Craig Thompson

[BrahimHemdani 1]

I'd want a penalty for that. I can see why it might not be though.

 

I can see why you might say that. The player said that he would not have fouled because he was fast enough to catch the attacker and that looked to be the case. However, when he went down under the illegal challenge he may have felt in that split second that he could get away with an upwards flick to trip up the attacker; I'm not saying that that is what happened but it is possible.

 

I agree with you (and that's rare) to the extent that if the referee does not give a foul against the attacker then you are looking for a penalty.

 

However, it's a foul by the attacker in my book; and there would have been no controversy if that's what he'd given.

 

As a final thought, his linesman could have helped him out by suggesting the foul was the other way; but obviously wasn't interested.

Edited December 8, 2016 by BrahimHemdani

[the gunslinger 3,366]

Should it not have been a free kick for the foul on the defender?

That's one view and quite possibly correct. Another is they went shoulder d

To shoulder then the defender went down didn't touch the ball and did touch the player.

 

I'd be screaming for it or against it depending on whether it was for or against my team.

 

 

[the gunslinger 3,366]

I can see why you might say that. The player said that he would not have fouled because he was fast enough to catch the attacker and that looked to be the case. However, when he went down under the illegal challenge he may have felt in that split second that he could get away with an upwards flick to trip up the attacker; I'm not saying that that is what happened but it is possible.

 

I agree with you (and that's rare) to the extent that if the referee does not give a foul against the attacker then you are looking for a penalty.

 

However, it's a foul by the attacker in my book; and there would have been no controversy if that's what he'd given.

 

As a final thought, his linesman could have helped him out by suggesting the foul was the other way; but obviously wasn't interested.

Much as I see it.

 

Linesman probably hates him.

 

Everyone does.

 

 

[BrahimHemdani 1]

Much as I see it.

 

Linesman probably hates him.

 

Everyone does.

Well, as I said, GS, we don't often agree so this makes a pleasant change.

 

I'm not sure if the linesman hates him but what I can tell you is that most referees will say that they don't want a linesman to "interfere" with calls in the penalty area; in other words they don't want the linesman to give a penalty that they didn't think was a penalty. So it might have been here that the linesman, said to himself, if he wants to give a penalty then I'll just let him go ahead.

It happened to me in a reserve match at Cappielow one day, when a highly regarded up and coming Grade 2 Referee called Willie Moulds from Hamilton, gave a penalty when I saw clearly that the attacker had handled not the defender and I put my flag up and marched on to the pitch as the kick was about to be taken, to get the ref out of a jam. When he came over, he said "Was it the attacker?" and when I answered in the affirmative, he said "thought so". If memory serves me Willie went on to officiate at Grade 1 for a spell and I didn't. There's a moral in there somewhere.

Edited December 9, 2016 by BrahimHemdani

[Oleg_Mcnoleg 50]

If I was a striker, I would be claiming for it. But I shouldn't be bloody getting it! At very worst, it's shoulder-to-shoulder and it's probably a foul on the defender.

Thompson is an absolute fucking trumpet.

[pete 2,499]

I watched an Aberdeen game lst season that Willie Collum was refereeing and he was totally drastic. I don't think he got a decision right. As far as I can remember he got a 4 week lay off because of it.

 

I am still amazed by the stooges along the goal line what a waste of space they are.

[ian1964 10,563]

Imagine that being against the bheasts!,new windows required and probably another refs strike.............

[MacK1950 2,271]

The stoogies along the goal line leave me puzzled too as I thought they were there to assist linesmen and not block their view,IMO they should be at other side of pitch from linesmen.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

The stoogies along the goal line leave me puzzled too as I thought they were there to assist linesmen and not block their view,IMO they should be at other side of pitch from linesmen.

 

That's one of the many strange things about this set up. The problem with your suggestion in theory is that the opposite diagonal is the side normally occupied by the referee (usually described as "running left wingers" in old money) whereas the linesman (sorry assistant referee) usually runs "right wingers"*; unless the referee is left footed in which case the roles are usually reversed. Most linesmen hate running "left wingers" because it means leading with your left foot.

 

So if the officials behind the goal take the right hand side, as you say they will likely obscure the linesman's view and if they take the left hand side they are on the referee's diagonal and most likely discounted by the referee.

 

I can't recall seeing any official behind the goal taking any significant part in the game, though it's possible they may do so by radio. I think they're redundant.

 

* this is known as the diagonal system of control i.e. linesmen run from the half way line to the goal line on one side and the referee runs the diagonal on the other side, so that most times the play will be between the officials.

[pete 2,499]

That's one of the many strange things about this set up. The problem with your suggestion in theory is that the opposite diagonal is the side normally occupied by the referee (usually described as "running left wingers" in old money) whereas the linesman (sorry assistant referee) usually runs "right wingers"*; unless the referee is left footed in which case the roles are usually reversed. Most linesmen hate running "left wingers" because it means leading with your left foot.

 

So if the officials behind the goal take the right hand side, as you say they will likely obscure the linesman's view and if they take the left hand side they are on the referee's diagonal and most likely discounted by the referee.

 

I can't recall seeing any official behind the goal taking any significant part in the game, though it's possible they may do so by radio. I think they're redundant.

 

* this is known as the diagonal system of control i.e. linesmen run from the half way line to the goal line on one side and the referee runs the diagonal on the other side, so that most times the play will be between the officials.

 

I thought that about the radio as well BH but I have seen unmissable fouls happen in front of their noses and they still stand there like stooges. I can see no active part that they play except possibly if the ball crosses the goal-line or not. Surely a camera is cheaper.