Match-Day Moments - Stevenage

[Pogleswoody]

As I sit in the Demport I couldn't see either incident now looking at Charlie's angles the first one is a foul that really winds me up with refs. If tackling from behind is against the rules then it's a pen but refs are so inconsistent with this rule.

The assault on Sarcs is a pen all day long. That looks like 2 stone wall shouts in two home games. Their defender didn't even attempt to get the ball but just panicked when Sarcs nicked it off him

Tackling from behind is NOT against the rules if you get the ball, only if you take a players' legs first. Perfectly legal challenge.

That's not strictly true. The laws make no mention of whether the ball was touched or not, it's still a tackle from behind. The ref has to decide whether the challenge was reckless, careless or with excessive force. If he got the ball from behind but with excessive force, it's a foul.

Not strictly true. It's if you endanger the safety of an opponent. So that could be quite subjective. But if the tackle succeeds in winning the ball rather than going through a players' legs it is much less likely to endanger somebody. The tackle on Ladapo did not do so.

So ... can you move on to finding a way for the referee not to give a pen for the fouls on Sarcevic and then Grant? :think:

 

[Bermudian Green]

As I sit in the Demport I couldn't see either incident now looking at Charlie's angles the first one is a foul that really winds me up with refs. If tackling from behind is against the rules then it's a pen but refs are so inconsistent with this rule.

The assault on Sarcs is a pen all day long. That looks like 2 stone wall shouts in two home games. Their defender didn't even attempt to get the ball but just panicked when Sarcs nicked it off him

Tackling from behind is NOT against the rules if you get the ball, only if you take a players' legs first. Perfectly legal challenge.

That's not strictly true. The laws make no mention of whether the ball was touched or not, it's still a tackle from behind. The ref has to decide whether the challenge was reckless, careless or with excessive force. If he got the ball from behind but with excessive force, it's a foul.

Not strictly true. It's if you endanger the safety of an opponent. So that could be quite subjective. But if the tackle succeeds in winning the ball rather than going through a players' legs it is much less likely to endanger somebody. The tackle on Ladapo did not do so.

Yes, it's subjective. The "not strictly true" reference was to your point regarding getting the ball. The laws do not mention the ball.

 

[Balham Green]

As I sit in the Demport I couldn't see either incident now looking at Charlie's angles the first one is a foul that really winds me up with refs. If tackling from behind is against the rules then it's a pen but refs are so inconsistent with this rule.

The assault on Sarcs is a pen all day long. That looks like 2 stone wall shouts in two home games. Their defender didn't even attempt to get the ball but just panicked when Sarcs nicked it off him

Tackling from behind is NOT against the rules if you get the ball, only if you take a players' legs first. Perfectly legal challenge.

That's not strictly true. The laws make no mention of whether the ball was touched or not, it's still a tackle from behind. The ref has to decide whether the challenge was reckless, careless or with excessive force. If he got the ball from behind but with excessive force, it's a foul.

Not strictly true. It's if you endanger the safety of an opponent. So that could be quite subjective. But if the tackle succeeds in winning the ball rather than going through a players' legs it is much less likely to endanger somebody. The tackle on Ladapo did not do so.

So ... can you move on to finding a way for the referee not to give a pen for the fouls on Sarcevic and then Grant? :think:

Looks to me like a pen on Sarcevic for sure.

 

[Pogleswoody]

As I sit in the Demport I couldn't see either incident now looking at Charlie's angles the first one is a foul that really winds me up with refs. If tackling from behind is against the rules then it's a pen but refs are so inconsistent with this rule.

The assault on Sarcs is a pen all day long. That looks like 2 stone wall shouts in two home games. Their defender didn't even attempt to get the ball but just panicked when Sarcs nicked it off him

Tackling from behind is NOT against the rules if you get the ball, only if you take a players' legs first. Perfectly legal challenge.

That's not strictly true. The laws make no mention of whether the ball was touched or not, it's still a tackle from behind. The ref has to decide whether the challenge was reckless, careless or with excessive force. If he got the ball from behind but with excessive force, it's a foul.

Not strictly true. It's if you endanger the safety of an opponent. So that could be quite subjective. But if the tackle succeeds in winning the ball rather than going through a players' legs it is much less likely to endanger somebody. The tackle on Ladapo did not do so.

So ... can you move on to finding a way for the referee not to give a pen for the fouls on Sarcevic and then Grant? :think:

Looks to me like a pen on Sarcevic for sure.

Blimey Balhers ... I'm shocked!! :shock:
:lol: :thumbs:

 

[Mark Pedlar]

I wonder if word gets around and we are paying the penalty for opposition managers suggesting Carey goes down easily.

Which, like it or not, is true.

 

[IJN]

I think he’s been a lot better this season. Last season I was embarrassed by some of his diving.

 

[HC Green]

I wonder if word gets around and we are paying the penalty for opposition managers suggesting Carey goes down easily.

S
Which, like it or not, is true.

So are you saying Referees are getting Ladapo and J Grant confused with Carey?

 

[Bermudian Green]

I wonder if word gets around and we are paying the penalty for opposition managers suggesting Carey goes down easily.

S
Which, like it or not, is true.

So are you saying Referees are getting Ladapo and J Grant confused with Carey?

More likely that we are getting a reputation as a team who dives, because of Carey's antics.

 

[rsp4]

As I sit in the Demport I couldn't see either incident now looking at Charlie's angles the first one is a foul that really winds me up with refs. If tackling from behind is against the rules then it's a pen but refs are so inconsistent with this rule.

The assault on Sarcs is a pen all day long. That looks like 2 stone wall shouts in two home games. Their defender didn't even attempt to get the ball but just panicked when Sarcs nicked it off him

Tackling from behind is NOT against the rules if you get the ball, only if you take a players' legs first. Perfectly legal challenge.

That's not strictly true. The laws make no mention of whether the ball was touched or not, it's still a tackle from behind. The ref has to decide whether the challenge was reckless, careless or with excessive force. If he got the ball from behind but with excessive force, it's a foul.

Not strictly true. It's if you endanger the safety of an opponent. So that could be quite subjective. But if the tackle succeeds in winning the ball rather than going through a players' legs it is much less likely to endanger somebody. The tackle on Ladapo did not do so.

Yes, it's subjective. The "not strictly true" reference was to your point regarding getting the ball. The laws do not mention the ball.

Glad we cleared the tackle from behind subject

 

[Pogleswoody]

As I sit in the Demport I couldn't see either incident now looking at Charlie's angles the first one is a foul that really winds me up with refs. If tackling from behind is against the rules then it's a pen but refs are so inconsistent with this rule.

The assault on Sarcs is a pen all day long. That looks like 2 stone wall shouts in two home games. Their defender didn't even attempt to get the ball but just panicked when Sarcs nicked it off him

Tackling from behind is NOT against the rules if you get the ball, only if you take a players' legs first. Perfectly legal challenge.

That's not strictly true. The laws make no mention of whether the ball was touched or not, it's still a tackle from behind. The ref has to decide whether the challenge was reckless, careless or with excessive force. If he got the ball from behind but with excessive force, it's a foul.

Not strictly true. It's if you endanger the safety of an opponent. So that could be quite subjective. But if the tackle succeeds in winning the ball rather than going through a players' legs it is much less likely to endanger somebody. The tackle on Ladapo did not do so.

Yes, it's subjective. The "not strictly true" reference was to your point regarding getting the ball. The laws do not mention the ball.

Glad we cleared the tackle from behind subject

Don't make the mistake I made .... don't google: 'tackle from behind' !!! :shock: