SHOREY BOOKING

[T.R.O.L.I.]

Compare and contrast the throw-in with Jahdi's twice-unpunished antics.

Now that his cheating has been exposed in detail on TV I doubt that he'll get away with it again. The ref could give the defence a free kick for "seeking to gain an advantage" so that the offensive kick would be wasted - good result. And he could book him for ungentlemanly conduct on top.

Personally, I've got no problem with players jumping up and down in front of the keeper providing they are in an onside position. Anderson was in the Man U v Arsenal game, Jaidi was in the Brum v Everton game. However, in the Brum v Liverpool game he was a good 3 or 4 yards offside and the ball pretty much went straight over his head so how that isn't interfering with play is beyond me

[TFF]

I thought they were lucky to get away with it against Fulham tbh. i suppose it's not a genuine competition for possession

What about a quickly taken free kick?

[URZZZZZZZZ]

Compare and contrast the throw-in with Jahdi's twice-unpunished antics.

Now that his cheating has been exposed in detail on TV I doubt that he'll get away with it again. The ref could give the defence a free kick for "seeking to gain an advantage" so that the offensive kick would be wasted - good result. And he could book him for ungentlemanly conduct on top.

Could be too little too late from our point of view though. Brum gained two points using this tactic.

[RoyalBlue]

didnt see goals on sunday, but i believe if shorey had done that type of throw against an opposing player it would have been deemed a foul, but nothing wrong with doing it to one of your own players, think the ref got a bit confused there!

I would be interested to see where in the laws it defines even the former example as a foul, let alone the latter.

No doubt Graham Poll will cover it next Saturday in his column in The Mail - I expect it to appear on 'They got it wrong' section.

[Wycombe Royal]

I don't see how it is ungentelemanly. It is not against the rules to touch the ball with your back so I can't see what the offence is?

I now expect to see players booked for going anywhere near a keeper when he is trying to kick the ball form his hands (even if not try to put him off), for standing in front of someone taking a throw in even if they don't jump, and for doing a stepover to wrong-foot a defender. All of those are clearly as ungentlemanly as throwing the ball off the back of your own team mate. At least Ronaldo would get two yellows within 5 minutes of the start of a match.

[kevan]

On football first they thought that it was intially a foul throw (hence the whistle) followed by dissent (hence the card) not sure if this is correct.

[Ian Royal]

I don't see how it is ungentelemanly. It is not against the rules to touch the ball with your back so I can't see what the offence is?

I now expect to see players booked for going anywhere near a keeper when he is trying to kick the ball form his hands (even if not try to put him off), for standing in front of someone taking a throw in even if they don't jump, and for doing a stepover to wrong-foot a defender. All of those are clearly as ungentlemanly as throwing the ball off the back of your own team mate. At least Ronaldo would get two yellows within 5 minutes of the start of a match.

have to agree. nothing unsporting or ungentlemanly in throwing the ball against a team mates back.

Or are swearing and spitting now yellow card offences? No points for anyone as all games are abandoned due to sendings off from now on.

Horay for us staying up!!!!

[RTFC Drummer]

Whats the big fuss he got a yellow card big wow NOT

[papereyes]

Compare and contrast the throw-in with Jahdi's twice-unpunished antics.

Now that his cheating has been exposed in detail on TV I doubt that he'll get away with it again. The ref could give the defence a free kick for "seeking to gain an advantage" so that the offensive kick would be wasted - good result. And he could book him for ungentlemanly conduct on top.

Are you going to start to book attacking players for standing on the end of the defensive wall too? What about those standing in a fake wall infront of the ball?

If he's in an offside position when the free kick is taken then great, give him offside, but in at least one of those two examples they showed on the TV he wasn't even in an offside position.
There is nothing wrong with trying to obstruct the view of the keeper, although if he starts jumping up and down or shouting at him I think he crosses the line.

He won't be if he doesn't try to play the ball, basically.

But, iirc, you can book anyone for pretty much anything under ungentlemanly conduct.

[RoyalBlue]

If he's in an offside position when the free kick is taken then great, give him offside, but in at least one of those two examples they showed on the TV he wasn't even in an offside position.
There is nothing wrong with trying to obstruct the view of the keeper, although if he starts jumping up and down or shouting at him I think he crosses the line.

He won't be if he doesn't try to play the ball, basically.

If you're referring to being offside, I don't think you are correct. He doesn't have to try to play the ball to be regarded as offside:

From TheFA.com Law 11

"Offence

A player in an offside position is only penalised if, at the moment the ball touches or is played by one of his team, he is, in the opinion of the referee, involved in active play by:

interfering with play or
interfering with an opponent or
gaining an advantage by being in that position


Decision 2

The definitions of elements of involvement in active play are as follows:

Interfering with play means playing or touching the ball passed or touched by a team-mate.

Interfering with an opponent means preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision or movements or making a gesture or movement which, in the opinion of the referee, deceives or distracts an opponent. "

[dobcheck]

I recall some years ago Dean Saunders throw the ball against a goalie who had rushed out to clear a ball, he took the throw against the goalie's back as he turned to run back towards the goal and then collected the rebound and stuck it in the empty net, the goal was given so i dont see how Shorey got booked?

[The Cube]

I recall some years ago Dean Saunders throw the ball against a goalie who had rushed out to clear a ball, he took the throw against the goalie's back as he turned to run back towards the goal and then collected the rebound and stuck it in the empty net, the goal was given so i dont see how Shorey got booked?

I can't manage chapter and verse on this, but I think you'll find that after that incident (or another similar one) guidance was issued to say that if you deliberately threw the ball at an opponent from a throw-in it would be treated as a free-kick and a yellow card. However, it was also made clear at the time that throwing against one of your own players was acceptable.

In the Shorey / Hunt case, it was clearly a planned move so there's no possibility of the ref even arguing that Shorey was acting violently towards one of his own players (which should also result in a free-kick and further punishment unless you're Adebayor).

A lot of people have mentioned the Fulham game, but didn't the pair also do this in an away game before then? That was shown on Match of the Day, resulted in no free-kick, and no comments.

[papereyes]

If he's in an offside position when the free kick is taken then great, give him offside, but in at least one of those two examples they showed on the TV he wasn't even in an offside position.
There is nothing wrong with trying to obstruct the view of the keeper, although if he starts jumping up and down or shouting at him I think he crosses the line.

He won't be if he doesn't try to play the ball, basically.

If you're referring to being offside, I don't think you are correct. He doesn't have to try to play the ball to be regarded as offside:

From TheFA.com Law 11

"Offence

A player in an offside position is only penalised if, at the moment the ball touches or is played by one of his team, he is, in the opinion of the referee, involved in active play by:

interfering with play or
interfering with an opponent or
gaining an advantage by being in that position


Decision 2

The definitions of elements of involvement in active play are as follows:

Interfering with play means playing or touching the ball passed or touched by a team-mate.

Interfering with an opponent means preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision or movements or making a gesture or movement which, in the opinion of the referee, deceives or distracts an opponent. "

The thing is that there's a wall in the way. DG put a thread up on GF which suggests, at least to me, that simply standing there is not offside. As an aside, according to that, Babel was offside last week vs Chelsea as he made an attempt to play the ball but missed ...

[Ian Royal]

Standing between the keeper and the ball though, has to be offside, regardless if their is a wall just infront, it gives the keeper marginally less time to see the ball and react and he has to take into account possible deflections.

Just because someone else is blocking a sight line, doesn't mean he isn't as well.

[RTFC Drummer]

Get over it he got a yellow card!

[chandog]

Ridiculous decision. The ref should know the rules and he could nt have got it so blatantly wrong. Lucky shorey didnt get booked later on in the game.

[RTFC Drummer]

Good decision. The ref knows the rules and he got it so blatantly correct.

[RoyalBlue]

Standing between the keeper and the ball though, has to be offside, regardless if their is a wall just infront, it gives the keeper marginally less time to see the ball and react and he has to take into account possible deflections.

Just because someone else is blocking a sight line, doesn't mean he isn't as well.

Quite - when it comes to offside the wall isn't interfering with an opponent (unless for some inexplicable reason, they've positioned themselves right in front of the opposing keeper - a wacky tactic even for Steve Coppell! ). A forward stood in front of the opposing keeper and obstructing his vision (and possibly movement) is interfering with an opponent and therefore should be flagged offside if there isn't another opposing player nearer his own goal line when the ball is played.

[kwik-silva]

Which game is this from

[Baines]

Good decision. The ref knows the rules and he got it so blatantly correct.

LOL @ RTFC Drummer's attempted transformation from boring spammer to failed wind-up merchant.