The Official 2014/15 Premier League Thread

[braineclipse]

yeah i agree. which is why referees are struggling so much these days. with all the cameras at the games and social media etc, every aspect of the game is under the spotlight. and people are now realising just how much inconsistency there is in refereering performances. these inconsistencies exist because referees are having to "make up" their own rules rather than simply following the rule book. this is also why video technology is not being introduced into football imo. as it would completely change the way the game is played, as football would have to confront the fact that the actual rules of football are largely irrelevant at the moment.

I think people have noticed a lot of inconsistencies in refereeing a long time ago. There's more focus on it now, it should be used as a tool to get more consistency. It could be at least.

What's the exact wording you're referring to? Had a quick google, but couldn't find exact words saying that any contact without first getting the ball is a free kick.

Do you really think the rules of football are beyond interpretation?

 

[Rorschach]

Utd with another case of daylight robbery versus SFC. They have been absolutely crap and still are winning somehow.

 

[Rorschach]

I think people have noticed a lot of inconsistencies in refereeing a long time ago. There's more focus on it now, it should be used as a tool to get more consistency. It could be at least.

What's the exact wording you're referring to? Had a quick google, but couldn't find exact words saying that any contact without first getting the ball is a free kick.

Do you really think the rules of football are beyond interpretation?

I read today that referees will be replaced by drones.

 

[Mumorn]

will this be 5 tests, 5 losses for Southampton? and a 3rd loss in a row? - tbh, beating the **** and losing to the good will enough for top 4... arsenal have been doing it for years.

 

[Roy1983]

That is disgusting from United. Free kick near the corner flag and they have no one in the box and decide to play out time. I don't care if they're winning you try to score a 3rd to kill the game off. Of course I had a bet on 3-1 so I'm gonna say that but I'm shocked at their negativity in the final 10 minutes. I hope they do that again and get caught out.

Also, was watching Rooney and his touch was absolutely awful tonight on the whole.

 

[wiziwig]

Going by Neymar's views on what a foul is or isn't, it's a nailed on penalty.

letter of the law it is. there can be zero debate about it. based on precedent, it maybe itsnt. if that foul occured in the middle of the pitch in a champions league game, its almost certainly a freekick.

just like james milner said, if its a foul anywhere else on the pitch, why isnt it a penalty?

in short, its 100% a penalty. the ref made numerous errors in this game. awarding the foul here wasnt one of them

Shoulder to shoulder is the only physical contact allowed so by the letter of the law, it's a penalty but I did feel at the time and still do that it a soft one . Milner can say "it's a foul anywhere else in the pitch that's a free kick " but I felt it could equally be said, if that had happened in the other penalty box at the other I don't think it would've been given . Its a generous home penalty , the kind we see at the Etihad or Stamford Bridge ...

 

[wiziwig]

Man United picking up wins without being good and Spammers in the top four - ffsuke:

 

[Neymar]

I think people have noticed a lot of inconsistencies in refereeing a long time ago. There's more focus on it now, it should be used as a tool to get more consistency. It could be at least.

What's the exact wording you're referring to? Had a quick google, but couldn't find exact words saying that any contact without first getting the ball is a free kick.

Do you really think the rules of football are beyond interpretation?

Its not about interpretation. Referees are simply 1) not enforcing the rules 2) changing them 3) making them up as they go along

Most of the time, decisions are binary and very simple to make. either is was a foul, or it wasnt. theres no need to bring in your own rules and judge whether there was enough contact/force or not. theres absolutely nothing about this in the rules.



As you can see from the above, the rules are very very simple. theres absolutely no room for any interpretations if the refs were following the rules. but the simple fact is, refs are not following the rule book. they simply use it as a general guideline, and change it where they see fit.

for anyone interested, the full document can be found here:

http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/afdeveloping/refereeing/law_12_fouls_misconduct_en_47379.pdf

 

[wiziwig]

United are certs for top four . They've drawn against both Emirates Marketing Project and Chelsea, and they're also beating the rest without playing well . They're proving that if you can find a way not concede to much and have got quality in the final third, you can win matches .

Good post match interview by LVG ... "we were lucky, it's not good enough" .

 

[braineclipse]

Its not about interpretation. Referees are simply 1) not enforcing the rules 2) changing them 3) making them up as they go along

Most of the time, decisions are binary and very simple to make. either is was a foul, or it wasnt. theres no need to bring in your own rules and judge whether there was enough contact/force or not. theres absolutely nothing about this in the rules.

View attachment 2206

As you can see from the above, the rules are very very simple. theres absolutely no room for any interpretations if the refs were following the rules. but the simple fact is, refs are not following the rule book. they simply use it as a general guideline, and change it where they see fit.

for anyone interested, the full document can be found here:

http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/afdeveloping/refereeing/law_12_fouls_misconduct_en_47379.pdf

Please define tackle, or use FIFA's definition if you have one. As far as I'm aware tackle is not the same as any physical contact and is open to at least some interpretation.

 

[Neymar]

Please define tackle, or use FIFA's definition if you have one. As far as I'm aware tackle is not the same as any physical contact and is open to at least some interpretation.

im not sure ive understood what you are asking, but ill try. let me know if i havent actaully understood the gist of your question.

"tackles an opponent to gain possession of the ball,
making contact with the opponent before touching the
ball"

this means that if a player makes contact with an opponent before touching the ball in a tackle attempt, it is a foul.

"the referee is
concerned only with
whether the action occurred
, not
with how it was done."

the definitition of "how it was done" is explain by fifa in another page as "careless, reckless, or with excessive force". basically, fifa are saying the extent of force used in making contact is irrelevant. the only relevant factor is if contact was made.

ill say it again, the rules are very simple, and are not subject to interpretation in 99% of cases. refs are just enforcing them incorrectly, and epl refs are the worst offenders from what i can see.

 

[the dza]

Utd will probably throw some more money around in January. They keep spending a fortune on good players, so it would seem certain they will finish in the top 4. If they actually start playing well, I'd expect them to finish 3rd. They would then spend even more in the summer and compete for the title next season. I think that's the plan.

 

[braineclipse]

im not sure ive understood what you are asking, but ill try. let me know if i havent actaully understood the gist of your question.

"tackles an opponent to gain possession of the ball,
making contact with the opponent before touching the
ball"

1. this means that if a player makes contact with an opponent before touching the ball in a tackle attempt, it is a foul.

"the referee is
concerned only with
whether the action occurred
, not
with how it was done."

2. the definitition of "how it was done" is explain by fifa in another page as "careless, reckless, or with excessive force". basically, fifa are saying the extent of force used in making contact is irrelevant. the only relevant factor is if contact was made.

ill say it again, the rules are very simple, and are not subject to interpretation in 99% of cases. refs are just enforcing them incorrectly, and epl refs are the worst offenders from what i can see.

Added numbers for clarity.

1. You're equating "tackle" and "any contact", without making any reference to the regulations. It's an interpretation of the regulations, not what the regulations actually state.

2. No, I think you must have misread it. The document you posted clearly states (page 5): "For this group of six, the referee must consider how the action was done." Followed by the three types carelessly, recklessly or with excessive force. These 3 are further defined on pages 8 and 9. It's not related to "the group of 4" on page 6.

Edit: Let me just add: If your interpretation of the rules was actually enforced the game as we know it would be very different. I wasn't around 100 years ago, but I've watched videos from back when there first was videos and if enforced like your interpretation of it the game would also be very different to how it was back then. If for some reason the regulations were taken out of the context of current interpretation by the refs (I have no idea why that would actually happen) I think FIFA would very quickly have to change their regulations. Because it would no longer be the same game. The reality is that regulations, like law, exist within a current interpretation of them. Judging any situation without that context seems completely unproductive to me.

 

[Neymar]

Added numbers for clarity.

1. You're equating "tackle" and "any contact", without making any reference to the regulations. It's an interpretation of the regulations, not what the regulations actually state.

i dont understand what you mean. it quite clearly states no contact can be made in a tackle attempt before the ball has been taken.

2. No, I think you must have misread it. The document you posted clearly states (page 5): "For this group of six, the referee must consider how the action was done." Followed by the three types carelessly, recklessly or with excessive force. These 3 are further defined on pages 8 and 9. It's not related to "the group of 4" on page 6.

yes, for the actions in group 6, the manner (careless, reckless, excess) of the action must be considered. for the actions in group 4, the only factor that matters is whether contact occured. ie. was there contact? yes or no.

 

[Neymar]

Edit: Let me just add: If your interpretation of the rules was actually enforced the game as we know it would be very different. I wasn't around 100 years ago, but I've watched videos from back when there first was videos and if enforced like your interpretation of it the game would also be very different to how it was back then. If for some reason the regulations were taken out of the context of current interpretation by the refs (I have no idea why that would actually happen) I think FIFA would very quickly have to change their regulations. Because it would no longer be the same game. The reality is that regulations, like law, exist within a current interpretation of them. Judging any situation without that context seems completely unproductive to me.

its nothing to do with interpretations. how many times do i have to say this?

and yes, if the refs actually followed the rule book, the game would be different. and its precisely because fifa do not actually want their refs faced with enforcing the rules that they are unable to introduce technology into football. a challenge system like tennis would revolutionize the game in a manner that most people would not enjoy, hence fifa's reluctance to introduce it.

football rules havent changed much in a 100 years. its just that now, refs enforce it more accurately than they did 100 years ago. and in a 100 years into the future, the rules will probablystill be very similar to what they are today. they will just be enforced even more accurately.

nothing is being "interpretted" or "taken out of context". rules are just not being enforced.

fifa dont have to change anything. and if i was them, i would advise against it. people like how football is played/reffed atm, so let it be imo. it makes fifa a bucketload of money. this doesnt take away from the fact that the rules are not being followed however. thats my point. i'm not really calling for any change.

 

[braineclipse]

i dont understand what you mean. it quite clearly states no contact can be made in a tackle attempt before the ball has been taken.

Listen, I'm obviously being pedantic. And being so because I think context and interpretation matters. In a game judged by officials trained by the football associations how those officials are trained matters. And judging what should happen in a specific situation in a game without taking that context into consideration and just looking at the regulations makes little sense to me.

I agree that your interpretation of the regulation is the most obvious one. But i don't think it's the only one. You can also read the text as if tackling the opponent, not the ball, when attempting to gain possession. It then becomes a question of what tackle means, without a definition from FIFA I don't think it's as clear as you're making out.

yes, for the actions in group 6, the manner (careless, reckless, excess) of the action must be considered. for the actions in group 4, the only factor that matters is whether contact occured. ie. was there contact? yes or no.

Yes on if it occurred. Not on if there was contact. But those manners are not relevant for the group of 4.

 

[braineclipse]

its nothing to do with interpretations. how many times do i have to say this?

and yes, if the refs actually followed the rule book, the game would be different. and its precisely because fifa do not actually want their refs faced with enforcing the rules that they are unable to introduce technology into football. a challenge system like tennis would revolutionize the game in a manner that most people would not enjoy, hence fifa's reluctance to introduce it.

football rules havent changed much in a 100 years. its just that now, refs enforce it more accurately than they did 100 years ago. and in a 100 years into the future, the rules will probablystill be very similar to what they are today. they will just be enforced even more accurately.

nothing is being "interpretted" or "taken out of context". rules are just not being enforced.

fifa dont have to change anything. and if i was them, i would advise against it. people like how football is played/reffed atm, so let it be imo. it makes fifa a bucketload of money. this doesnt take away from the fact that the rules are not being followed however. thats my point. i'm not really calling for any change.

But you are arguing "if you read the rules, its quite clearly 100% a penalty." as if that is the decisive factor.

 

[Neymar]

But you are arguing "if you read the rules, its quite clearly 100% a penalty." as if that is the decisive factor.

well what are you arguing then?

 

[braineclipse]

well what are you arguing then?

That these things should be seen in the context of how other decisions are given. How the referees are interpreting the rules and how they have been trained to officiate matches.

Something could be 100% a foul going by the rules, but if it goes unpunished in 99% of cases and all of a sudden one is given as a foul that's not the one time the ref got it right. It's the one time he got it wrong.

The problem is consistency as you say. But even if the rules were followed 100% you wouldn't get that consistency. I think video refereeing could, but there's no reason a panel deciding on a video decision could make a judgment call on what is a foul or not based on a similar (but more consistent) standard as the one currently in use.

In fact, as I said above, current technology could and should already be used to help referees reach a more consistent consensus on what is and isn't a foul, what is and isn't a penalty and what is and what isn't a yellow card etc. The key to that (imo) is quick feedback and discussion after the games, openness along with an environment where a referee can admit to getting something wrong.

 

[shaney]

United are certs for top four . They've drawn against both Emirates Marketing Project and Chelsea, and they're also beating the rest without playing well . They're proving that if you can find a way not concede to much and have got quality in the final third, you can win matches .

Good post match interview by LVG ... "we were lucky, it's not good enough" .

Agreed. Nice to hear an honest verdict on their performance by LVG.