Like Souness never 'misbehaved'Jordan doesn't do himself any favours by saying the referee didn't see Joao Pedro kicking the ball away. Souness quite rightly picked him up on that. Souness also calls out Veltman for 'misbehaving' (much the same as McCoist did). Doubt many ex-pros would think differently
Disagree completely.
Agree with all of this.
It's called "Unsporting behaviour". Under this heading, Veltman could potentially have been guilty of "committing in a reckless manner a direct free kick offence" - which would have been a yellow card. The ref could possibly have seen Veltman's actions as "serious foul play" or "violent conduct" - which would have been red card offences. As HKFC has pointed out above, the ref obviously considered that the actions of Rice, in kicking the ball away, meant that Joel ended up kicking through thin air. Having watched it multiple times it seems pretty clear that, if Rice hadn't kicked the ball away, Veltman would have kicked the ball. So definitely NOT "unsporting behaviour". And neither is Rice guilty of "unsporting behaviour" he got his card for "delaying the restart of play". It's remarkable how sensible these decisions seem once you actually read the rules of the game
Amazing how Veltman is such a successful exponent of the Dark Arts that he even managed to fool a large number of our fans. No way was Joel going to miss out on the chance to kick Declan Rice up in the air in full view of a weak ref while of course protesting full-on angelic choirboy innocence. Meanwhile the ex-pros (McCoist, Crouch, Souness) knew exactly what he didIt's called "Unsporting behaviour". Under this heading, Veltman could potentially have been guilty of "committing in a reckless manner a direct free kick offence" - which would have been a yellow card. The ref could possibly have seen Veltman's actions as "serious foul play" or "violent conduct" - which would have been red card offences. As HKFC has pointed out above, the ref obviously considered that the actions of Rice, in kicking the ball away, meant that Joel ended up kicking through thin air. Having watched it multiple times it seems pretty clear that, if Rice hadn't kicked the ball away, Veltman would have kicked the ball. So definitely NOT "unsporting behaviour". And neither is Rice guilty of "unsporting behaviour" he got his card for "delaying the restart of play". It's remarkable how sensible these decisions seem once you actually read the rules of the game
From the outside, I thought Rice was a bit silly but your suggestion that Veltman 'would have kicked the ball' is made through the bluest of blue tinted glasses - He only would have kicked the ball had it spontaneously jumped about 18 inches in to the air and he intended to volley it halfway to Islington!It's called "Unsporting behaviour". Under this heading, Veltman could potentially have been guilty of "committing in a reckless manner a direct free kick offence" - which would have been a yellow card. The ref could possibly have seen Veltman's actions as "serious foul play" or "violent conduct" - which would have been red card offences. As HKFC has pointed out above, the ref obviously considered that the actions of Rice, in kicking the ball away, meant that Joel ended up kicking through thin air. Having watched it multiple times it seems pretty clear that, if Rice hadn't kicked the ball away, Veltman would have kicked the ball. So definitely NOT "unsporting behaviour". And neither is Rice guilty of "unsporting behaviour" he got his card for "delaying the restart of play". It's remarkable how sensible these decisions seem once you actually read the rules of the game
Indeed. Amazing what bias does.
This is wrong. Veltman’s kick would have been a clean strike if the ball was where it should have been. You can see from this pic sequence that his foot is where a foot would be to kick a ball on the ground. I am not disputing he obviously kicked rice on purpose but he would 100% have kicked a ball on the ground.
And it would have been brought back for a rolling ball.
Yes, great comparison. The two incidents really are EXACTLY the same.It's interesting because we have a scenario where our player was looking to kick the ball and wipe out an opposition player with it but ended up getting none of the ball because the home player got his foot to the ball first. That's 'dark arts'
Meanwhile at the Amex we have a scenario where a player was looking to kick the ball and wipe out an opposition player with it but ended up getting none of the ball because the home player got his foot to the ball first. That player was vile and played for Crawley.
Thank you.
But the incident vs Crawley the ball was live. Our player had every right to kick the ball and some time later he was clattered. In this instance the ball was dead so rice had no business kicking it off the pitch. Those two situations are even less comparable that the Pedro throw in incident to the rice booking.It's interesting because we have a scenario where our player was looking to kick the ball and wipe out an opposition player with it but ended up getting none of the ball because the home player got his foot to the ball first. That's 'dark arts'
Meanwhile at the Amex we have a scenario where a player was looking to kick the ball and wipe out an opposition player with it but ended up getting none of the ball because the home player got his foot to the ball first. That player was vile and played for Crawley.
Correct. It would. Which is why Rice is even more of a mug for kicking it when no need. Until Veltman kicks the moving ball he has not committed the offence of kicking the moving ball.
And again - entirely irrelevent.
Do you HONESTLY believe poor Joel just wanted to take the quick free kick and didn't think he would get ANY of the player standing directly in front of it?
He’s entitled to a full follow-through
Absolutely. I agree.
