Rate The Ref v Charlton - John Brooks

[David Fisher]

It is the new rule - came in last season - the free kick was taken from where the ball was touched - you can now be given a free kick against you for off side in your own half

Yes this is one of the more bizzare interpretations of the offside rule - see below from the LOAF on the FA website:

a player CAN NOT be in an offside POSITION in their own half
a player CAN commit an offside OFFENCE in their own half if they go back into their own half from an offside position
With the exception of offences in the goal area, throughout the Laws every free kick is awarded from the place where the offence occurs so it is logical that this should also apply to offside.

 

[Shm]

A little inconsistent at times, let Charlton get away with a few fouls that should have been a booking. Don't think Luke got the protection he should have, he was constantly pulled on and fouled when he had the ball.

 

[r4h4al]

Oh and from Charlton's point of view they might complain about a foul in the build up to the Jervis goal, which I actually agreed with, although perhaps it was another dive it's hard to tell in live action. The ref didn't give it any case, but again it's either a booking for the dive or a foul surely?

I also remember Grant being rugby tackled off the ball which looked a blatant penalty and the ref didn't give it, and then the number 14 penalty appeal, where you have to book him or else give the team a penalty, and he didn't do either.

Also missed quite a few fouls from both teams, but at least that allowed the game to flow? :eh:

On another note, thought their keeper should have been booked at least twice as every goal kick took him about 5 minutes to deliver. Which was weird because it was goalless for most of the game. I think he possibly looked a little dodgy.

Although overall, actually for the standard of refs we usually get, he was actually quite good I suppose...

 

[Willis88]

On another note, thought their keeper should have been booked at least twice as every goal kick took him about 5 minutes to deliver. Which was weird because it was goalless for most of the game. I think he possibly looked a little dodgy.

I did wonder about this at one point. Almost looked like he was playing for a draw. Every GK was taken on the left side of his box, lots of time was wasted walking across.

Other than a few questional decisions the ref had an average game in my opinion. No real bias, was equally average to both teams.

Although that said, we've had 2 games with prolific divers now, thought this was going to get cracked down on? Holmes clearly changed direction straight at Miller to get the foul. He was never going to get the ball he hit forward even without Miller there.

 

[up the line]

A 6. Generally alright and has to be absolutely certain of a dive to punish it.
The really berserk decisions I found were the two times (one in each half) where sarcevic got around the full back and had a fantastic position to go on and shoot or cross but was tripped. The ref correctly called both as fouls but didn't produce a yellow card. I felt in both instances the danger of the situation that the foul snuffed out and the cynicism of the foul merited yellow cards

 

[r4h4al]

Yeah he didn't want to give out any cards yesterday apart from Miller. But that was only because the other team's players surrounded him.

 

[Lundan Cabbie]

On another note, thought their keeper should have been booked at least twice as every goal kick took him about 5 minutes to deliver. Which was weird because it was goalless for most of the game. I think he possibly looked a little dodgy.

I did wonder about this at one point. Almost looked like he was playing for a draw. Every GK was taken on the left side of his box, lots of time was wasted walking across.

That sounds more likely that the goalkeeper has a preferred side to take goal-kicks if he was taking them all from the left.

 

[r4h4al]

That sounds more likely that the goalkeeper has a preferred side to take goal-kicks if he was taking them all from the left.

Bit odd.

 

[Lundan Cabbie]

That sounds more likely that the goalkeeper has a preferred side to take goal-kicks if he was taking them all from the left.

Bit odd.

Why would it be odd? If he is more comfortable kicking from one side as opposed to the other, why would he not go for his preferred side each time?

 

[rongreenblood]

I found it strange that when Ness came on with seconds to go,no time was added for his substitution(which is usually about 30 seconds) he (Ness) got into position and the ref. blew his whistle to indicate full time.

 

[Lundan Cabbie]

I found it strange that when Ness came on with seconds to go,no time was added for his substitution(which is usually about 30 seconds) he (Ness) got into position and the ref. blew his whistle to indicate full time.

If there are 15 seconds to go when a substitution is made, there will still only be 15 seconds remaining when play resumes.

 

[Charles Plym]

I found it strange that when Ness came on with seconds to go,no time was added for his substitution(which is usually about 30 seconds) he (Ness) got into position and the ref. blew his whistle to indicate full time.

That's a bit like saying if a player is injured with a minute left and it takes 15 minutes to treat him that you then have to play 15 minutes ?? You have some dodgy logic me thinks :banghead:

 

[Ray Stidwell]

I found it strange that when Ness came on with seconds to go,no time was added for his substitution(which is usually about 30 seconds) he (Ness) got into position and the ref. blew his whistle to indicate full time.

That's a bit like saying if a player is injured with a minute left and it takes 15 minutes to treat him that you then have to play 15 minutes ?? You have some dodgy logic me thinks :banghead:

I've just read your post & re-read London Cabbie's ; you seem to have mis-read/mis-understood his and resultingly been a bit too hasty with the head-banging

 

[crownhill pilgrim]

he was ok. better than the average L2 standard anyway.

 

[Pogleswoody]

Charlton players were diving at every opportunity yet the ref did nothing.So much for the new rule on diving...one incident in particular a Charlton player goes sprawling in our box and cries out for a penalty....ref does nothing....look ref its either a penalty or a dive....

Why ? Who says ? Someone cant lose there balance or stumble or slip ? flipping stupid thing to say !

I think he meant in the context of their player asking for a penalty. If he appeals having dived, lost his balance, slipped or stumbled .. then he needs booking.