June 26, 2022, 09:18:09 PM

Author Topic: Is this the height of hypocrisy or a voice of reason?  (Read 2651 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline dinho

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 8591
  • Yesterday is Yesterday and Today is Today!
    • View Profile
Is this the height of hypocrisy or a voice of reason?
« on: November 01, 2008, 03:00:08 PM »
Look at the video HERE then judge for yourself.


Wenger rues Van Persie red card

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/eng_prem/7704219.stm

Arsenal boss Arsene Wenger believes Robin van Persie should not have been sent off in the 2-1 defeat at Stoke, their third league loss of the season.

Van Persie saw red for a challenge on goalkeeper Thomas Sorensen, but Wenger said: "It should have been a yellow.

"He should not have done it and he knows that but a red card was harsh."
         

Offline WestCoast

  • The obvious is that which is never seen until someone expresses it simply
  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 16066
  • "Let We Do What We Normally Does" :)
    • View Profile
Re: Is this the height of hypocrisy or a voice of reason?
« Reply #1 on: November 01, 2008, 03:13:44 PM »
RED CARD!!!
van pissy is ah cyunt
the goalie gather the ball and mr pissy came back from about 6 yards out to first stick he foot and immediately give the keeper ah wicked shoulder catspraddleing the keeper....RED GNIKCUF CARD...childish move
« Last Edit: November 01, 2008, 03:17:01 PM by WestCoast »
Whatever you do, do it to the purpose; do it thoroughly, not superficially. Go to the bottom of things. Any thing half done, or half known, is in my mind, neither done nor known at all. Nay, worse, for it often misleads.
Lord Chesterfield
(1694 - 1773)

Offline Bakes

  • Promethean...
  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 21980
    • View Profile
Re: Is this the height of hypocrisy or a voice of reason?
« Reply #2 on: November 01, 2008, 04:41:06 PM »
Not a red card.


But hard to argue yuh case when yuh courting trouble like dat.

Offline Observer

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 5428
  • The best gift for a footballer is Intelligence ---
    • View Profile
Re: Is this the height of hypocrisy or a voice of reason?
« Reply #3 on: November 01, 2008, 05:21:18 PM »
Red card for being stupid. Forget if it was harsh or not, Stupid stupid 
To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead
                                              Thomas Paine

Offline elan

  • Go On ......Get In There!!!!!!!!
  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 11629
  • WaRRioR fOr LiFe!!!!!
    • View Profile
Re: Is this the height of hypocrisy or a voice of reason?
« Reply #4 on: November 01, 2008, 07:07:42 PM »
If he don't look sharp that could be considered violent play and he could be facing 3 games, that's why Wenger talking all that. It was a very stupid thing to do. He charged the keeper, after the play was dead.
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/v/blUSVALW_Z4" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">https://www.youtube.com/v/blUSVALW_Z4</a>

Offline Bakes

  • Promethean...
  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 21980
    • View Profile
Re: Is this the height of hypocrisy or a voice of reason?
« Reply #5 on: November 01, 2008, 08:24:11 PM »
If he don't look sharp that could be considered violent play and he could be facing 3 games, that's why Wenger talking all that. It was a very stupid thing to do. He charged the keeper, after the play was dead.

What he did is no different from what Yorke do Ruiz... everybody cry down Piccio (rightfully) when he was bellyaching fuh red card.  So leh we not get too carried away.

Offline dinho

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 8591
  • Yesterday is Yesterday and Today is Today!
    • View Profile
Re: Is this the height of hypocrisy or a voice of reason?
« Reply #6 on: November 01, 2008, 09:48:16 PM »
If he don't look sharp that could be considered violent play and he could be facing 3 games, that's why Wenger talking all that. It was a very stupid thing to do. He charged the keeper, after the play was dead.

What he did is no different from what Yorke do Ruiz... everybody cry down Piccio (rightfully) when he was bellyaching fuh red card.  So leh we not get too carried away.

its much different when yuh dealing with keepers though..

the referees have a responsibility to offer them extra protection in the pk box, plus yuh cant charge a goalkeeper like that.. Also the play with Yorke, yuh could make a weak case that he was going for the ball, whereas with van persie there was clear malice.

what i find deplorable is that wenger could actually come out and defend that kinda folly.. van persie with piece ah chupitness put his whole side under pressure having to play with 10 men, plus he out of the game with man utd and the next 2.. and with adebayor injured that could cost them heavily..

yet instead of either blasting him for de immaturity, or saying no comment wenger saying he shoulda get a yellow.  this is why i doh really like to bash referees.
         

Offline makaveli

  • Full Warrior
  • ***
  • Posts: 242
    • View Profile
Re: Is this the height of hypocrisy or a voice of reason?
« Reply #7 on: November 01, 2008, 10:47:25 PM »
this is the same man who complaining about football transfers and player wages too expensive and poaching by bigger clubs but buying up teenagers for 5+million  pounds (notably Walcott and Ramsey,he basically get Fabregas for free)from first division sides. I quickly losing my respect for him

Offline Bakes

  • Promethean...
  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 21980
    • View Profile
Re: Is this the height of hypocrisy or a voice of reason?
« Reply #8 on: November 02, 2008, 12:04:02 AM »
its much different when yuh dealing with keepers though..

the referees have a responsibility to offer them extra protection in the pk box, plus yuh cant charge a goalkeeper like that.. Also the play with Yorke, yuh could make a weak case that he was going for the ball, whereas with van persie there was clear malice.

what i find deplorable is that wenger could actually come out and defend that kinda folly.. van persie with piece ah chupitness put his whole side under pressure having to play with 10 men, plus he out of the game with man utd and the next 2.. and with adebayor injured that could cost them heavily..

yet instead of either blasting him for de immaturity, or saying no comment wenger saying he shoulda get a yellow.  this is why i doh really like to bash referees.

The act is no different than what Yorke did on Ruiz... no matter how you parse it.  One objective can say that Yorke only made a show of going for the ball (wasn't the hit after the whistle as well?).  Most on here accepted that the hit was deliberate on Ruiz ( therein lies your "malice").  Van Persie appeared to hit the keeper with the same deliberation as did Yorke.

I fully understand that you protect keepers and treat them differently than you would an outfield player but unless I'm mistaken there are no written special rules governing contact with goalkeepers... certainly none that would be applicable here.  The goalkeeper was wasting time by stalling, pretending to pick up the ball then dropping it, then picking it up as Van Persie arrived.  Van Persie then hit him ah Yorke.... you like it so much in fact yuh put it in yuh signature.  Does that deserve a red card? Or do we just celebrate it when it suits us?  Fact is that it was a deliberate foul... he hit the keeper with a forearm 'shiver'... hardly malicious since there are other, more direct ways to hurt a player (true malice) if he really intended. 

I not here to defend him, but since the thread asks about hypocrisy I thought we hover on that issue for a second.  As I said, Van Persie was flirting with danger by even putting himself in that situation, he gambled and he lost.  Objectively speaking however, that is no more than a yellow card foul.

Offline sinned

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 917
    • View Profile
Re: Is this the height of hypocrisy or a voice of reason?
« Reply #9 on: November 02, 2008, 12:30:54 AM »
Here's a pretty informative article directed to players and referees about officiating situations where goalkeepers are in possession:

http://ussoccer.com/articles/viewArticle.jsp_268240.html

The last line states: Any attempt to kick, head, knee, or otherwise play the ball in the goalkeeper's possession must be considered as an action directed at the goalkeeper and therefore should be considered as a direct free kick offense. If contact is made, the referee might consider that the kicking player committed serious foul play and might then send off the player and show the red card.

So basically it is considered a discretionary call. Given the fact contact was made and he went in elbow up and flailing, I would have given a red card.

Offline Bakes

  • Promethean...
  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 21980
    • View Profile
Re: Is this the height of hypocrisy or a voice of reason?
« Reply #10 on: November 02, 2008, 01:49:39 AM »
Here's a pretty informative article directed to players and referees about officiating situations where goalkeepers are in possession:

http://ussoccer.com/articles/viewArticle.jsp_268240.html

The last line states: Any attempt to kick, head, knee, or otherwise play the ball in the goalkeeper's possession must be considered as an action directed at the goalkeeper and therefore should be considered as a direct free kick offense. If contact is made, the referee might consider that the kicking player committed serious foul play and might then send off the player and show the red card.

So basically it is considered a discretionary call. Given the fact contact was made and he went in elbow up and flailing, I would have given a red card.

No doubt it's discretionary... unlike the last defender bringing down an attacking player rule.  This is what makes it debateable, some would agree, some would disagree.  I personally don't think it's that egregious an act to merit a straight red, but I can't say on the other hand that it was a call that the ref blew.  I also don't think that's Wenger's position either, he just disagrees with it.

I wonder what the FIFA rules say?  Will look it up if I get some time.

Offline Blue

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 3216
    • View Profile
Re: Is this the height of hypocrisy or a voice of reason?
« Reply #11 on: November 02, 2008, 02:05:08 AM »
Definite red card...petulant challenge, knew he wasnt going to get the ball and knew there was a good chance that he would harm the goalkeeper.

Bakes, comparing it to Diwght/Ruiz is silly, cuz Dwight shoulda been punished too. But in Dwight's defence, he went in to get the ball, and he shoulder charged the man's chest....Van Persie charged d man's head.

Offline Bakes

  • Promethean...
  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 21980
    • View Profile
Re: Is this the height of hypocrisy or a voice of reason?
« Reply #12 on: November 02, 2008, 07:47:27 AM »
Definite red card...petulant challenge, knew he wasnt going to get the ball and knew there was a good chance that he would harm the goalkeeper.

Bakes, comparing it to Diwght/Ruiz is silly, cuz Dwight shoulda been punished too. But in Dwight's defence, he went in to get the ball, and he shoulder charged the man's chest....Van Persie charged d man's head.

Lol... you make my point fuh me and den telling mih it silly?  Yuh miss de part whey ah talk about 'hypocrisy' or what?

Yorke wasn't going fuh ball anymore than Van Persie was going fuh ball, doh fool yuhself... what de clip in de signature again.  Dwight went with de intention tuh hit Ruiz ah lash b/c he was fed up wid he shit on de field (yes ah read he mind  ;D )  He only try not tuh make it look blatant but he foot was nowhere near ball.

Same thing wid Van Persie... and he ent touch de keeper head yet.  But yuh right, petulant challenge deserving of a card... we could disagree on color.  But we can't praise Dwight fuh doing what we condemning Van Persie for.

Offline WestCoast

  • The obvious is that which is never seen until someone expresses it simply
  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 16066
  • "Let We Do What We Normally Does" :)
    • View Profile
Re: Is this the height of hypocrisy or a voice of reason?
« Reply #13 on: November 02, 2008, 07:57:33 AM »
yeah, Dwight deserved a RED also!
but like dem Glory Glory seekers, I go take no card..... ;D
Whatever you do, do it to the purpose; do it thoroughly, not superficially. Go to the bottom of things. Any thing half done, or half known, is in my mind, neither done nor known at all. Nay, worse, for it often misleads.
Lord Chesterfield
(1694 - 1773)

Offline dinho

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 8591
  • Yesterday is Yesterday and Today is Today!
    • View Profile
Re: Is this the height of hypocrisy or a voice of reason?
« Reply #14 on: November 02, 2008, 08:27:00 AM »

The act is no different than what Yorke did on Ruiz... no matter how you parse it.  One objective can say that Yorke only made a show of going for the ball (wasn't the hit after the whistle as well?).  Most on here accepted that the hit was deliberate on Ruiz ( therein lies your "malice").  Van Persie appeared to hit the keeper with the same deliberation as did Yorke.

I fully understand that you protect keepers and treat them differently than you would an outfield player but unless I'm mistaken there are no written special rules governing contact with goalkeepers... certainly none that would be applicable here.  The goalkeeper was wasting time by stalling, pretending to pick up the ball then dropping it, then picking it up as Van Persie arrived.  Van Persie then hit him ah Yorke.... you like it so much in fact yuh put it in yuh signature.  Does that deserve a red card? Or do we just celebrate it when it suits us?  Fact is that it was a deliberate foul... he hit the keeper with a forearm 'shiver'... hardly malicious since there are other, more direct ways to hurt a player (true malice) if he really intended. 

I not here to defend him, but since the thread asks about hypocrisy I thought we hover on that issue for a second.  As I said, Van Persie was flirting with danger by even putting himself in that situation, he gambled and he lost.  Objectively speaking however, that is no more than a yellow card foul.

firstly, even if there is no special rule governing protection of keepers (i ent going and look that up), anyone who play the game would tell you that you in no uncertain terms that you cannot tackle a keeper the same way you tackle an outfield player. Big, big difference!

Once a keeper has the ball in his possession he is off limits.. Once a keeper is coming for a ball and is reaching first, you are supposed to give way or you get punished accordingly. A forward is not even allowed to challenge a cross ball evenly with a goalkeeper going up for it, it is a foul.  There are no two ways about this, that is the way it is.

The reason is because the goalkeeper is the most exposed and vulnerable position on a football field. When a keeper is going for a ball, they have to put their bodies at the most risk, which is why its the referee's duty to protect them. Is only in England where the referees offer the least protection to a goalkeeper on the planet, but even so the same basic rule applies.  Whappen yuh never play FIFA and kick dong de keeper and get ah red, and kick dong ah player and get a yellow? lol

On the second hand, about the Yorke tackle I think it was different but thats my personal opinion. Yorke was coming for the ball, Ruiz was playing de ass and I agree Yorke extend he follow thru to let him know what time it is. Damn straight ah love dat.. But still, at least Yorke was making an attempt for the ball and Ruiz was in the way..  Van Persie on the other hand just deliberately shove way de keeper who had the ball in his arms in a standing position.. That is madness..

Even if you disagree that there was a difference between the two acts, the fact that it is a goalkeeper is what makes it a difference. Bottom line, if Van Persie had done that to an outfield player time wasting, then I would agree a red was harsh.
         

Offline WestCoast

  • The obvious is that which is never seen until someone expresses it simply
  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 16066
  • "Let We Do What We Normally Does" :)
    • View Profile
Re: Is this the height of hypocrisy or a voice of reason?
« Reply #15 on: November 02, 2008, 09:48:14 AM »

The act is no different than what Yorke did on Ruiz... no matter how you parse it.  One objective can say that Yorke only made a show of going for the ball (wasn't the hit after the whistle as well?).  Most on here accepted that the hit was deliberate on Ruiz ( therein lies your "malice").  Van Persie appeared to hit the keeper with the same deliberation as did Yorke.

I fully understand that you protect keepers and treat them differently than you would an outfield player but unless I'm mistaken there are no written special rules governing contact with goalkeepers... certainly none that would be applicable here.  The goalkeeper was wasting time by stalling, pretending to pick up the ball then dropping it, then picking it up as Van Persie arrived.  Van Persie then hit him ah Yorke.... you like it so much in fact yuh put it in yuh signature.  Does that deserve a red card? Or do we just celebrate it when it suits us?  Fact is that it was a deliberate foul... he hit the keeper with a forearm 'shiver'... hardly malicious since there are other, more direct ways to hurt a player (true malice) if he really intended. 

I not here to defend him, but since the thread asks about hypocrisy I thought we hover on that issue for a second.  As I said, Van Persie was flirting with danger by even putting himself in that situation, he gambled and he lost.  Objectively speaking however, that is no more than a yellow card foul.

firstly, even if there is no special rule governing protection of keepers (i ent going and look that up), anyone who play the game would tell you that you in no uncertain terms that you cannot tackle a keeper the same way you tackle an outfield player. Big, big difference!

Once a keeper has the ball in his possession he is off limits.. Once a keeper is coming for a ball and is reaching first, you are supposed to give way or you get punished accordingly. A forward is not even allowed to challenge a cross ball evenly with a goalkeeper going up for it, it is a foul.  There are no two ways about this, that is the way it is.

The reason is because the goalkeeper is the most exposed and vulnerable position on a football field. When a keeper is going for a ball, they have to put their bodies at the most risk, which is why its the referee's duty to protect them. Is only in England where the referees offer the least protection to a goalkeeper on the planet, but even so the same basic rule applies.  Whappen yuh never play FIFA and kick dong de keeper and get ah red, and kick dong ah player and get a yellow? lol

On the second hand, about the Yorke tackle I think it was different but thats my personal opinion. Yorke was coming for the ball, Ruiz was playing de ass and I agree Yorke extend he follow thru to let him know what time it is. Damn straight ah love dat.. But still, at least Yorke was making an attempt for the ball and Ruiz was in the way..  Van Persie on the other hand just deliberately shove way de keeper who had the ball in his arms in a standing position.. That is madness..

Even if you disagree that there was a difference between the two acts, the fact that it is a goalkeeper is what makes it a difference. Bottom line, if Van Persie had done that to an outfield player time wasting, then I would agree a red was harsh.
very well said Omar....... :applause:
the part in red especially
I played a 'keeper so I appreciated that kind of thinking on the part of refs.
« Last Edit: November 02, 2008, 09:55:34 AM by WestCoast »
Whatever you do, do it to the purpose; do it thoroughly, not superficially. Go to the bottom of things. Any thing half done, or half known, is in my mind, neither done nor known at all. Nay, worse, for it often misleads.
Lord Chesterfield
(1694 - 1773)

Offline Mango Chow!

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 5720
    • View Profile
Re: Is this the height of hypocrisy or a voice of reason?
« Reply #16 on: November 02, 2008, 10:00:17 AM »
....either way.....no matter how it can be argued, something really needs to be done with the ridiculously inconsistent officiating that is evident throughout football.  There are a whole lot of calls that really just honest mistakes, but there are some really obvious and blatant exhibitions of unforgivable incompetence....or just plain cheating.  Referees need to learn the difference between a man who IS fouled and a man who has sold the referee a foul.  There is always going to be contact in football, but not all contact are "fouls".  I eh see the van Persie incident yet, nor have I seen the rooney one, but the former sounds more like a judgment call gone one way and not another....the rooney one sounds like pure, unforgivable incompetence....or just plain cheating.   


Not because a man ears long and he teet' long dat it make him a Jackass!

giggsy11

  • Guest
Re: Is this the height of hypocrisy or a voice of reason?
« Reply #17 on: November 02, 2008, 11:39:57 AM »
Ah think managers like Arsene9 and Lord Wrigley rarely come out and lambast dey players via the media even if privately dey bawl dem out and thinkin dey do some shite. Dise how dey does keep dey players wanting tuh play for dem. The psychology of keeping these millioniare babies with dey fragile egos in the right frame of mind. But if yuh notice dey will blast dem in the open ala Jose regarding Drogba and he diving when dey no longer managing dem or have nothing to gain from dealin with dem. Ah think dise where the hypocrisy/denial/dishonesty may come into play.

Offline Bakes

  • Promethean...
  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 21980
    • View Profile
Re: Is this the height of hypocrisy or a voice of reason?
« Reply #18 on: November 02, 2008, 12:29:44 PM »
firstly, even if there is no special rule governing protection of keepers (i ent going and look that up), anyone who play the game would tell you that you in no uncertain terms that you cannot tackle a keeper the same way you tackle an outfield player. Big, big difference!

Once a keeper has the ball in his possession he is off limits.. Once a keeper is coming for a ball and is reaching first, you are supposed to give way or you get punished accordingly. A forward is not even allowed to challenge a cross ball evenly with a goalkeeper going up for it, it is a foul.  There are no two ways about this, that is the way it is.

The reason is because the goalkeeper is the most exposed and vulnerable position on a football field. When a keeper is going for a ball, they have to put their bodies at the most risk, which is why its the referee's duty to protect them. Is only in England where the referees offer the least protection to a goalkeeper on the planet, but even so the same basic rule applies.  Whappen yuh never play FIFA and kick dong de keeper and get ah red, and kick dong ah player and get a yellow? lol

On the second hand, about the Yorke tackle I think it was different but thats my personal opinion. Yorke was coming for the ball, Ruiz was playing de ass and I agree Yorke extend he follow thru to let him know what time it is. Damn straight ah love dat.. But still, at least Yorke was making an attempt for the ball and Ruiz was in the way..  Van Persie on the other hand just deliberately shove way de keeper who had the ball in his arms in a standing position.. That is madness..

Even if you disagree that there was a difference between the two acts, the fact that it is a goalkeeper is what makes it a difference. Bottom line, if Van Persie had done that to an outfield player time wasting, then I would agree a red was harsh.

Everything you said in the first part is also your personal opinion which is why I won't bother going back and forth with you.  You could state it with as much authority you want, talk all yuh "There are no two ways about this, that is the way it is" the fact is much of it is within the discretion of the ref... sometimes they call it sometimes they don't.  Therein lies the inconsistency that Mango Chow talks about. 

Case in point earlier this season Man U playing Blackburn and Jason Brown subbing for Paul Robinson and pulling off save after save.  On a corner kick Brown went up to gather the ball and Vidic collide with him and knocked him off balance, impeding him from getting to the ball...boom Wes Brown knock it in for a goal.  All the Blackburn players appeal immediately, including Brown who ketch ah elbow from Vidic in the process... nutten.  There are other examples I could point to as well if I really wanted to prolong the talk.

So at the end of the day no matter how much of a given or automatic call as you try to posit it.. no matter how much "anyone who has played the game talk" yuh make... there is nothing automatic about that call, it is entirely discretionary.  In this case the ref saw fit to not only make the call...but give a debateable straight red as well.

As for the Yorke play I also won't bother with the back and forth.  You yuhself by your own admission your case that Yorke attempted to play the ball is weak, so no need to get into any kinda serious talk trying to distinguish that from the Van Persie play.

Offline elan

  • Go On ......Get In There!!!!!!!!
  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 11629
  • WaRRioR fOr LiFe!!!!!
    • View Profile
Re: Is this the height of hypocrisy or a voice of reason?
« Reply #19 on: November 02, 2008, 01:40:11 PM »
Bakes I realize you missing the point on purpose, even after reading what the USSF stated. As long as the keeper have possession of the ball, no attempt can be made to play the ball. Any such attempt will result in an indirect free kick, to the GK team. If contact is made you are liable to get send off like Van Persie did. If you can get a yellow for impeding the Gk from distributing the ball, imagine what will happen if you hit him.
Anyway, it was a correct decision and you know it.

Omar well done in explaining the event.
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/v/blUSVALW_Z4" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">https://www.youtube.com/v/blUSVALW_Z4</a>

Offline Bakes

  • Promethean...
  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 21980
    • View Profile
Re: Is this the height of hypocrisy or a voice of reason?
« Reply #20 on: November 02, 2008, 02:20:43 PM »
Bakes I realize you missing the point on purpose, even after reading what the USSF stated. As long as the keeper have possession of the ball, no attempt can be made to play the ball. Any such attempt will result in an indirect free kick, to the GK team. If contact is made you are liable to get send off like Van Persie did. If you can get a yellow for impeding the Gk from distributing the ball, imagine what will happen if you hit him.
Anyway, it was a correct decision and you know it.

Omar well done in explaining the event.

You's ah f**kkin mind reader... or that is what seer man telling yuh?

Offline palos

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 11529
  • Test
    • View Profile
Re: Is this the height of hypocrisy or a voice of reason?
« Reply #21 on: November 02, 2008, 02:21:47 PM »
Bakes I realize you missing the point on purpose, even after reading what the USSF stated. As long as the keeper have possession of the ball, no attempt can be made to play the ball. Any such attempt will result in an indirect free kick, to the GK team. If contact is made you are liable to get send off like Van Persie did. If you can get a yellow for impeding the Gk from distributing the ball, imagine what will happen if you hit him.
Anyway, it was a correct decision and you know it.

Omar well done in explaining the event.

Is a moot point because the referee is the sole arbiter in this case.

However, the keeper's role in the incident appeared not to be taken into consideration in the decision making process.

Is one thing to protect the keeper from injury as he's unprotected when going for the ball etc.

In this case, the keeper already had possession.  He then kept teasing the opponent, dropping the ball, picking it back up, inviting the opponent to try to get the ball.

IMO, in that situation, the keeper is now no longer in need of "extra protection".  He's in control.  Had he collected the ball looking to get the ball downfield or just held it and Van Persie still barged into him, yes..I could see the red card.  But in this case, he started to tease the opponent by dropping and picking back up the ball.  To me, is no different than if yuh have a scenario where posession was turned over to de opponent, Ronaldo or Robinho decide to do a setta step over and refuse to give de opponent back de ball and de opponent shove dem out de way.  De refs does actually on occasion give a yellow to Ronado or Robinho (jes examples in dis case) for time wasting.

More simply put....de Stoke goalie chook fire....he look fuh what he get.  Stupid by Van Persie....yes.  But de goalie had a part to play in it as well.
Carlos "The Rolls Royce" Edwards

Offline Bakes

  • Promethean...
  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 21980
    • View Profile
Re: Is this the height of hypocrisy or a voice of reason?
« Reply #22 on: November 02, 2008, 02:59:06 PM »
Is a moot point because the referee is the sole arbiter in this case.

However, the keeper's role in the incident appeared not to be taken into consideration in the decision making process.

Is one thing to protect the keeper from injury as he's unprotected when going for the ball etc.

In this case, the keeper already had possession.  He then kept teasing the opponent, dropping the ball, picking it back up, inviting the opponent to try to get the ball.

IMO, in that situation, the keeper is now no longer in need of "extra protection".  He's in control.  Had he collected the ball looking to get the ball downfield or just held it and Van Persie still barged into him, yes..I could see the red card.  But in this case, he started to tease the opponent by dropping and picking back up the ball.  To me, is no different than if yuh have a scenario where posession was turned over to de opponent, Ronaldo or Robinho decide to do a setta step over and refuse to give de opponent back de ball and de opponent shove dem out de way.  De refs does actually on occasion give a yellow to Ronado or Robinho (jes examples in dis case) for time wasting.

More simply put....de Stoke goalie chook fire....he look fuh what he get.  Stupid by Van Persie....yes.  But de goalie had a part to play in it as well.

You muss be anodda one dat never kick ah lime in he life... yuh ent know dat de keeper have ah magic halo arung him dat yuh cyah touch?

Offline WestCoast

  • The obvious is that which is never seen until someone expresses it simply
  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 16066
  • "Let We Do What We Normally Does" :)
    • View Profile
Re: Is this the height of hypocrisy or a voice of reason?
« Reply #23 on: November 02, 2008, 03:05:41 PM »
Is a moot point because the referee is the sole arbiter in this case.
However, the keeper's role in the incident appeared not to be taken into consideration in the decision making process.
Is one thing to protect the keeper from injury as he's unprotected when going for the ball etc.
In this case, the keeper already had possession.  He then kept teasing the opponent, dropping the ball, picking it back up, inviting the opponent to try to get the ball.
IMO, in that situation, the keeper is now no longer in need of "extra protection".  He's in control.  Had he collected the ball looking to get the ball downfield or just held it and Van Persie still barged into him, yes..I could see the red card.  But in this case, he started to tease the opponent by dropping and picking back up the ball.  To me, is no different than if yuh have a scenario where posession was turned over to de opponent, Ronaldo or Robinho decide to do a setta step over and refuse to give de opponent back de ball and de opponent shove dem out de way.  De refs does actually on occasion give a yellow to Ronado or Robinho (jes examples in dis case) for time wasting.
More simply put....de Stoke goalie chook fire....he look fuh what he get.  Stupid by Van Persie....yes.  But de goalie had a part to play in it as well.
You muss be anodda one dat never kick ah lime in he life... yuh ent know dat de keeper have ah magic halo arung him dat yuh cyah touch?
:rotfl: :rotfl:
allya two good eh

I did remember ah Bahrainee trying dat shit and failed (no card) which allowed us to advance to the WC2006
....not so? :devil:
« Last Edit: November 02, 2008, 06:55:12 PM by WestCoast »
Whatever you do, do it to the purpose; do it thoroughly, not superficially. Go to the bottom of things. Any thing half done, or half known, is in my mind, neither done nor known at all. Nay, worse, for it often misleads.
Lord Chesterfield
(1694 - 1773)

Offline elan

  • Go On ......Get In There!!!!!!!!
  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 11629
  • WaRRioR fOr LiFe!!!!!
    • View Profile
Re: Is this the height of hypocrisy or a voice of reason?
« Reply #24 on: November 02, 2008, 04:25:07 PM »
Bakes I realize you missing the point on purpose, even after reading what the USSF stated. As long as the keeper have possession of the ball, no attempt can be made to play the ball. Any such attempt will result in an indirect free kick, to the GK team. If contact is made you are liable to get send off like Van Persie did. If you can get a yellow for impeding the Gk from distributing the ball, imagine what will happen if you hit him.
Anyway, it was a correct decision and you know it.

Omar well done in explaining the event.

You's ah f**kkin mind reader... or that is what seer man telling yuh?

Neither, I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt with all that tata yuh typing.
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/v/blUSVALW_Z4" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">https://www.youtube.com/v/blUSVALW_Z4</a>

Offline dinho

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 8591
  • Yesterday is Yesterday and Today is Today!
    • View Profile
Re: Is this the height of hypocrisy or a voice of reason?
« Reply #25 on: November 02, 2008, 04:30:48 PM »
Bakes I realize you missing the point on purpose, even after reading what the USSF stated. As long as the keeper have possession of the ball, no attempt can be made to play the ball. Any such attempt will result in an indirect free kick, to the GK team. If contact is made you are liable to get send off like Van Persie did. If you can get a yellow for impeding the Gk from distributing the ball, imagine what will happen if you hit him.
Anyway, it was a correct decision and you know it.

Omar well done in explaining the event.

Is a moot point because the referee is the sole arbiter in this case.

However, the keeper's role in the incident appeared not to be taken into consideration in the decision making process.

Is one thing to protect the keeper from injury as he's unprotected when going for the ball etc.

In this case, the keeper already had possession.  He then kept teasing the opponent, dropping the ball, picking it back up, inviting the opponent to try to get the ball.

IMO, in that situation, the keeper is now no longer in need of "extra protection".  He's in control.  Had he collected the ball looking to get the ball downfield or just held it and Van Persie still barged into him, yes..I could see the red card.  But in this case, he started to tease the opponent by dropping and picking back up the ball.  To me, is no different than if yuh have a scenario where posession was turned over to de opponent, Ronaldo or Robinho decide to do a setta step over and refuse to give de opponent back de ball and de opponent shove dem out de way.  De refs does actually on occasion give a yellow to Ronado or Robinho (jes examples in dis case) for time wasting.

More simply put....de Stoke goalie chook fire....he look fuh what he get.  Stupid by Van Persie....yes.  But de goalie had a part to play in it as well.


This is a good point, but I doh really find the Stoke goalkeeper did anything to provoke that kinda reaction. All keepers do that when they need to run down the clock, wait till the last second to pick up the ball.. He chest trap the ball to the ground and wait until the striker come to challenge to pick it up.. He eh drop no ball and pick it back up (illegal)..

Nothing teasing about that imo.. Is Van Persie who let his frustrations boil over. he must be was studying who is this keeper from this shit side chest trapping ball in de box..

In any case, even if you find the Stoke goalkeeper was provoking, it still doh give an excuse for assault in the eyes of the referee as you seem to suggest.. I eh get yuh on that one.. And the only place Ronaldo or Robinho getting a yellow for overbeating is in ah Brazil bush league..