|
Post by Flat Earth FC on Jan 7, 2015 14:16:24 GMT
Moving away from ritchie's questionable sanity for a moment.
Does anyone think that the reason penalties and fouls in the area which would be given elsewhere on the pitch are simply a result of a penalty award being somewhat harsh in context to the severity of the challenge? I'm struggling to think of another sport (although maybe there is another out there) that a technically speaking foul would result in such a 'penalty' against a team? Because games tend not to be overtly high scoring and top level football games are very tightly contested affairs, the reward of a penalty for a foul that would simply result in a free kick more than 18 yards from the goal seems excessive.
Rugby, as an example, has a penalty try. Yet to receive this it is multiple fouls within an area of the pitch.
Basketball results in a free throw but points are cheaper as such there is very little to complain about the award of when you can argue why didnt the player land the 3 pointer which would have got more?
|
|
|
Post by dav 21/5/16 on Jan 7, 2015 15:47:41 GMT
Not by the letter of the laws of the game legend. No room in the laws for the refs interpretation, if a foul is committed outside the box a free kick is given, if the same foul is committed within the 18 yard box a penalty should be given
|
|
|
Post by Flat Earth FC on Jan 7, 2015 18:55:02 GMT
Not by the letter of the laws of the game legend. No room in the laws for the refs interpretation, if a foul is committed outside the box a free kick is given, if the same foul is committed within the 18 yard box a penalty should be given The point I was trying to make was the punishment for something relatively innocuous is quite severe
|
|
|
Post by K19 on Jan 7, 2015 19:55:23 GMT
Not by the letter of the laws of the game legend. No room in the laws for the refs interpretation, if a foul is committed outside the box a free kick is given, if the same foul is committed within the 18 yard box a penalty should be given Does anyone remember the game at Easter Rd where a Hobo (Murray?) almost decapitated a Jambo (JC or SuperWayne?) and the referee awarded an indirect free kick inside the penalty area for 'raised foot'? What refs seem to have forgotten is that DIRECT free kicks inside the box are penalties. INDIRECT free kicks are, erm, indirect free kicks, regardless if inside or outside the box. Apart from Motherwell v Hearts for a pass back in, I think, Gilles Rousset's first game, and the aforementioned Hibs decapitation incident when else have you seen refs giving indirect free kicks inside the box (instead of soft penalties)?
|
|
|
Post by ritchiebaby on Jan 7, 2015 21:22:03 GMT
Just to clarify a few points R angers without the space is changed to Sevco. It is the only banned word apart from cnut. I prefer Sevco as everyone knows we are talking about R angers new team as opposed to R angers old team (which is in the process of liquidation) but I can review this. At the moment, if everyone apart from Ritchie is happy with Sevco then it stays at Sevco. - R angers/Sevco, it makes no difference to me.
To clarify other matters. Hibs are not better than Hearts - not by a long fucking way but, even tho I disagree to the point of almost asking for him to be Sectioned under the Mental Health Act, I respect and will protect Ritchie's right to say and believe such nonsense. - Not again! Mind you, I expected no more and wasn't disappointed
|
|