WFC & Our Rivals Run In Fixtures & Results

Was it the right decision though?

 

I'll check later but my initial view would be the goal should have stood as Wilson did nothing to interfere with the release of the ball. If he'd have stuck a leg out then it would be ruled out but just standing there outside the box isn't obstructing anyone.

 

That's how I see it too. He didn't move!

 

I think you'd be hard pushed to argue that the release of the ball wasn't blocked; it barely traveled any distance at all before hitting someone standing right next to the keeper. It was essentially preventing the keeper from being able to release the ball in a certain direction. On the other hand, the last line implies the player can't be held responsible for the keeper releasing directly towards him.

All things considered, I think disallowing the goal was probably the right decision. The clear intent of the rule is to allow keepers the freedom to release without having to worry about the opposition being immediately in the way of the ball, which is what happened last night. There's a difference between intercepting a crap release and bodyblocking it.

 

Thanks UEA. That will cover the obstruction bit. But how about offside?

 

In other news, looks like rival fans have finally cottoned onto us as a major threat. Most of them seem to think we'll continue our good form through to the end of the season, that we "score for fun" and that we look the real deal.

 

How can he be offside - he's played the ball to himself?

 

Sounds like you wanted an excuse to post something like this and chose me as the lucky scapegoat, to be honest.

 

What offside? He 'passed' the ball to himself.

 

If a player takes a pen and it comes back off the woodwork he can't convert it himself? Same situation here I believe.

 

That Bournemouth goal being disallowed is definitively the right call if you go by arakels laws of the game quote. He quite clearly was stood there to block the ball and put off the keeper, which typifies Bournemouths gamesmanship, win at any cost, dive, claim penalties, mourinho-like cheating mentality. I hope they go up though just to watch them get found out by 20 tv angles, get screwed by refs and end up on 0 points.


(going for a quote on the Bournemouth forums with that one).

 

That's from a dead ball. This wasn't a dead ball situation.

 

Where is the controversy? He wasn't standing there for fun was he, he was quite clearly obstructing the keeper. Not sure how this has become a big thing at all.

 

Something like that! But my main point is this. It's one thing to say - well B'muff get loads of dodgy decisions so it's about time they had one go against them. How do we know this? Well, we just know OK!

It's quite another (and much more powerful argument) to be able to say - it wasn't a goal because it was offside and your manager doesn't even know the laws of the effing game! Hence me highlighting the offside question whic GF raised, not me. I can see his point and think he might be right.

Or, is the pen thing just that the taker can't touch the ball twice in succession?

Edit. OK UEA. I see the dead ball point. In that case, like you, I think that B'Muff finally got unlucky.

 

This was in open play. You can't touch the ball twice in succession from a dead ball situation. It looks like it was obstruction.

 

My point is that this is hardly a massive issue, but it's being made into one because it's Bournemouth. It's Sunday League stuff; 95% of refs in the country would disallow it. If the goal had stood, the opposition manager would be up in arms. Ironically THAT would probably get less media coverage.

 

OK. As above, I see that now. Let's hope GF does too. But why shouldn't he just stand there? The keeper can retreat and take the kick from nearer the pen spot if he likes.

 

If he stands there, he blocks the ball, and...

See bold. The only wiggle room lies over the last line, but my reading is that it is intended to cover poor passes straight to the opposition rather than players standing right up in the keeper's personal space.

 

Is it being made a big deal of? Sometimes we argue the finer points of the laws on here ad infinitum simply because we're anally retentive probably! It would just have been good to 'get' B'muff on this one. Easier said than done it would seem. OK - yeah most refs would give that as obstruction as did this one. But as UEA has said, Wilson wasn't hanging his leg out or jumping. So what are the rules here? As has been said, the ball's in open play.

Seems to me that it's reasonable to expect the keeper to be able to kick the ball beyond Wilson in that situation and this is just another example of the 'over-protection of keepers' which is the modern way of things.

 

OK. I can see all of that. Obstruction then.


Edit. I now see you'd posted the law earlier @#179 and I missed it. Apologies.

 

Firstly, you've quoted that from an unofficial source I believe Arakel. The actual Laws of the Game say a lot less:

This is likely to be one of those circular laws of football arguments of which there have been too many on here of late! However, arguably he wasn't in the keeper's personal space if he was standing outside the penalty area where the keeper was unable to go with the ball in his hands anyway. And he didn't block the release of the ball into play as it was in play as soon as the goalkeeper kicked it. What he can't do it nick it away from the keeper when he throws it up to kick it, crowd him to prevent him kicking it properly or barge the keeper as he does so. I didn't see any of those things in the one viewing I've had of it so far and those things have always been my understanding of what that law is there to prevent.

 

The bit I posted comes from the USSF red education/reference materials. While more expansive than the parent FIFA document, they aim to play by the same rules as everyone else and thus it's a pretty good source to reference. USSF referees do officiate FIFA games so their guidelines are intended to reflect that standard of officiating.

I don't think this particular incident was black and white, but I think there is far more evidence that the ref got it right than wrong. I would feel pretty lucky if we scored like that and had it allowed, and I'd feel very aggrieved if we conceded one in the same way. The right call for me.

 

The other 'unwritten law' would seem currently to be - if in doubt - err on side of keeper. And Wilson was where he was to compromise and hamper him.

 

Maybe it is being made a big deal of. Just been discussed on talkSPORT

- singing the praises of B'Muff and Howe

- clearly the ref didn't know the laws of the game!

Not a great way to score a goal though they admitted. Not sure who the presenters are. One might be Savage. Arrogant, self-opinionated twunts anyway.

Edit: Adtian Durham & Darren Gough I believe.

 

http://www1.skysports.com/football/news/11095/9764856

not even in the title!

 

The fact the ball hit him means he was in the way, there really nothing to argue about.

 

Don't know if it's been mentioned on this thread yet, but worth a look at the relative motivation of the teams us and our rivals are up against in the next few weeks at the point at which we play them I.e feasibly, our last five all have nothing to play for by the time we meet them. Normally that's seen as a danger, but I'd much rather that were the case.

 

Unless Forest win all of their games between now and when we play them, I agree. But none of those final 5 matches will be push overs.

 

I dont get the nothing to play for idea, lots of these players in the teams we have to play will be looking for new contracts or looking to move on to bigger teams so will be putting in a performance or two.

 

Here's an updated summary. We all seem to have an equally hard fixture list apart from Brentford & Norwich who only need to play 1 of the top 8

 

Norwich only have to play Boro aswell

 

Great summary thanks Meister. Couple of points:

- Norwich have an equally easy time of it on paper as Brentford. But seeing as they're so good against the rest of the top eight that's not necessarily to their advantage

- Forest have got quite a lot to say still. Gotta play five of us ...

 

Glad we're five clear of Norwich to be honest. Those two clear of Bournemouth could be very important as well.

 

I agree, I do not care for the points boro get off other teams, whether our results are the same as theirs week in week out it doesnt matter, aslong as we increase the gap between second and third.

 

The main thing is we get the "Tricky" teams out of the way in the next 3 games. I think if we're within 3 points of 2nd place with 5 games to go then we're in with a good chance. I'm not too worried if we drop a few points in the next 3 games.