Melbourne Away - Round 20

[Gav...]

Also makes me laugh how the overseas players can yell abuse ( or what sounds like abuse) at the Refs in thier own language. I hope one of them get caught out one day.

 

[Bear]

Gumps has the right to head the ball when it's at head height - no player has the right to put their foot up around a player's head to play for the ball.

Your spot on

But imo, and others on here, big kev was already going to kick the ball BEFORE Gumps threw his head in the way, so therefor = no foul

 

[BAD BULLZ]

Eggy, didnt you want to get off the plane this morning? still sleeping after we landed at newcastle.

He also went straight to work from the plane. Eggy = Marinators legend

TBF I stumbled too that plane straight from whichever pub (dont even remember) i was in last.
Work was um shite
And as tradition has it i lost something at an away game again. : : ........................AGAIN AFKNGAIN no not my phone but did anyone happen to pick up my asia scarf??????

 

[Capn Gus Bloodbeard]

Gumps has the right to head the ball when it's at head height - no player has the right to put their foot up around a player's head to play for the ball.

Your spot on

But imo, and others on here, big kev was already going to kick the ball BEFORE Gumps threw his head in the way, so therefor = no foul

So you're saying that if Kev has his foot up there first, then he has the claim to that space, not Gumps.

Sure, Gumps can still challenge, but it's at his own risk.

But don't you think there's a problem with expecting a player to pull out of a challenge because somebody else is playing dangerously?  It isn't fair on Gumps if Muscat made the ball 'uncontested' just by lifting his foot up high - which is why the laws of the game don't protect the player that's in Muscat's position.

Even IF Muscat was clearly going for the ball first, that still doesn't permit him to lift his boot head high. 

 

[FFC Mariner]

Ah but Gus, its Musc**t, FFA immunity.....remember?

 

[Bear]

lol at it being anything other than Gumps running into a foot that was attempting to kick a ball

Going by what your saying, no player should be ever allowed to score a scissor kick either

 

[Part_Timer]

that would ruin me ....no scissor kick no razzle dazzle

 

[Paolo]

lol at it being anything other than Gumps running into a foot that was attempting to kick a ball

"a foot which had already kicked the ball" *

fixed for you

and +1

 

[offtheball]

Gumps has the right to head the ball when it's at head height - no player has the right to put their foot up around a player's head to play for the ball.  Even if it was a near miss by Musc**t it still should've been a free kick.

If putting your foot up that high when a player is looking to head the ball isn't playing in a dangerous manner, then I don't know what is (FWIW, even Musc**t going for it first still doesn't save him, because if your dangerous play prevents an opponent from challenging for the ball for their own safety, it's still a free kick against you).  Contact means it's kicking, not dangerous play - IMO it was reckless at minimum (yellow card), and endangered the safety of an opponent at worse(red card)

Seriously though, how dare an attacking player attempt to head the ball around head height near the opponent's goal.  What a deadset idiot 

Considering this "foul" occurred in the box why would it be a free kick and not a penalty?

 

[kevrenor]

Gumps has the right to head the ball when it's at head height - no player has the right to put their foot up around a player's head to play for the ball.  Even if it was a near miss by Musc**t it still should've been a free kick.

If putting your foot up that high when a player is looking to head the ball isn't playing in a dangerous manner, then I don't know what is (FWIW, even Musc**t going for it first still doesn't save him, because if your dangerous play prevents an opponent from challenging for the ball for their own safety, it's still a free kick against you).  Contact means it's kicking, not dangerous play - IMO it was reckless at minimum (yellow card), and endangered the safety of an opponent at worse(red card)

Seriously though, how dare an attacking player attempt to head the ball around head height near the opponent's goal.  What a deadset idiot 

Considering this "foul" occurred in the box why would it be a free kick and not a penalty?

http://marinators.net/forum/index.php?topic=108.0

 

[Capn Gus Bloodbeard]

lol at it being anything other than Gumps running into a foot that was attempting to kick a ball

Going by what your saying, no player should be ever allowed to score a scissor kick either

If another player is around that's going to head the ball, they're not, and for good reason.

offtheball - Well, any 'direct free kick' to the attack becomes a penalty in the box, I just decided to leave that bit out

 

[Gopher of Pern]

lol at it being anything other than Gumps running into a foot that was attempting to kick a ball

"a foot which had already kicked the ball" *

fixed for you

and +1

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=It01X3bB4DM

2:10 into the clip....

How is it any different to what happened last night? In fact I would daresay Muscat's foot was more dangerous as he lunged for the ball. You CANNOT lift your foot that high. It's bloody dangerous, as Gumps can attest to.

 

[Capn Gus Bloodbeard]

Here's what the Laws of the Game have to say on 'high foot' (which comes under 'playing in a dangerous manner')

Playing in a dangerous manner
            Playing in a dangerous manner is defined as any action that, while
            trying to play the ball, threatens injury to someone (including the
            player himself). It is committed with an opponent nearby and prevents
            the opponent from playing the ball for fear of injury.
            A scissors or bicycle kick is permissible provided that, in the opinion of
            the referee, it is not dangerous to an opponent.
            Playing in a dangerous manner involves no physical contact between
            the players. If there is physical contact, the action becomes an offence
            punishable with a direct free kick or penalty kick. In the case of physical
            contact, the referee should carefully consider the high probability that
            misconduct has also been committed.

That's in the 'additional advice' section at the back, which still holds as much bearing as the laws.  The law is quite clear that Musc**t is in the wrong.

Basically, this part of the law means that, like I said, even IF Musc**t had committed to that ball first, if that means the other players can't head it because they'd get hurt, it would STILL be an indirect against Musc**t (ie if Gumps had started to commit, then pulled out when he saw studs near his face).

The injury that occurred to Gumps is a plain-as-day example of why challenges like this are outlawed - the laws are designed to ensure that no player risks injury by challenging for the ball or is forced to not play for the ball for fear of injury.  Essentially, the priority of the laws is safety and fairness - to suggest that Musc**t's challenge was legal is to ignore safety, or to expect another player to not challenge for the ball because Musc**t's foot was there is to ignore the fairness.

On a side note, can anybody remember how play was restarted after the RC? Did they get the corner again?

 

[Gopher of Pern]

Here's what the Laws of the Game have to say on 'high foot' (which comes under 'playing in a dangerous manner')

Playing in a dangerous manner
             Playing in a dangerous manner is defined as any action that, while
             trying to play the ball, threatens injury to someone (including the
             player himself). It is committed with an opponent nearby and prevents
             the opponent from playing the ball for fear of injury.
             A scissors or bicycle kick is permissible provided that, in the opinion of
             the referee, it is not dangerous to an opponent.
             Playing in a dangerous manner involves no physical contact between
             the players. If there is physical contact, the action becomes an offence
             punishable with a direct free kick or penalty kick. In the case of physical
             contact, the referee should carefully consider the high probability that
             misconduct has also been committed.

That's in the 'additional advice' section at the back, which still holds as much bearing as the laws.  The law is quite clear that Musc**t is in the wrong.

Basically, this part of the law means that, like I said, even IF Musc**t had committed to that ball first, if that means the other players can't head it because they'd get hurt, it would STILL be an indirect against Musc**t (ie if Gumps had started to commit, then pulled out when he saw studs near his face).

The injury that occurred to Gumps is a plain-as-day example of why challenges like this are outlawed - the laws are designed to ensure that no player risks injury by challenging for the ball or is forced to not play for the ball for fear of injury.  Essentially, the priority of the laws is safety and fairness - to suggest that Musc**t's challenge was legal is to ignore safety, or to expect another player to not challenge for the ball because Musc**t's foot was there is to ignore the fairness.

On a side note, can anybody remember how play was restarted after the RC? Did they get the corner again?

Yes, the corner was retaken, because the ball wasn't in play when the incident occured.

 

[Capn Gus Bloodbeard]

Cheers Gopher.  I couldn't quite remember if the ref did the right thing there or not (good thing the ref was at least aware enough to realise the corner hadn't already been taken)

 

[chief]

oh well we lost cant change anything our finals chances are decided today

 

[FFC Mariner]

oh well we lost cant change anything our finals chances are decided today

Not really, even if the Sheepshaggers lose today, there will still be only a 3 point gap between us.

There is the small matter of a 10 goal GD for them to turn around and they have to win in Melb next week AND we have to lose by the requisite number of goals too.

Brisvegas in 3 weeks I reckon for the away leg

 

[Razorback]

oh well we lost cant change anything our finals chances are decided today

Great point! It gets so tediuos to read previous post bitching about the ref! Swings and round abouts... get over it. I'm pretty sure the ref didn't put 3 ball in the net in 10 minutes. Whinge about the piss poor defenders, the effort and attitude of some players and coaching "strategy"

 

[BAD BULLZ]

oh well we lost cant change anything our finals chances are decided today

Not really, even if the Sheepshaggers lose today, there will still be only a 3 point gap between us.

There is the small matter of a 10 goal GD for them to turn around and they have to win in Melb next week AND we have to lose by the requisite number of goals too.

Brisvegas in 3 weeks I reckon for the away leg

Was just bout to type same thing.
Our seasons far from over in terms of us making the finals Wellington need no less then a win + a draw(against mel and adl) and another mariners loss
Some may say its over because based on all the form we will get smashed in the semis so might as well stop now but FFS ITS FINALS FOOTBALLL ANYTHING CAN AND USUALLY DOES HAPPEN
Remember V1 no one would have thought we could beat the premiers for a spot in the gf we did it now people believe we can win matchs against the big teams we just gotta get the players to turn up on the day (quote rocky) "IT AINT OVA TILL ITS OVER" fire up farkin


Regards semis if wellingtin win today then we will most likely be playing adelaide in away leg of finals as qld only has to beat perth(without dadi n ruka) to overtake adelaide  who in theory will be dropping points to us next week.

 

[MattSimon]

Regards semis if wellingtin win today then we will most likely be playing adelaide in away leg of finals as qld only has to beat perth(without dadi n ruka) to overtake adelaide  who in theory will be dropping points to us next week.

I'm liking this theory a lot