brighton rock
New member
To be fair to dunk it was a poor pass to him but he should have just put his foot through the ball and row z it
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
lewis dunk sending off
- Thread starter ross02
- Start date
Yes it does, if it's for a professional foul. The time when it doesn't matter who got the ball, is when it's dangerous play. The free-kick and card weren't awarded for dangerous play, the free-kick was awarded for Dunk not winning the ball and tripping Bolasie, and the card was for preventing a goal scoring opportunity.
Looking at those pictures from bha100 it looks pretty clear that Dunk didn't get the ball, so a free-kick was right. I don't think it was a goal scoring opportunity though, because Bolasie over-hit the ball, and Kuszczak would have got to it first.
windowlicker
New member
- Aug 22, 2009
- 254
Yeah meant at the speed it happened it wasnt clear if he got the ball first so no complaints
Hillian1
( . ) ( . )
This.
That article is like something I would write.
Decode
New member
- Jan 25, 2010
- 254
Thats not the Poyet way! Everyone must tippy-tappy, even in hotly-contested derbies.
I'll just paste the article up here:
=====
A direct free kick is awarded to the opposing team if a player commits any
of the following seven offences in a manner considered by the referee to be
careless, reckless or using excessive force:
kicks or attempts to kick an opponent
trips or attempts to trip an opponent
jumps at an opponent
charges an opponent
strikes or attempts to strike an opponent
pushes an opponent
tackles an opponent
Notice that there is no mention of winning the ball or not, as long as a tackle is careless, reckless or using excessive force, then it’s a foul. So it is down to the referee to determine what is careless, if in his opinion it wasn’t at least careless then it’s no foul.
So how do you define “careless”, well the referees handbook defines careless as follows.
“Careless” means that the player has shown a lack of attention or
consideration when making a challenge or that he acted without precaution.
No further disciplinary sanction is needed if a foul is judged to be careless.
=====
Nowhere there does it mention "dangerous play".
You could easily argue that Dunk was being careless with his tackle ("oh, matron!"). You could also easily argue that he attempted to kick or trip the player, whether you think he did or didn't, it has to be taken into consideration.
"Got the ball" doesn't mean anything, when there are SO many other parameters to consider. "Got the ball" isn't some kind of get out of jail free card, that means you then just disregard the 45 other things the ref has to take into consideration.
Bold Seagull
strong and stable with me, or...
I didn't go, but watched the highlights expecting to be outraged at the decisions following comments on here, however agree with all of the above.
Once Dunk miss controlled that ball, I'm pretty certain only experience would prevent you from launching in to try to retrieve the situation as he did. Kuszczack would have had a chance one on one, but as it was it was 2 mistakes from Dunk in 1 split second from a young man probably being a bit too pumped up for a big game.
I think you need to read the rules.
We can see that wasn't a careless tackle, it was not likely to injure Bolasie. The way the game is refereed, we know that winning the ball does matter, even if it's not specifically written in the rules. When Dermot Gallagher is explaining decisions on SSN, he'll often make reference to winning the ball. Winning the ball doesn't matter if you go in studs up and put someone in danger.
The fact is, if Dunk had clearly won that ball, the ref would have allowed play to continue.
He lost control of the ball and lunged for it, resulting in Bolasie being tripped. The lunging after losing control is an act that is at least careless. It's a panicky reaction where you don't think about the safety of the challenge. Even if Dunk had got the ball it would have been a foul.
Referees and Dermot Gallagher are wrong to talk about winning the ball, but they are talking in short hand to communicate with the players and pundits on their level (I wish they wouldn't, but that's another thing). It's easier to point to the ball then stop and explain the laws and why you've considered that the challenge is a safe one to players who don't really care what the laws are, really, and are just as easily satisfied with a quick point to the ball, and Dermot is talking on TV shows and news channels where there are time constraints. Again, I wish they would eshew that at least have dermot explain the law but that's not what sky sports really want, they want accessible, not education.
Referees and Dermot Gallagher are wrong to talk about winning the ball, but they are talking in short hand to communicate with the players and pundits on their level (I wish they wouldn't, but that's another thing). It's easier to point to the ball then stop and explain the laws and why you've considered that the challenge is a safe one to players who don't really care what the laws are, really, and are just as easily satisfied with a quick point to the ball, and Dermot is talking on TV shows and news channels where there are time constraints. Again, I wish they would eshew that at least have dermot explain the law but that's not what sky sports really want, they want accessible, not education.
I think you need to learn how to interpret them. So what exactly did Dunk do for a free kick to be awarded (bearing in mind I think the free-kick was correct)?
All this.
Nonsense.
By the laws of the game it would've been, the ref probably wouldn't have given it. I wonder whether the laws of the game need updating, seems they were written back in a time where you had to tackle "like a true gentleman, in an orderly fashion."
It's really not, as supported by the overwhelming number of free kicks that are given even when the ball has been won, because a player is over stretching or is angry having lost possession etc.
If it had been a loose ball and it was a calm challenge in which he won the ball, then a free kick may not have been given, but the way he lost control and just lunged would have been interpreted as careless at best.
Last edited:
Bold Seagull
strong and stable with me, or...
I've got to agree with you on this. As a member of the centre halves union (
) myself, if Dunk had been a fraction earlier, and even got the slightest of touches ahead of Bolasie, no foul for me. He's gone in studs down, back leg pretty much on the ground and is ahead of the attacking player. No way is that a foul if he touches that ball ahead of Bolasie.
- Jan 3, 2012
- 17,351
100% agreed. he put himself in trouble.
I've got to agree with you on this. As a member of the centre halves union (
By the laws of the game, it could easily have still been seen as a foul. It's the laws of the game you disagree with, not us.
I think that's what they're trying to push toward, actually. You hear all the time about how the game is being sanitized and turned into a non-contact sport.
I think they are trying to push the game toward skill and finesse and ball control and away from the old English style of "slide in, take everything, and hope you get enough of the ball", and one part of this is reducing the contact, encouraging kids to be skilful and develop that skill without fear of the less skilful kids taking them out in brutish, ahem, "traditional" challenges.