Steve Bruce will be next manager of MU

[Everest]

The 18th (I think) and most important rule of refereeing is commen sense. That's what they teach u when u qualify... It's in the exam etc...

1 – The Field of Play
2 – The Ball
3 – The Number of Players
4 – The Players’ Equipment
5 – The Referee
6 – The Assistant Referees
7 – The Duration of the Match
8 – The Start and Restart of Play
9 – The Ball In and Out of Play
10 – The Method of Scoring
11 – Offside
12 – Fouls and Misconduct
13 – Free Kicks
14 – The Penalty Kick
15 – The Throw-in
16 – The Goal Kick
17 – The Corner Kick

Common sense tells me there are only 17 laws

 

[Sheebo]

1 – The Field of Play
2 – The Ball
3 – The Number of Players
4 – The Players’ Equipment
5 – The Referee
6 – The Assistant Referees
7 – The Duration of the Match
8 – The Start and Restart of Play
9 – The Ball In and Out of Play
10 – The Method of Scoring
11 – Offside
12 – Fouls and Misconduct
13 – Free Kicks
14 – The Penalty Kick
15 – The Throw-in
16 – The Goal Kick
17 – The Corner Kick

Common sense tells me there are only 17 laws

Are you qualified? I promise you we were taught rule 18 commen sense is the most important law. Maybe it's an unwritten law type thing but I'm certain it was in the exam when I took it maybe 7 or 8 yrs ago. Maybe a qualified ref can confirm this...? (not in a i'm right ur wrong type thing but i'm genuinly curious).

 

[Everest]

No I'm not qualified.
BUT it is not in the written laws of the game.

Common sense tells me that the Albion should win every game, but it doesn't happen.

 

[Sheebo]

No I'm not qualified.
BUT it is not in the written laws of the game.

Common sense tells me that the Albion should win every game, but it doesn't happen.

I'm not making it up! It is 100% what I was taught. Why else would I have said 18th law off the top of my head (without checking). It seems to me it's an unwritten rule type thing. All refs take the same exam so surely all refs would've been taught this hence making my point correct...

And with reference to your latter comment that is irrelevent - we're talking referees. They are surely expected to show commen sense no?

 

[beorhthelm]

and common sence tells most people that, when a free kick the ball is given and in the place to be taken from specified, if the ball is stationary and then kicked, the free kick has been taken.


my immediate thought on watching the highlights, not aware of the issue, was "oops, he's under-hit that". i was very surprised there was even any controversy over it, i think that only came about because the ref was facing away and had to consult the linesman. otherwise noone would have said it was anything other than a f*** up.

 

[webbyson]

Sheebo, it was Turner.

I like Steve Bruce. But I'd hate to see him get the Man Utd job.

Steve Bruce was a very good player.....but he is not fit to lace the great mans boots IMO

 

[Billy the Fish]

It was incredibly bad sportsmanship for kuyt and torres to go after it like they did, he was clearly giving it to the keeper to take the free kick.

It's not as black and white as some of you are making out either. If the ref decides the ball wasn't in play then he can stop the game, it doesn't matter if it was on the spot where the foul was. The ref wasn't ready when it was supposedly 'taken', he should've pulled it back just for that.

 

[Sheebo]

It was incredibly bad sportsmanship for kuyt and torres to go after it like they did, he was clearly giving it to the keeper to take the free kick.

It's not as black and white as some of you are making out either. If the ref decides the ball wasn't in play then he can stop the game, it doesn't matter if it was on the spot where the foul was. The ref wasn't ready when it was supposedly 'taken', he should've pulled it back just for that.

Spot on

 

[Garage_Doors]

And Steven Gerrard should have been sent off for the elbow to Danny Welbeck's face.

But nobody ever likes to suggest Stevie G might be naughty, do they?

What struck me with that forehand smash was that MOTD made a point of discussing it but not actually showing again.

 

[Acker79]

I disagree but never mind... (you are allowed to change the taker of a free kick - the initial free kick that he took had no bearing on the actual free kick - it's not a basketball free throw - you don't have to nominate a kicker obviously...)

I'm not saying you do have to indicate the kicker, just that there was no one else by the ball, and the keeper was making no clear movements to come take it.

If one player is stood over a ball that has been specifically positioned under instruction from the ref, no one else makes a clear move to come take it instead, and he kicks it, it's common sense to assume he's the free kick taker.

PS - As pointed out on MOTD, the ref wasn't even LOOKING at the kick!!! Which makes it even worse.

I just saw on last word that the ref wasn't looking, which makes the whole "common sense" argument less valid, imo.

From the ref's point of view it occurred like this:
Foul - whistle blown
Kick taken from 10 yards away, brought back
Position identified by the ref.
Player grabs the ball and spots it on that place.
All other player move away
Ref backs away, with his last view being Turner stood over the stopped ball at the right position, every other player aware play is dead for a free kick.
Ref turns his back for no more than a couple of seconds, turns and sees Torres with the ball at his feet, no flag, no sign of a foul.

Is it really common sense to stop play when you don't know if an infringement has taken place and risk stopping a legitimate goal? Or is it common sense to wait for a break in play?

So with a break in play, what you then have to decide is: was Turner giving the ball to his keeper to take, or did he mis-hit the free kick when he was trying to restart play?

Again, for me, common sense would indicate that as you have told the player where the free kick is to be taken from and he put the ball there and has no reason to move it, even if someone else is going to take the kick, the free kick had been taken.

And as Bruce said he went to blow the whistle about 3 times! The fact is, the game was at Anfield. If that had been the other way round i'm pretty sure the ref would have acted a lot differently! Bruce was right IMO

Refs put their whistle to their lips without blowing lots of times in a game. It means nothing.

If it had been the other way round, and the goal was disallowed (and I'm not convinced it would have been), Steve Bruce would be complaining that the goal should stand.

 

[Acker79]

But nobody ever likes to suggest Stevie G might be naughty, do they?

Is your tongue firmly in your cheek when you say that, or have you never read the threads about diving, players misbehaving (particularly England players), any of those rumours about his marital problems etc?

 

[Harry H]

Big red bulbous nose with the look of a Pavilion Gardens wino.A total bullying control freak who is never wrong.Always looks like his shirt should be two collar sizes bigger.Nothing is his fault,It's always the ref.

Sounds like a Manure manager to me.

 

[glasfryn]

I'm not saying you do have to indicate the kicker, just that there was no one else by the ball, and the keeper was making no clear movements to come take it.

If one player is stood over a ball that has been specifically positioned under instruction from the ref, no one else makes a clear move to come take it instead, and he kicks it, it's common sense to assume he's the free kick taker.



I just saw on last word that the ref wasn't looking, which makes the whole "common sense" argument less valid, imo.

From the ref's point of view it occurred like this:
Foul - whistle blown
Kick taken from 10 yards away, brought back
Position identified by the ref.
Player grabs the ball and spots it on that place.
All other player move away
Ref backs away, with his last view being Turner stood over the stopped ball at the right position, every other player aware play is dead for a free kick.
Ref turns his back for no more than a couple of seconds, turns and sees Torres with the ball at his feet, no flag, no sign of a foul.

Is it really common sense to stop play when you don't know if an infringement has taken place and risk stopping a legitimate goal? Or is it common sense to wait for a break in play?

So with a break in play, what you then have to decide is: was Turner giving the ball to his keeper to take, or did he mis-hit the free kick when he was trying to restart play?

Again, for me, common sense would indicate that as you have told the player where the free kick is to be taken from and he put the ball there and has no reason to move it, even if someone else is going to take the kick, the free kick had been taken.




Refs put their whistle to their lips without blowing lots of times in a game. It means nothing.

If it had been the other way round, and the goal was disallowed (and I'm not convinced it would have been), Steve Bruce would be complaining that the goal should stand.

sounds about right to me

Big red bulbous nose with the look of a Pavilion Gardens wino.A total bullying control freak who is never wrong.Always looks like his shirt should be two collar sizes bigger.Nothing is his fault,It's always the ref.

Sounds like a Manure manager to me.

more or less what what I meant with the first post

 

[Football_Friends]

Well what happens when the freekick position is established, all looks set to take it and then someone picks it up and moves the ball....is a handball given?? Surely just because someone is in position to take the freekick it doesn't immediately thereafter become active. Nobody was ready for the freekick to be taken, common sense should have prevailed. BTW I blame the linesman, the ref didn't see the incident so consulted his linesman who then allowed the goal!

I think steve bruce had plenty to be angry about in that game....what about rein taking out wellbeck?! Surely a pen!

 

[sten_super]

Well what happens when the freekick position is established, all looks set to take it and then someone picks it up and moves the ball....is a handball given??

I remember a few years ago this happening to Gary McAllister playing for Coventry (I think). The ref blew his whistle, McAllister stepped up, then decided he didn't like where the ball was, picked it up and re-placed it, and the ref blew up for a free kick for handball.

 

[Football_Friends]

Ok then I'll be quiet.....this doesn't happen often tho!

 

[Billy the Fish]

Did the ref blow his whistle in this case? I've looked at the video and can't see it happening.

The ref is running up the pitch because he's expecting a punt forwards, usually he'd blow the whistle to restart the game when he was in position.

There are similarities to our situation with the penalty against Rochdale, in a sense that not everyone was sure if the ball was in play or not, the defender and keeper clearly thought it wasn't.

 

[keaton]

He doesn't have to blow the whistle for the ball to be in play.

In my opinion, I can see why Sunderland are annoyed but it's a goal as there's nothing really wrong with it as far as the rules are concerned.

Why they're not more annoyed at the blatant penalty Reina gave away confuses me.

 

[Tricky Dicky]

Are you qualified? I promise you we were taught rule 18 commen sense is the most important law. Maybe it's an unwritten law type thing but I'm certain it was in the exam when I took it maybe 7 or 8 yrs ago. Maybe a qualified ref can confirm this...? (not in a i'm right ur wrong type thing but i'm genuinly curious).

I'm sorry, but I have to agree with Ackers, that common sense and consistency are 100% mutually exclusive.You have one ref one week using his noodle to let play flow, and the following week a manager complaining that his player got pulled up for the same thing.

Personally as a spectator, I would prefer common sense, but everbody in the game is looking for consistency.

 

[Sheebo]

I'm sorry, but I have to agree with Ackers, that common sense and consistency are 100% mutually exclusive.You have one ref one week using his noodle to let play flow, and the following week a manager complaining that his player got pulled up for the same thing.

Personally as a spectator, I would prefer common sense, but everbody in the game is looking for consistency.

Yet consistenly most refs wouldn't have allowed that goal. If he'd nipped it in the bud when Torres ran to the ball it wouldn't have even been a talking point - Most refs would've blown straight away I guaruntee it.