ManCity vs Reading - Foul...or no?

[Karl]

Did Gareth Barry climb on the Reading defender? ...or did he go through the defender and also prevent the defender from getting to the ball?

ManCity 1 - 0 Rreading!

Sorry for Reading they defended very well. ...got confident and started to go forward in the last 10 minutes...and then paid the price!

[Stonigut]

Definite foul, but that is how it go, guy should have jumped for the ball rather than take the foul. That is desire over complacency!

[Mosiah]

No foul! The defender illegally blocked the attacker as he made no attempt on getting to the ball.

GOAL!!!

[Stonigut]

Actually I agree with that Mo on second thought, he did not go for the ball and made the wrong and lazy decision.

[Mosiah]

Thanks. You are an honest gentleman. Some man...

On the other hand, I saw the penalty they awarded Arsenal this morning...really?!?! Joke ting!

[Stonigut]

Thanks man, you know what I was just passing on to one of my work teams that it is hard to create and easy to destroy. To create requires honesty, listening, open communication, desire to improve and commitment to task. So if you want to improve you have to listen to the next man argument and if it s better than yours you roll with that.

Moving on to another point that this talk has reawakened!

Right now looking on from this distance I think Tappa really need to rededicate himself to his task so he can have that real and open communication with the players on the team, the results from the Cfu showed a lack of vision shared from leader to team, poor communication and no desire, which is exactly the opposite of what I have always thought of Tappa.

[Mosiah]

I must admit, I do respect your participation on this Forum. You stick to your beliefs, even if your stats backative could be considered shady at times. But you listen to others, leave out the tracing and just do yuh ting. And if faced with more convincing argument, yuh not afraid to just give in.

Respect fi dat!

Maestro to di wirl!

[Stonigut]

Well as them say you can use stats to justify many things, all I have ever wanted is that everybody get a chance based on performance and the best way to do that especially in Jamaica when circles are so tight is make the stats do the talking or make that a significant part of the selection process. Tuffy Anderson got an opportunity, especially this late in life and he earned it as top Rspl goal scorer. That is all anybody can ask for.

[Peter R]

Well as them say you can use stats to justify many things, all I have ever wanted is that everybody get a chance based on performance and the best way to do that especially in Jamaica when circles are so tight is make the stats do the talking or make that a significant part of the selection process. Tuffy Anderson got an opportunity, especially this late in life and he earned it as top Rspl goal scorer. That is all anybody can ask for.

stone, there are lies, dam lies ...and statistics... I initially thought foul on Barry's goal... but on the replay I think the ref got it right as the defender just stood there...

[Karl]

Was the defender in that spot before the ball came over? If he was, is a defender obliged to move out of the way (saying you first to an attacker)? ...or is a defender compelled to jump for a ball passing over his head?

All I can say...I would call a foul! ...that ref choose not to do so.
Tough on Reading! ...but a suh! Sometimes yuh fate written in the stars!

[Bricktop]

No foul...the defender tried to block out the attacker...he made no attempt to play the ball...

[Bricktop]

Is a defender allowed to make no attempt at a ball while impeding the attacking player from going after the ball?

[Mosiah]

Yuh nuh ha ntn fi do?

Kmt

[Karl]

Is a defender allowed to make no attempt at a ball while impeding the attacking player from going after the ball?

...a defender is never allowed to "impede" an attack at any time during a match.

Look my friend a player cannot legally play a ball or move to play a ball and run into...or through an opposing player...or climb on or over an opposing player.

...it is wrong, poor refereeing for calls to be made when the player on the defending team never moved a muscle to get into the way of an attacking player.

Let me paint a diagram: You are an attacking player a defender stands on the field between you and the goal you are attacking...you dribble towards him and pass the ball through his legs he does not move an inch...you run into him. The whistle goes! You it is who has committed a foul.

Your opponent has made no attempt to play the ball...as fact no attempt was made by the opponent to do anything but to remain where he was before you so inelegantly ran into him.

The question you have to ask yourself is, why did you choose to not run by the player you just 'salad' and pick up the ball further along the path you sent it? ...and the follow-up questions could be, why after you abused the opponent he should be punished? ...include also, what did your opponent do besides remaining motionless?

...and this later I am sure you will answer: "Nothing!" - What did he do to impede me?

Well if he never moved a muscle to impede you...he as fact just stood motionless and perhaps said "gwaan, boss"...why the hell did you not go on...but instead chose to clobber him!

I know you are thinking but I see refs call against the "poor" defender often. ...then your thoughts shift to - I have also seen some refs refuse to (make such calls) call against such a defender....

Who then is correct?

--- Boss in the ManCity v Reading match the defender who was bulldozed had a right to stand where he did...he never attacked, blocked or impeded the attacker. he merely stood ground he had taken up long before the ball sailed over his head. The ManCity attacker jumped onto and through him!...an illegal act!

Giving the ref the benefit of the doubt - He (the ref) saw the defender move to impede and did impede the attacker! ...as I said, I did not see it his way!!!

[Peter R]

...a defender is never allowed to "impede" an attack at any time during a match.

Look my friend a player cannot legally play a ball or move to play a ball and run into...or through an opposing player...or climb on or over an opposing player.

...it is wrong, poor refereeing for calls to be made when the player on the defending team never moved a muscle to get into the way of an attacking player.

Let me paint a diagram: You are an attacking player a defender stands on the field between you and the goal you are attacking...you dribble towards him and pass the ball through his legs he does not move an inch...you run into him. The whistle goes! You it is who has committed a foul.

Your opponent has made no attempt to play the ball...as fact no attempt was made by the opponent to do anything but to remain where he was before you so inelegantly ran into him.

The question you have to ask yourself is, why did you choose to not run by the player you just 'salad' and pick up the ball further along the path you sent it? ...and the follow-up questions could be, why after you abused the opponent he should be punished? ...include also, what did your opponent do besides remaining motionless?

...and this later I am sure you will answer: "Nothing!" - What did he do to impede me?

Well if he never moved a muscle to impede you...he as fact just stood motionless and perhaps said "gwaan, boss"...why the hell did you not go on...but instead chose to clobber him!

I know you are thinking but I see refs call against the "poor" defender often. ...then your thoughts shift to - I have also seen some refs refuse to (make such calls) call against such a defender....

Who then is correct?

--- Boss in the ManCity v Reading match the defender who was bulldozed had a right to stand where he did...he never attacked, blocked or impeded the attacker. he merely stood ground he had taken up long before the ball sailed over his head. The ManCity attacker jumped onto and through him!...an illegal act!

Giving the ref the benefit of the doubt - He (the ref) saw the defender move to impede and did impede the attacker! ...as I said, I did not see it his way!!!

Karl ... you make a good point ... it sounds like charging in basketball ... but... this is football. I see both sides of this argument ...the laws address it?