiculous. How does and elbow qualify as part of a tackle? What I'm implying is that if a player has slid into a tackle, no studs showing, not two footed, not high, catches the ball and then the player, fair game.

Morzadec

SuprSi wrote: »

Who has been educating people this way? With this logic, you can't take the ball before the man, you can't take the ball after the man, so when can you take the ball? Are we to resort to asking nicely if we can tip the ball away from the opposing player?

Maybe they're trying to do away with what most would consider a fair tackle - ball followed by man. Unless the studs are up, it's high, from behind, or with anything other than the lower leg (excluding keepers of course), anything goes as far as I'm concerned when the ball is taken first.

Exactly. I tought this was common sense; that anyone who followed football would agree with this.

-Someone mentioned the Xavi tackle last night. Not a foul. He took the ball and then the momentum of his body shielded the ball and knocked over Malouda I think it was? But he was technically in possession of the ball before this happened.

-Torres against Arsenal when he looked like he might have been injured. Touré got a clean foot on the ball with his right leg, before his uncontrolled left leg accidently made contact with Torres. Not a foul.

-Gomes against United. Similarly, not a foul.

Gomes touched the ball therefore Carrick was no longer in possession of the ball in my opinion. The ball was a good few yards away as a result of Gomes' touch and therfore the ball at this stage was no more Carrick's than it was Gomes'. Therefore the coming together of the two players must be regarded as no more than a collision. Not a foul. I thought this was all fairly generally accepted stuff.

On another note fair play to Webb for coming out and admitting he was wrong. Everyone makes mistakes, and despite it being a bad one and possibly a costly one, I certainly don't think there was any intent, regardless of the conspiracy theories that some fans and even players (Jenas) are positing.

deisedevil

Morzadec wrote: »

On another note fair play to Webb for coming out and admitting he was wrong. Everyone makes mistakes, and despite it being a bad one and possibly a costly one, I certainly don't think there was any intent, regardless of the conspiracy theories that some fans and even players (Jenas) are positing.

I know it wasn't a penalty but what is amazing me is that people think it was such a bad decision. Gomes got fingertips to the ball, the barest of touch. Very difficult for a ref to see it so why the big deal? It's not like Carrick dived over Gomes after Gomes had got a whole hand to the ball and pushed it away.
United have had 4 penalties in EPL this season, one that was so difficult for a ref to call shouldn't have caused so much bother.

(Edit: Changed was to wasn't, lol )

Mitch Connor

deisedevil wrote: »

I know it was a penalty but what is amazing me is that people think it was such a bad decision. Gomes got fingertips to the ball, the barest of touch. Very difficult for a ref to see it so why the big deal? It's not like Carrick dived over Gomes after Gomes had got a whole hand to the ball and pushed it away.
United have had 4 penalties in EPL this season, one that was so difficult for a ref to call shouldn't have caused so much bother.

I think what makes the outcry even more annoying is that Carrick CLEARLY got to the ball first, I also don't think Gomes' touch was enough to deem Carrick no longer in possession as the touch was so slight in comparison to where Carrick had put it anyway. I can see why people say it should not have been a penalty, and I can see why some see reason for it to have been given.

deisedevil

Mitch Connor wrote: »

I think what makes the outcry even more annoying is that Carrick CLEARLY got to the ball first, I also don't think Gomes' touch was enough to deem Carrick no longer in possession as the touch was so slight in comparison to where Carrick had put it anyway. I can see why people say it should not have been a penalty, and I can see why some see reason for it to have been given.

Exactly, if he got a touch at all then he practically fcukin tickled it, so it aint the tragedy it was being made out to be. If we do win the league I can see this meaningless peno being brought up again, lol.

herbieflowers

if anything, it was worth it for the reaction on various forums!

Soby

My god your all putting waaaaaaaaaay to much thought into this..When the ref himself says it wasnt a peno afterwards i think thats that end of

monkey9

Mitch Connor wrote: »

I think what makes the outcry even more annoying is that Carrick CLEARLY got to the ball first, I also don't think Gomes' touch was enough to deem Carrick no longer in possession as the touch was so slight in comparison to where Carrick had put it anyway. I can see why people say it should not have been a penalty, and I can see why some see reason for it to have been given.

What the hell are you talking about?? I can't believe there's a debate going on here whether it was a penalty or not. It wasn't and Utd got away with it!!

keane2097

So do people see the rule as follows:

If the player who is challenged is deemed to retain possession of the ball after contact is made with it by the challenging player, and the challenging player then makes contact with the player on the ball it is a foul?

EDIT: Somebody with an intimate knowledge of the laws should be able to confirm my feeling that this is incorrect...?

ShooterSF

monkey9 wrote: »

What the hell are you talking about?? I can't believe there's a debate going on here whether it was a penalty or not. It wasn't and Utd got away with it!!

I assume now that Webb admitted a mistake you are with me demanding that he admits Palacious should have been sent off and spurs got away with it!!!Eleventy-One!!. I'd say you're fuming like I am about the whole situation.

Mitch Connor

Soby wrote: »

My god your all putting waaaaaaaaaay to much thought into this..When the ref himself says it wasnt a peno afterwards i think thats that end of

So - the ref makes what people think is a mistake (others don't agree) it can be debated. When the ref says he feels he made a mistake (after much public and media outcry) everyone has to agree with him.

Double standards for the win, eh.

Morzadec

Mitch Connor wrote: »

So - the ref makes what people think is a mistake (others don't agree) it can be debated. When the ref says he feels he made a mistake (after much public and media outcry) everyone has to agree with him.

Double standards for the win, eh.

I don't think the 2 can be compared because one decision he has to make in a split second, after only seeing it once in real time, with crowd pressure etc... from possibly not a brilliant angle.

And his decision to admit it was a mistake was probably based on watching the incident several times, from better angles, slowed down and without the pressure of having to make a decision straight away.

monkey9

Mitch Connor wrote: »

So - the ref makes what people think is a mistake (others don't agree) .

Others don't agree??? What the hell is going on here. It wasn't a penalty!!! It wasn't!! It just wasn't!!

Mitch Connor

monkey9 wrote: »

Others don't agree??? What the hell is going on here. It wasn't a penalty!!! It wasn't!! It just wasn't!!

lol.

monkey9

I'm so happy that i didn't read this thread. I bet this is the way it went, isn't it! Utd fans claiming it was a peno and everyone else disagreeing/telling the truth!

A7X

monkey9 wrote: »

I'm so happy that i didn't read this thread. I bet this is the way it went, isn't it! Utd fans claiming it was a peno and everyone else disagreeing/telling the truth!

shhhhpot on.

Iago

monkey9 wrote: »

Others don't agree??? What the hell is going on here. It wasn't a penalty!!! It wasn't!! It just wasn't!!

actually I think you'll find it was, hence Ronaldo having a free shot on goal which he duly converted

Mitch Connor

monkey9 wrote: »

I'm so happy that i didn't read this thread. I bet this is the way it went, isn't it! Utd fans claiming it was a peno and everyone else disagreeing/telling the truth!

no - it was mainly United fans saying it was harsh but understanding why it was given, given the various aspects of the play at the time (the speed it happened, the angle the ref would have seen it from) and then other fans saying it was never a penalty and Webb knew it wasn't but gave it anyway to hand the title to United, also forcing Spurs to concede 4 other goals.

Morzadec

Mitch Connor wrote: »

no - it was mainly United fans saying it was harsh but understanding why it was given, given the various aspects of the play at the time (the speed it happened, the angle the ref would have seen it from) and then other fans saying it was never a penalty and Webb knew it wasn't but gave it anyway to hand the title to United, also forcing Spurs to concede 4 other goals.

A bit of an exaggeration I think.

I'd say a fair assessment was:-

-Most United fans accepting it wasn't a penalty, some of them saying it was difficult to know whether it changed the game or not, some saying it almost definitely didn't, maybe one or two saying it was a massive turning point.

-A significant amount of United fans saying it was debatable or contentious and understandable that it was given.

-A few United fans claiming it was a penalty, with one or two positing anti-United media conspiracies to explain the hullabaloo made over the decision.

-A lot of fuming of Liverpool fans raging at the injustice of the decision right after it happened and arguing that it had essentially given United the title.

-One or two positing conspiracy theories about United and Referees.

-From what I could tell any Liverpool fan who stayed on after the immediate aftermath was purely trying to explain why it wasn't a penalty, and explain why the reason a big deal was being made was due to the perceived significance of the decision in the context of the game and in the context of the title race.

But monkey9 judging from your impassioned posts I think you would not have liked reading the thread! I tried the 'it wasn't a penalty! it just wasn't a penalty!' line as well (with added explanations), truly believing that the only people who claimed it was were either WUM's or fans who couldn't see past there fan allegiances.

But it appears that there are genuinely people who believe it was at the very least contentious, which I can't understand at all but I suppose I'll just have to accept that their interpretation of the rules are different to what I considered was the general accepted understanding.