The laws of the game

[stockyfox]

At least,we appear to be looking at the same hymn-book Fenland-Fox!

BUT I still don't understand how Schmeichel's throw, which landed within five yards of the centre-circle could be deemed as 'delaying'tactics. If anything, it was the opposite.

However, and I don't care if it is us, Forest, Derby, Spurs, Man. Utd, this is just another example of the poor standard of refereeing that is prevalent in all divisions week after week.

There is so much money now involved in the game as a whole, whether you are a Club, a player, an employee or a fan (and to be a fan costs a hell of a lot and for many, their annual outlay is totally disproportionate to their income) .

As such, it is incumbent on the FA to support their officials with the same level of technology that is now part and parcel in the world of Rugby and Cricket. As it stands, the FA are under the illusion that by calling 'those who run the line 'assistant referees' and by having a 'fourth official', they have moved into the 21st Century.

I compare the high standard of umpiring in cricket. Yes, they very occasionally get it wrong, but so many times their judgement is proved to be absolutely spot on. Not so in Football.

[gazfox9]

If we played the 2nd half like the first then it wouldnt have happened.

Sven needs to understand that we cant just sit on leads, even 2-0!

We can't just go out and dominate teams for the entire 90 minutes. Were not good enough. Most premier league sides aren't good enough to do that either. The fact is, Forest were the home side, and were always going to have a spell some point in the game where they applied pressure to our goal. I'm pretty sure though that we'd have still won eleven on eleven, as even though they were on top at that point Kasper had only had to make a couple of routine saves.

[Guest ttfn]

At least,we appear to be looking at the same hymn-book Fenland-Fox!

BUT I still don't understand how Schmeichel's throw, which landed within five yards of the centre-circle could be deemed as 'delaying'tactics. If anything, it was the opposite.

However, and I don't care if it is us, Forest, Derby, Spurs, Man. Utd, this is just another example of the poor standard of refereeing that is prevalent in all divisions week after week.

There is so much money now involved in the game as a whole, whether you are a Club, a player, an employee or a fan (and to be a fan costs a hell of a lot and for many, their annual outlay is totally disproportionate to their income) .

As such, it is incumbent on the FA to support their officials with the same level of technology that is now part and parcel in the world of Rugby and Cricket. As it stands, the FA are under the illusion that by calling 'those who run the line 'assistant referees' and by having a 'fourth official', they have moved into the 21st Century.

I compare the high standard of umpiring in cricket. Yes, they very occasionally get it wrong, but so many times their judgement is proved to be absolutely spot on. Not so in Football.

It would be interesting to see what the referee says about the second yellow because there was no way that it could have been timewasting.

It could, however, have been interpreted as dissent.

[marbelladave]

It would be interesting to see what the referee says about the second yellow because there was no way that it could have been timewasting.

It could, however, have been interpreted as dissent.

Personally I think the referee did not think much of Schmeichel's behaviour before the penalty and took the opportunity to really rub it in after.

In the heat of a tough match contentious decisions such as the penalty will cause players to react. Going in hard after such a decision was, at best, a poor reaction from the referee at worse a deliberate act to 'show who is the boss'.

More importantly, it is a nonsense that such relatively minor offences should, by the officious reaction of the referee, should be allowed to turn a game completely on it's head,

Even if the referee was correct to caution Schmeichel, the punishment was out of all proportion to the offence. This happens far too often in modern football, as I pointed out in an earlier post it is now the case that the referee is the most important person on the pitch and it is often the case that his decisions are more important to the outcome of the game than the efforts of the 22 players.

[foxes_clown]

It's a long 5 yards...

[Kitchandro]

It's a long 5 yards...

Looks pretty near the halfway line to me.

Case closed.

[OzFox]

It's a long 5 yards...

I was thinking the same That's the rose tinted glasses 5 yards.

Kaspar more than likely knew he'd get a card for delaying the penalty (and he certainly would have heard the cheer from the Forest fans when he got it) Then like a petulant kid he throws the ball into space right under the nose of the referee. He deserved to get sent off.

[shen]

Your opinion can be disproved, thus making it wrong. How can you prove Matt Mills didn't intentionally handle the ball? It was up to the referee to decide if he did, so in his opinion he has, so a penalty was the correct decision based on what the referee thought had happened

Just because you argue that the ref was just following his own conviction doesn't make the decision any better. It wasn't a deliberate handball, his hand wasn't in an unnatural position, and Mills and his team did not gain any advantage from the contact.

[stockyfox]

While we are all 'discussing' the rights and wrongs re the penalty decision, Kasper Schmeichel's yellow and red cards, etc. etc., Alan Young, speaking on Football Forum, came out with a quite amazing revelation which it would appear nobody else has picked up on.

He contended that Boateng's 'goal' should not have been given because Boateng actually pushed Paul Konchesky to the ground and the ball went into the net off Konchesky. Leicester should have been awarded a free-kick and none of what went on afterwards would have been relevant or even happened if the ref had been doing his job properly.

Is anybody able to concur with Alan? If he is correct in what he says, it is yet another black mark against the referee.

I know all this is in the past and we need to move on and I fully accept that nothing anybody says on these or other boards is going to make one iota of difference but it is most irritating to see instances like this occuring week after week. The FA's protection of referees, their tolerance of what is nothing short of shoddy, inconsistent and incompetent refereeing, their reticence to do anything about it are all to be deplored.

Referees should be fully accountable but thanks to the FA, they are the 'untouchables', say one word against them and the 'men in lounge suits' are like Daleks but instead of saying 'Exterminate' they say 'Disrepute, disrepute, disrepute'.

[OzFox]

While we are all 'discussing' the rights and wrongs re the penalty decision, Kasper Schmeichel's yellow and red cards, etc. etc., Alan Young, speaking on Football Forum, came out with a quite amazing revelation which it would appear nobody else has picked up on.

He contended that Boateng's 'goal' should not have been given because Boateng actually pushed Paul Konchesky to the ground and the ball went into the net off Konchesky. Leicester should have been awarded a free-kick and none of what went on afterwards would have been relevant or even happened if the ref had been doing his job properly.

Is anybody able to concur with Alan? If he is correct in what he says, it is yet another black mark against the referee.

I know all this is in the past and we need to move on and I fully accept that nothing anybody says on these or other boards is going to make one iota of difference but it is most irritating to see instances like this occuring week after week. The FA's protection of referees, their tolerance of what is nothing short of shoddy, inconsistent and incompetent refereeing, their reticence to do anything about it are all to be deplored.

Referees should be fully accountable but thanks to the FA, they are the 'untouchables', say one word against them and the 'men in lounge suits' are like Daleks but instead of saying 'Exterminate' they say 'Disrepute, disrepute, disrepute'.

I think quite a few people on here thought Konchesky had been fouled. I mentioned in a previous post that Konchesky had probably got the last touch.

I don't have much sympathy though because if he had attacked the ball and tried to clear it instead of ball watching at the back post with Abe, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

[Guest MattP]

I was thinking the same That's the rose tinted glasses 5 yards.

Kaspar more than likely knew he'd get a card for delaying the penalty (and he certainly would have heard the cheer from the Forest fans when he got it) Then like a petulant kid he throws the ball into space right under the nose of the referee. He deserved to get sent off.

This.

If this was Ricardo no one would be moaning about the ref, we would all be too busy slagging the Portuguese guy off.

[DB11]

Just because you argue that the ref was just following his own conviction doesn't make the decision any better. It wasn't a deliberate handball, his hand wasn't in an unnatural position, and Mills and his team did not gain any advantage from the contact.

I agree with all of that. In my opinion it wasn't a penalty.

[shen]

I agree with all of that. In my opinion it wasn't a penalty.

Surely this justifies questions as to how suited he was to ref that game then. Fair enough if refs make marginal mistakes for which they can't really legislate, but apart from Mills and Kasper, Jonathan Moss probably had the clearest view of the incident.

[marbelladave]

Surely this justifies questions as to how suited he was to ref that game then. Fair enough if refs make marginal mistakes for which they can't really legislate, but apart from Mills and Kasper, Jonathan Moss probably had the clearest view of the incident.

Yes and no.

The reality is that even the best referees will make mistakes, what we need to do is to reduce the impact of these errors on the game itself. It is clearly a nonsense when a poor decision or two from the ref is clearly more important than the efforts of the 22 players on the pitch.

The sending off was the decision that made a mockery of the game, yes Schmeichel was out of order (to some degree according to your view) but the punishment was totally disproportionate to the offence.

I have outlined above how the impact of poor or contentious refereeing can be made to have less influence on a game, it may not be the answer but something definitely needs to be done.

[Telford Fox]

am i the only one that thinks the second Forest goal should have been disallowed, from seeing it on the tv the forest player made no contact with the ball just bardged into the back of the defender, so should have been a free kick.

[shen]

am i the only one that thinks the second Forest goal should have been disallowed, from seeing it on the tv the forest player made no contact with the ball just bardged into the back of the defender, so should have been a free kick.

No you're not, and it's been mentioned numerous times as well in this thread