Andrew Marriner

[Foreverinbluedreams]

The thing is Sparty is it's irrelevant whether he saw the contact or not, this type of tackle is no longer allowed because it endangers the safety of an opponent, that is the remit the refs are given. He went to ground from behind so it's a foul, just like Demechelis was on Adebayor when he went to ground from behind and won the ball earlier in the game.

[Im_Spartacus]

The thing is Sparty is it's irrelevant whether he saw the contact or not, this type of tackle is no longer allowed because it endangers the safety of an opponent, that is the remit the refs are given. He went to ground from behind so it's a foul, just like Demechelis was on Adebayor when he went to ground from behind and won the ball earlier in the game.

I get what you're saying, but the 'tackle from behind' itself isn't an infringement until a defender touches the player. If there is no contact, 99.9% of the time it would be seen as a great tackle and play on.

In this case there was clearly contact as we can see from the left side of the players, but the official that gave the decision on the right couldn't possibly have known whether dzeko ending up on the deck was a result of a dive or contact in executing the tackle.

[Foreverinbluedreams]

The thing is Sparty is it's irrelevant whether he saw the contact or not, this type of tackle is no longer allowed because it endangers the safety of an opponent, that is the remit the refs are given. He went to ground from behind so it's a foul, just like Demechelis was on Adebayor when he went to ground from behind and won the ball earlier in the game.

I get what you're saying, but the 'tackle from behind' itself isn't an infringement until a defender touches the player. If there is no contact, 99.9% of the time it would be seen as a great tackle and play on.

In this case there was clearly contact as we can see from the left side of the players, but the official that gave the decision on the right couldn't possibly have known whether dzeko ending up on the deck was a result of a dive or contact in executing the tackle.

Sorry mate I don't agree, the narrative that's presented to us is that going to ground from behind is outlawed regardless of contact because it endangers the player's safety.

[Slim]

I thought the EPL was supposed to be a physical league yet when someone touches one ofr our players our fans moan and moan.Seems that we are turning into Gooner fans.

I thought epl was a term just used by clueless cunts.

I thought you were already circling a petition to have RH's name changed to 'Clueless Cunt'.

Oh by the way nob,you said you like wikipedia and this was taken from it:


Outside of England it is commonly referred to as the English Premier League (EPL).

"I like Wikipedia" said no-one ever.

Also, I live outside England, and we refer to it as the Premier League, it's clueless cunts who know nothing about the game who refer to it as an acronym.

Wait, look who I'm talking to....nevermind, forget I said anything.

[Rag_hater]

I thought the EPL was supposed to be a physical league yet when someone touches one ofr our players our fans moan and moan.Seems that we are turning into Gooner fans.

I thought epl was a term just used by clueless cunts.

I thought you were already circling a petition to have RH's name changed to 'Clueless Cunt'.

Oh by the way nob,you said you like wikipedia and this was taken from it:


Outside of England it is commonly referred to as the English Premier League (EPL).

"I like Wikipedia" said no-one ever.

Also, I live outside England, and we refer to it as the Premier League, it's clueless cunts who know nothing about the game who refer to it as an acronym.

Wait, look who I'm talking to....nevermind, forget I said anything.

CSA,GMP,MCFC,(along with a shit load more)are all acronyms used in UK you clueless cunt.It's not just foreigners nob.

[Slim]

"I like Wikipedia" said no-one ever.

Also, I live outside England, and we refer to it as the Premier League, it's clueless cunts who know nothing about the game who refer to it as an acronym.

Wait, look who I'm talking to....nevermind, forget I said anything.

CSA,GMP,MCFC,(along with a shit load more)are all acronyms used in UK you clueless cunt.It's not just foreigners nob.

Did I say all acronym's or did I say "refer to it"(Premier League) as an acronym?

You should really read what you're replying to instead of just making shit up.

How old are you? No really, genuine question. Because you really do behave like a 12yo(<---acronym, FYI(<---Also acronym)).

[Rag_hater]

"I like Wikipedia" said no-one ever.

Also, I live outside England, and we refer to it as the Premier League, it's clueless cunts who know nothing about the game who refer to it as an acronym.

Wait, look who I'm talking to....nevermind, forget I said anything.

CSA,GMP,MCFC,(along with a shit load more)are all acronyms used in UK you clueless cunt.It's not just foreigners nob.

Did I say all acronym's or did I say "refer to it"(Premier League) as an acronym?

You should really read what you're replying to instead of just making shit up.

How old are you? No really, genuine question. Because you really do behave like a 12yo(<---acronym, FYI(<---Also acronym)).

Going to be 50 this year nob.So if someone uses a shortened version or alternative they are a clueless cunt.You need to get your head outta your arse so you can see there are other ways to the world besides Planet Slim.

[Slim]

"I like Wikipedia" said no-one ever.

Also, I live outside England, and we refer to it as the Premier League, it's clueless cunts who know nothing about the game who refer to it as an acronym.

Wait, look who I'm talking to....nevermind, forget I said anything.

CSA,GMP,MCFC,(along with a shit load more)are all acronyms used in UK you clueless cunt.It's not just foreigners nob.

Did I say all acronym's or did I say "refer to it"(Premier League) as an acronym?

You should really read what you're replying to instead of just making shit up.

How old are you? No really, genuine question. Because you really do behave like a 12yo(<---acronym, FYI(<---Also acronym)).

Going to be 50 this year nob.So if someone uses a shortened version or alternative they are a clueless cunt.You need to get your head outta your arse so you can see there are other ways to the world besides Planet Slim.

Yes, they are called the wrong ways.

I acknowledge their existence, much like I am doing with yours. That'll be stopping now.

[Im_Spartacus]

The thing is Sparty is it's irrelevant whether he saw the contact or not, this type of tackle is no longer allowed because it endangers the safety of an opponent, that is the remit the refs are given. He went to ground from behind so it's a foul, just like Demechelis was on Adebayor when he went to ground from behind and won the ball earlier in the game.

I get what you're saying, but the 'tackle from behind' itself isn't an infringement until a defender touches the player. If there is no contact, 99.9% of the time it would be seen as a great tackle and play on.

In this case there was clearly contact as we can see from the left side of the players, but the official that gave the decision on the right couldn't possibly have known whether dzeko ending up on the deck was a result of a dive or contact in executing the tackle.

Sorry mate I don't agree, the narrative that's presented to us is that going to ground from behind is outlawed regardless of contact because it endangers the player's safety.

Well the red card has just been rescinded, so clearly tackling from behind isn't an automatic red card.

However denying a goalscoring opportunity is a red card whatever way you look at it, and there was clear contact so how the fuck this has been overturned is beyond me.

[Ted Hughes]

I don't understand how a photogaph can decide what the lino can see, unless he took it.

Rose goes into the challenge off the ground, at pace, & from behind Dzeko who can't see him & is about to kick the ball.

It does not have to be a 'dangerous' challenge in order to merit a free kick, merely 'careless', will do.

Can anyone other than Poll, really say that Rose was taking any kind of care whatsoever when he launched into that challenge ?

No, a tackle from behind which makes no contact is not an offence is it? Even more so, had rose managed to make the tackle cleanly, everyone would have been talking abut what a great last ditch challenge it was, so I'm not having it that the 'nature' of the challenge was an issue. The tackle from behind you refer to which is outlawed and dangerous, is where you cannot take the ball cleanly without going through the player, not a tackle from the side/behind where the defender tries to hook his leading leg round the player to touch the ball first.

It only becomes an offence once the players course is affected, and even then a decision can only be made if contact is seen - otherwise how do you know the attacker hasn't dived?

The photograph shows that the contact occurred in a position where it was physically impossible for anybody on the right of Dzeko and Rose, to have seen the contact. Therefore the linesman saw a challenge, and saw a player go down, What he did not see was the contact (or lack of) that caused the attacking player to hit the deck.

It could conceivably be that his 'experience' told him that this sort of challenge would result in contact, but that for me takes officiating into a very grey area, as like I say, it becomes a guess, not based on what he saw.

I'm not making any reference to that at all. I see no mention of it in the rules.

For contact not to happen, the bloke would have needed rocket boosters operating in the opposite direction. There was no possibility that he didn't make contact unless Dzeko had jumped up in the air, he couldn't possibly avoid making contact.

It didn't happen in slow motion it happened at full speed. Watch it at full speed.

And as I said, the criteria in the rule book is whether Rose was careless in that challenge. It doesn't have to be reckless or dangerous, or from behind, just 'careless'. That's the rule.

Imo, jumping through the air into someone in a desperate attempt to get a toe to the ball, is not taking any kind of care, therefore, I don't understand why there is even an argument in the media about it or why refs are questioning it.

Seems eveyone is happy to ignore the rules except that lino, & he is getting shit for it.

[Rag_hater]

"I like Wikipedia" said no-one ever.

Also, I live outside England, and we refer to it as the Premier League, it's clueless cunts who know nothing about the game who refer to it as an acronym.

Wait, look who I'm talking to....nevermind, forget I said anything.

CSA,GMP,MCFC,(along with a shit load more)are all acronyms used in UK you clueless cunt.It's not just foreigners nob.

Did I say all acronym's or did I say "refer to it"(Premier League) as an acronym?

You should really read what you're replying to instead of just making shit up.

How old are you? No really, genuine question. Because you really do behave like a 12yo(<---acronym, FYI(<---Also acronym)).

Going to be 50 this year nob.So if someone uses a shortened version or alternative they are a clueless cunt.You need to get your head outta your arse so you can see there are other ways to the world besides Planet Slim.

Yes, they are called the wrong ways.

I acknowledge their existence, much like I am doing with yours. That'll be stopping now.

Not wrong nob.
Ready to foe me again.
Anyway who gives a fucck if something that is so trivial is wrong except some saddo like u and other nobs like u

[Im_Spartacus]

I don't understand how a photogaph can decide what the lino can see, unless he took it.

Rose goes into the challenge off the ground, at pace, & from behind Dzeko who can't see him & is about to kick the ball.

It does not have to be a 'dangerous' challenge in order to merit a free kick, merely 'careless', will do.

Can anyone other than Poll, really say that Rose was taking any kind of care whatsoever when he launched into that challenge ?

No, a tackle from behind which makes no contact is not an offence is it? Even more so, had rose managed to make the tackle cleanly, everyone would have been talking abut what a great last ditch challenge it was, so I'm not having it that the 'nature' of the challenge was an issue. The tackle from behind you refer to which is outlawed and dangerous, is where you cannot take the ball cleanly without going through the player, not a tackle from the side/behind where the defender tries to hook his leading leg round the player to touch the ball first.

It only becomes an offence once the players course is affected, and even then a decision can only be made if contact is seen - otherwise how do you know the attacker hasn't dived?

The photograph shows that the contact occurred in a position where it was physically impossible for anybody on the right of Dzeko and Rose, to have seen the contact. Therefore the linesman saw a challenge, and saw a player go down, What he did not see was the contact (or lack of) that caused the attacking player to hit the deck.

It could conceivably be that his 'experience' told him that this sort of challenge would result in contact, but that for me takes officiating into a very grey area, as like I say, it becomes a guess, not based on what he saw.

I'm not making any reference to that at all. I see no mention of it in the rules.

For contact not to happen, the bloke would have needed rocket boosters operating in the opposite direction. There was no possibility that he didn't make contact unless Dzeko had jumped up in the air, he couldn't possibly avoid making contact.

It didn't happen in slow motion it happened at full speed. Watch it at full speed.

And as I said, the criteria in the rule book is whether Rose was careless in that challenge. It doesn't have to be reckless or dangerous, or from behind, just 'careless'. That's the rule.

Imo, jumping through the air into someone in a desperate attempt to get a toe to the ball, is not taking any kind of care, therefore, I don't understand why there is even an argument in the media about it or why refs are questioning it.

Seems eveyone is happy to ignore the rules except that lino, & he is getting shit for it.

Sorry mate, now you are just making stuff up about what is in the rule book. The same 'careless' tackle could easily have nipped the ball of dzeko's toes without touching him, in which case it would have been a fantastic tackle well executed as we see terry, kompany etc excellent at this week in week out.

The very reason why the penalty exists, is to provide recompense for when these exact last ditch tackles result in an unfair disadvantage for the attacking player caused by physical contact from the defender.

No matter how many ways you want to try and paint it, the basic rule that overrides all others, is that a penalty cannot be given unless there is contact between two players, and the official has a duty to see that contact take place BEFORE the ball was kicked, not to guess whether they think it might have happened or not, or in what order.

If this had been given against us by this linesman, you'd have been going fucking mad with the conspiracy mob about this linesman flagging for a penalty where he didnt see the contact.

Anyway, why do you think it was rescinded out of interest?

[Ted Hughes]

I don't understand how a photogaph can decide what the lino can see, unless he took it.

Rose goes into the challenge off the ground, at pace, & from behind Dzeko who can't see him & is about to kick the ball.

It does not have to be a 'dangerous' challenge in order to merit a free kick, merely 'careless', will do.

Can anyone other than Poll, really say that Rose was taking any kind of care whatsoever when he launched into that challenge ?

No, a tackle from behind which makes no contact is not an offence is it? Even more so, had rose managed to make the tackle cleanly, everyone would have been talking abut what a great last ditch challenge it was, so I'm not having it that the 'nature' of the challenge was an issue. The tackle from behind you refer to which is outlawed and dangerous, is where you cannot take the ball cleanly without going through the player, not a tackle from the side/behind where the defender tries to hook his leading leg round the player to touch the ball first.

It only becomes an offence once the players course is affected, and even then a decision can only be made if contact is seen - otherwise how do you know the attacker hasn't dived?

The photograph shows that the contact occurred in a position where it was physically impossible for anybody on the right of Dzeko and Rose, to have seen the contact. Therefore the linesman saw a challenge, and saw a player go down, What he did not see was the contact (or lack of) that caused the attacking player to hit the deck.

It could conceivably be that his 'experience' told him that this sort of challenge would result in contact, but that for me takes officiating into a very grey area, as like I say, it becomes a guess, not based on what he saw.

I'm not making any reference to that at all. I see no mention of it in the rules.

For contact not to happen, the bloke would have needed rocket boosters operating in the opposite direction. There was no possibility that he didn't make contact unless Dzeko had jumped up in the air, he couldn't possibly avoid making contact.

It didn't happen in slow motion it happened at full speed. Watch it at full speed.

And as I said, the criteria in the rule book is whether Rose was careless in that challenge. It doesn't have to be reckless or dangerous, or from behind, just 'careless'. That's the rule.

Imo, jumping through the air into someone in a desperate attempt to get a toe to the ball, is not taking any kind of care, therefore, I don't understand why there is even an argument in the media about it or why refs are questioning it.

Seems eveyone is happy to ignore the rules except that lino, & he is getting shit for it.

Sorry mate, now you are just making stuff up about what is in the rule book. The same 'careless' tackle could easily have nipped the ball of dzeko's toes without touching him, in which case it would have been a fantastic tackle well executed as we see terry, kompany etc excellent at this week in week out.

The very reason why the penalty exists, is to provide recompense for when these exact last ditch tackles result in an unfair disadvantage for the attacking player caused by physical contact from the defender.

No matter how many ways you want to try and paint it, the basic rule that overrides all others, is that a penalty cannot be given unless there is contact between two players, and the official has a duty to see that contact take place BEFORE the ball was kicked, not to guess whether they think it might have happened or not, or in what order.

If this had been given against us by this linesman, you'd have been going fucking mad with the conspiracy mob about this linesman flagging for a penalty where he didnt see the contact.

Anyway, why do you think it was rescinded out of interest?

What the fucking hell are you talking about 'making it up' ? It specifically uses the word 'careless' in the cunting FIFA rule book. Fucking read it.

I don't fucking make things up.

[Im_Spartacus]

I don't understand how a photogaph can decide what the lino can see, unless he took it.

Rose goes into the challenge off the ground, at pace, & from behind Dzeko who can't see him & is about to kick the ball.

It does not have to be a 'dangerous' challenge in order to merit a free kick, merely 'careless', will do.

Can anyone other than Poll, really say that Rose was taking any kind of care whatsoever when he launched into that challenge ?

No, a tackle from behind which makes no contact is not an offence is it? Even more so, had rose managed to make the tackle cleanly, everyone would have been talking abut what a great last ditch challenge it was, so I'm not having it that the 'nature' of the challenge was an issue. The tackle from behind you refer to which is outlawed and dangerous, is where you cannot take the ball cleanly without going through the player, not a tackle from the side/behind where the defender tries to hook his leading leg round the player to touch the ball first.

It only becomes an offence once the players course is affected, and even then a decision can only be made if contact is seen - otherwise how do you know the attacker hasn't dived?

The photograph shows that the contact occurred in a position where it was physically impossible for anybody on the right of Dzeko and Rose, to have seen the contact. Therefore the linesman saw a challenge, and saw a player go down, What he did not see was the contact (or lack of) that caused the attacking player to hit the deck.

It could conceivably be that his 'experience' told him that this sort of challenge would result in contact, but that for me takes officiating into a very grey area, as like I say, it becomes a guess, not based on what he saw.

I'm not making any reference to that at all. I see no mention of it in the rules.

For contact not to happen, the bloke would have needed rocket boosters operating in the opposite direction. There was no possibility that he didn't make contact unless Dzeko had jumped up in the air, he couldn't possibly avoid making contact.

It didn't happen in slow motion it happened at full speed. Watch it at full speed.

And as I said, the criteria in the rule book is whether Rose was careless in that challenge. It doesn't have to be reckless or dangerous, or from behind, just 'careless'. That's the rule.

Imo, jumping through the air into someone in a desperate attempt to get a toe to the ball, is not taking any kind of care, therefore, I don't understand why there is even an argument in the media about it or why refs are questioning it.

Seems eveyone is happy to ignore the rules except that lino, & he is getting shit for it.

Sorry mate, now you are just making stuff up about what is in the rule book. The same 'careless' tackle could easily have nipped the ball of dzeko's toes without touching him, in which case it would have been a fantastic tackle well executed as we see terry, kompany etc excellent at this week in week out.

The very reason why the penalty exists, is to provide recompense for when these exact last ditch tackles result in an unfair disadvantage for the attacking player caused by physical contact from the defender.

No matter how many ways you want to try and paint it, the basic rule that overrides all others, is that a penalty cannot be given unless there is contact between two players, and the official has a duty to see that contact take place BEFORE the ball was kicked, not to guess whether they think it might have happened or not, or in what order.

If this had been given against us by this linesman, you'd have been going fucking mad with the conspiracy mob about this linesman flagging for a penalty where he didnt see the contact.

Anyway, why do you think it was rescinded out of interest?

What the fucking hell are you talking about 'making it up' ? It specifically uses the word 'careless' in the cunting FIFA rule book. Fucking read it.

I don't fucking make things up.

The point is, whether something is careless is totally irrelevant without contact. As I keep saying, but you appear to be wilfully ignoring, the same challenge where the player nips it off the attackers toes is considered 'wonderful defending' by all and sundry, so the nature of the challenge isn't careless at all, its a calculated attempt to win the ball fairly, which might or might not end up with contact with the player.

There are 3 possible outcomes:
Clean tackle, no contact on the player.
If contact is made, its a penalty and the defender takes that risk.
If contact isn't made and the tackle is missed, the attacker gets their shot away and no punishment for the player.

[Alex Sapphire]

It does not have to be a 'dangerous' challenge in order to merit a free kick, merely 'careless', will do.

And as I said, the criteria in the rule book is whether Rose was careless in that challenge. It doesn't have to be reckless or dangerous, or from behind, just 'careless'. That's the rule.

What the fucking hell are you talking about 'making it up' ? It specifically uses the word 'careless' in the cunting FIFA rule book. Fucking read it.

I don't fucking make things up

That's not what the rule says though

[Im_Spartacus]

It does not have to be a 'dangerous' challenge in order to merit a free kick, merely 'careless', will do.

And as I said, the criteria in the rule book is whether Rose was careless in that challenge. It doesn't have to be reckless or dangerous, or from behind, just 'careless'. That's the rule.

What the fucking hell are you talking about 'making it up' ? It specifically uses the word 'careless' in the cunting FIFA rule book. Fucking read it.

I don't fucking make things up

That's not what the rule says though

The rules says the following needs to have happened:

kicks or attempts to kick an opponent
trips or attempts to trip an opponent
jumps at an opponent
charges an opponent
strikes or attempts to strike an opponent
pushes an opponent
tackles an opponent

Then the referee has to decide whether it fits being reckless, careless or with excessive force.

Fact is here, he tried to make a legitimate challenge. Had it come off, the referee wouldn't have blown up for a free kick had the tackle been perfectly timed - that can't be careless, because he pulled it off perfectly. So its not an offence just because it's 'careless' - its an infringement because the outcome of that particular challenge happened to be that he made contact with the player in the course of that challenge, and the best definition is that it happened because he was careless (eg it was a shit tackle).

But without the contact, there is no infringement, and going way way back to the start of this discussion, the person who awarded the penalty didnt see the contact, so had no business flagging for a penalty.

The thing I now find most worrying about all this, is how the red card has been rescinded, given that the same rules state that a red card offence is: denying an obvious goalscoring opportunity to an opponent moving towards the player's goal by an offence punishable by a free kick or a penalty kick

So the FA can only be suggesting for some reason that it wasn't a penalty, which is a remarkable decision to take given the replays. B

[zuricity]

The rules says the following needs to have happened:
kicks or attempts to kick an opponent
trips or attempts to trip an opponent
jumps at an opponent
charges an opponent
strikes or attempts to strike an opponent
pushes an opponent
tackles an opponent
Then the referee has to decide whether it fits being reckless, careless or with excessive force.

Fact is here, he tried to make a legitimate challenge. Had it come off, the referee wouldn't have blown up for a free kick had the tackle been perfectly timed - that can't be careless, because he pulled it off perfectly. So its not an offence just because it's 'careless' - its an infringement because the outcome of that particular challenge happened to be that he made contact with the player in the course of that challenge, and the best definition is that it happened because he was careless (eg it was a shit tackle).

But without the contact, there is no infringement, and going way way back to the start of this discussion, the person who awarded the penalty didnt see the contact, so had no business flagging for a penalty.

The thing I now find most worrying about all this, is how the red card has been rescinded, given that the same rules state that a red card offence is: denying an obvious goalscoring opportunity to an opponent moving towards the player's goal by an offence punishable by a free kick or a penalty kick

So the FA can only be suggesting for some reason that it wasn't a penalty, which is a remarkable decision to take given the replays. B

How do you know he was trying to make a ligitimate challenge ?

[Im_Spartacus]

The rules says the following needs to have happened:
kicks or attempts to kick an opponent
trips or attempts to trip an opponent
jumps at an opponent
charges an opponent
strikes or attempts to strike an opponent
pushes an opponent
tackles an opponent
Then the referee has to decide whether it fits being reckless, careless or with excessive force.

Fact is here, he tried to make a legitimate challenge. Had it come off, the referee wouldn't have blown up for a free kick had the tackle been perfectly timed - that can't be careless, because he pulled it off perfectly. So its not an offence just because it's 'careless' - its an infringement because the outcome of that particular challenge happened to be that he made contact with the player in the course of that challenge, and the best definition is that it happened because he was careless (eg it was a shit tackle).

But without the contact, there is no infringement, and going way way back to the start of this discussion, the person who awarded the penalty didnt see the contact, so had no business flagging for a penalty.

The thing I now find most worrying about all this, is how the red card has been rescinded, given that the same rules state that a red card offence is: denying an obvious goalscoring opportunity to an opponent moving towards the player's goal by an offence punishable by a free kick or a penalty kick

So the FA can only be suggesting for some reason that it wasn't a penalty, which is a remarkable decision to take given the replays. B

How do you know he was trying to make a ligitimate challenge ?

Perhaps because players in that situation want to save their team rather than maim the opposition.

[CuteMancs]

Red card overturned by the FA apparently

[Rag_hater]

Red card overturned by the FA apparently

By FA do you mean Football Association.