Welcome. This site is an archived version of the previous UpTheSaddlers forum (December 2004 to May 2018). To visit the new UTS website, please click here.

Saddlers v. the Tesco Bagladies - 25/7/09

Reports and reaction from the 2009-10 season as Walsall finished 10th in League 1
We-ARE-Walsall
Site Addict
 
Posts: 8041
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2005 10:23 am
Location: Fighting for the town.

Re: Saddlers v. the Tesco Bagladies - 25/7/09

Sun Jul 26, 2009 6:08 am

Pedagogue wrote:
scott_powell wrote:But if you follow the game by the rulebook then it wasn't a penalty. Gilmartin definitely got a hand on it.


Scott - I haven't seen yesterday's incident so I can't comment on it but I can comment on your erroneous statement. Under the Laws of Association Football, it is not relevant that the player touched the ball. It is what he does to the opposing player that matters (and where the referee has to judge the intent of the tackler - not always easy - and leads to much argument/debate!). It is perfectly possible to play the ball AND foul an opponent at the same time.



It is possible, a little to possible in todays game. Physical contact used to be a part of the game. If you get the ball first, contact with the opposing player should be allowed, unless it is dangerous play. This comes more in to play with outfield players tackling too. Sadly it is something they have almost removed from the game, and the game is worse for it in my opinion.

User avatar
Pedagogue
Board Pedant
 
Posts: 7293
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 3:21 pm
Location: Can I fix it? Can I ****!

Re: Saddlers v. the Tesco Bagladies - 25/7/09

Sun Jul 26, 2009 6:28 am

Blazing_Saddler wrote:It is possible, a little too possible in today's game. Physical contact used to be a part of the game. If you get the ball first, contact with the opposing player should be allowed, unless it is dangerous play. This comes more in to play with outfield players tackling too. Sadly it is something they have almost removed from the game, and the game is worse for it, in my opinion.


I wouldn't disagree with that but, at the same time, stressing the emboldened bit. You are a little too young, I think, to remember the Leeds United team under Don Revie's management (the main reason why Leeds have been hated so much over the years). They had mastered the sly foul down to a fine art. A particular favourite was the "over the ball" tackle where the tackler's foot/studs certainly made contact with the ball first but the tackling foot then continued over the top of the ball onto the opponent's shin.

"But I played the ball, Ref!" went the cry - neatly ignoring the fact that the opponent had a broken leg! :twisted:

We-ARE-Walsall
Site Addict
 
Posts: 8041
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2005 10:23 am
Location: Fighting for the town.

Re: Saddlers v. the Tesco Bagladies - 25/7/09

Sun Jul 26, 2009 7:33 am

Pedagogue wrote:
Blazing_Saddler wrote:It is possible, a little too possible in today's game. Physical contact used to be a part of the game. If you get the ball first, contact with the opposing player should be allowed, unless it is dangerous play. This comes more in to play with outfield players tackling too. Sadly it is something they have almost removed from the game, and the game is worse for it, in my opinion.


I wouldn't disagree with that but, at the same time, stressing the emboldened bit. You are a little too young, I think, to remember the Leeds United team under Don Revie's management (the main reason why Leeds have been hated so much over the years). They had mastered the sly foul down to a fine art. A particular favourite was the "over the ball" tackle where the tackler's foot/studs certainly made contact with the ball first but the tackling foot then continued over the top of the ball onto the opponent's shin.

"But I played the ball, Ref!" went the cry - neatly ignoring the fact that the opponent had a broken leg! :twisted:


Yes I am to young to remember that. I don't think I was even born then. I was born in 1975.
The thing is, anyone who knows anything about football, knows the difference between a solid challenge, that just happens to put a player on the deck for a few seconds, and one that is intended to break their knee caps. Sadly there is no lee way given to refs these days, and to be quite frank I don't think the majority of them understand the game well enough to make these judgements anyway. I am sure you will disagree, but I honestly think the standard of refereeing is absolutely awful. Even if the laws they are given don't help

User avatar
Banksy
UTS Veteran
 
Posts: 378
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2007 11:29 am
Location: somewhere watching the inbetweeners!

Re: Saddlers v. the Tesco Bagladies - 25/7/09

Sun Jul 26, 2009 8:54 am

Rene isnt good enough full stop, he would struggle to get into conference teams, wasnt at the game yesterday but ive seen enough of him to know hes crud! We had Coleman on the books at the same time we brought Rene in and he looked a much better prospect think he's at Kiddiminster now. Im talking about the lad who saved two penalties at Blackpool after Murphy punched someone and then he had a decent game against Bourmouth the week after.Cant understand why they brought Rene in over him.

User avatar
Exile
Jobsworth
 
Posts: 23623
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 7:06 pm
Location: ヽ༼ຈل͜ຈ༽ノ

Re: Saddlers v. the Tesco Bagladies - 25/7/09

Sun Jul 26, 2009 9:29 am

Banksy wrote:We had Coleman on the books at the same time we brought Rene in......Cant understand why they brought Rene in over him?


I'm presuming your question was rhetorical...

Banksy wrote:think he's at Kiddiminster now

User avatar
chestersaddler
Site Addict
 
Posts: 10191
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2008 11:21 am
Location: Europe

Re: Saddlers v. the Tesco Bagladies - 25/7/09

Sun Jul 26, 2009 10:45 am

Pedagogue wrote:
Blazing_Saddler wrote:It is possible, a little too possible in today's game. Physical contact used to be a part of the game. If you get the ball first, contact with the opposing player should be allowed, unless it is dangerous play. This comes more in to play with outfield players tackling too. Sadly it is something they have almost removed from the game, and the game is worse for it, in my opinion.


I wouldn't disagree with that but, at the same time, stressing the emboldened bit. You are a little too young, I think, to remember the Leeds United team under Don Revie's management (the main reason why Leeds have been hated so much over the years). They had mastered the sly foul down to a fine art. A particular favourite was the "over the ball" tackle where the tackler's foot/studs certainly made contact with the ball first but the tackling foot then continued over the top of the ball onto the opponent's shin.

"But I played the ball, Ref!" went the cry - neatly ignoring the fact that the opponent had a broken leg! :twisted:



It would be helpful if the football commentators /summarisers and pundits understood the rules. The number of times they use replay evidence to condemn the ref with the contention "he played the ball before the man". Their comments and analysis are then taken as gospel by many of the watching public.

My understanding of the rules (which I am not aware have changed back again) includes the outlawing of the tackle from behind, which was deemed a mandatory yellow card offence. Time after time the numpty's mentioned above try to defend the player because he played the ball first rather than acknowledging that the tackle came from behind and therefore playing the ball or not is irrelevent.

User avatar
Pedagogue
Board Pedant
 
Posts: 7293
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 3:21 pm
Location: Can I fix it? Can I ****!

Re: Saddlers v. the Tesco Bagladies - 25/7/09

Sun Jul 26, 2009 11:44 am

I agree that just about every commentator and pundit does not understand the Laws of the Game. The wording of the relevant section of Law 12 (Fouls & Misconduct) has been amended many times by FIFA, in an attempt to establish uniformity of interpretation. The last time was in the Summer of 2008.

To summarise:-

If a tackle is
(a) careless - direct free-kick (or penalty-kick)
(b) reckless - caution and free-kick (or penalty-kick)
(c) with excessive force or in a manner endangering the safety of an opponent - send off and direct free-kick (or penalty-kick).

"careless" covers a genuinely mistimed tackle where, in the opinion of the referee, there was no intent to harm an opponent.
"reckless" covers situations where, although there was, in the opinion of the referee, no deliberate intent to harm, a "lack of concern" for the opponent was shown while making the tackle.

Obviously, if a player commits a succession of "careless" fouls, the referee may still caution him for "persistently infringing the Laws of the Game".
A caution would come under the heading of "unsporting behaviour" whereas the sending-off would be for "serious foul play" (or possibly "violent conduct") - or, of course, two cautionable offences.

User avatar
chestersaddler
Site Addict
 
Posts: 10191
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2008 11:21 am
Location: Europe

Re: Saddlers v. the Tesco Bagladies - 25/7/09

Sun Jul 26, 2009 11:59 am

Thanks for that Pedagogue.

Interesting that it states "In the OPINION of the referee".

User avatar
adjisaddler
Glitterati
 
Posts: 942
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2008 5:10 pm
Location: Worcester

Re: Saddlers v. the Tesco Bagladies - 25/7/09

Sun Jul 26, 2009 1:30 pm

not a bad result

User avatar
Exile
Jobsworth
 
Posts: 23623
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 7:06 pm
Location: ヽ༼ຈل͜ຈ༽ノ

Re: Saddlers v. the Tesco Bagladies - 25/7/09

Sun Jul 26, 2009 7:51 pm

chestersaddler wrote:Thanks for that Pedagogue.

Interesting that it states "In the OPINION of the referee".

When you think about it, everything is in the opinion of the referee, or the linos/assistants/whatever they're called now.

User avatar
Exile
Jobsworth
 
Posts: 23623
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 7:06 pm
Location: ヽ༼ຈل͜ຈ༽ノ

Re: Saddlers v. the Tesco Bagladies - 25/7/09

Sun Jul 26, 2009 7:52 pm

adjisaddler wrote:not a bad result

I agree. For a preseason anyway. Nothing less than 4-1 on opening day would satisfy me otherwise. :D

User avatar
Magic Man Fan
Site Addict
 
Posts: 10977
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 6:30 pm
Location: Warning. Some posts may cause offence...to the over sensitive or slow.

Re: Saddlers v. the Tesco Bagladies - 25/7/09

Sun Jul 26, 2009 9:17 pm

Guest wrote:I'm nearly there - got as far as the Imperial. Expect it to be 4-1, like the last time I saw us play West Brom.


If it's like the 4-1 game you'll be lucky if you got out of The Imperial alive past the rampaging Albion idiots. Have you?

User avatar
Whitters
Site Addict
 
Posts: 2906
Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2008 10:57 am

Re: Saddlers v. the Tesco Bagladies - 25/7/09

Tue Jul 28, 2009 9:16 am

Banksy said "wasnt at the game yesterday but ive seen enough of him to know hes crud!"
Don't worry Banksy, people don't change do they and a large percentage of people on here comment on games and players without seeing them so why shouldn't you?

User avatar
OmmerEmCradley
UTS Veteran
 
Posts: 473
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 9:42 pm
Location: The heart of the Black Country

Re: Saddlers v. the Tesco Bagladies - 25/7/09

Tue Jul 28, 2009 11:38 am

Whitters wrote:Banksy said "wasnt at the game yesterday but ive seen enough of him to know hes crud!"
Don't worry Banksy, people don't change do they and a large percentage of people on here comment on games and players without seeing them so why shouldn't you?

:D

Previous
Return to 2009-10 Season

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests