Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

[Albion] Today’s ref Stuart Attwell



GT49er

Well-known member
Feb 1, 2009
46,471
Gloucester
Was that when Knocky was pulled back in our box mid way through the second half??

If so is that the law? A cynical foul is only a booking when in an attacking position??
Yes, it was the pull back in our box - and yes, that was the gist of what Gallagher said - it would only be a yellow if he was starting an attack, or attacking in a dangerous position.
 


Triggaaar

Well-known member
Oct 24, 2005
49,989
Goldstone
Paraphrasing, slightly wrongly, sorry - went back to check - 'would he (March) have gained possession of the ball, and that's the grey area....... He has to be positive........'

Mind you, unless he tripped over his own shoelaces or something, I can't see how March could not have got that ball!
Indeed.

The elbow in the face was not discussed, just the pull back in our penalty area.
How can they not have discussed the elbow in the face? :facepalm:
 




Stato

Well-known member
Dec 21, 2011
6,525
Yep, I was right - Dermot 'the-ref-is-always-perfect' Gallagher cleared Attwell of everything. March didn't have the ball when he was pulled down, 'might' not have got it and 'might' not have scored, so not a red.......Knocky wasn't sufficiently in an attacking position to warrant a yellow card for pulling him down........

Sigh..............

It is a 'law is an ass' situation. If Alonso didn't consider it to be a clear goalscoring opportunity, why did he decide to commit a professional foul? It's stupid that referees are left to decide what might have happened. The offence should be judged upon intent. Had Stephens pulled down Hazard in the first half, it would have been because he thought he would score. If he had done so he would rightly have been sent off. Alonso took the decision to do it to March for the same reason and the law should treat him the same.
 






Icy Gull

Back on the rollercoaster
Jul 5, 2003
72,015
Refs generally show bias towards the big clubs, I expect it when we play them now, it’s not right it’s just the way it is. The ex refs commentating after the event seem to close ranks on contentious stuff too it seems, especially when it might be detrimental to a top six club playing an also ran.
 
Last edited:


sydney

tinky ****in winky
Jul 11, 2003
17,736
town full of eejits
It is a 'law is an ass' situation. If Alonso didn't consider it to be a clear goalscoring opportunity, why did he decide to commit a professional foul? It's stupid that referees are left to decide what might have happened. The offence should be judged upon intent. Had Stephens pulled down Hazard in the first half, it would have been because he thought he would score. If he had done so he would rightly have been sent off. Alonso took the decision to do it to March for the same reason and the law should treat him the same.

Alonzo & Luiz are a pair of pricks ......good players but pricks none the less.
 


sydney

tinky ****in winky
Jul 11, 2003
17,736
town full of eejits
Lord knows! Big club playing little club? Would have shown conclusively that Dermot would have had to admit the ref got it wrong?

i think we can all agree that some of the decisions over the last few weeks have been indefensible ......there were a few bad decisions yesterday , Alonso should not have finished the game . The worst thing is , he knows it ......****
 






PILTDOWN MAN

Well-known member
NSC Patreon
Sep 15, 2004
18,606
Hurst Green
Come on Piltdown......

Couldn't be bothered anymore. Rule changed in the last season or two. That's it really.Far too many are prepared to spout off but couldn't be bothered to read the changes that are made. Their loss not mine.
 






drew

Drew
Oct 3, 2006
23,007
Burgess Hill
Yep, I was right - Dermot 'the-ref-is-always-perfect' Gallagher cleared Attwell of everything. March didn't have the ball when he was pulled down, 'might' not have got it and 'might' not have scored, so not a red.......Knocky wasn't sufficiently in an attacking position to warrant a yellow card for pulling him down........

Sigh..............

Don't really follow ref watch but what on earth is Gallagher on about. The criteria is as follows
The following must be considered:

distance between the offence and the goal
general direction of the play
likelihood of keeping or gaining control of the ball
location and number of defenders

A player running through one on one with the keeper might not score so that argument is null and void. There was every prospect that March would gather that pass. Ex refs are just as fallible as those currently officiating.
 










Taybha

Whalewhine
Oct 8, 2008
27,135
Uwantsumorwat
Couldn't be bothered anymore. Rule changed in the last season or two. That's it really.Far too many are prepared to spout off but couldn't be bothered to read the changes that are made. Their loss not mine.

Football Rules Laws and Regulations ! on NSC ? i'm surprised you're not banned for sedition by Bozza for bringing this sort of thing up , people start inquiring about rules and next thing you know there will be snowflake fans asking the FA to take the string lacing out of the football . .
 


GT49er

Well-known member
Feb 1, 2009
46,471
Gloucester
Don't really follow ref watch but what on earth is Gallagher on about. The criteria is as follows
The following must be considered:

distance between the offence and the goal
general direction of the play
likelihood of keeping or gaining control of the ball
location and number of defenders

A player running through one on one with the keeper might not score so that argument is null and void. There was every prospect that March would gather that pass. Ex refs are just as fallible as those currently officiating.
According to Gallagher the first consideration there is 'Was he in possession of the ball.' No he wasn't, so the next consideration is, 'Was he likely to get the ball.' Again, according to Gallagher, that is a grey area - the ref couldn't be absolutely certain he would have got the ball ................... so no red card.

Mind you, as I said in my earlier reply to Triggaaar, how the hell March wouldn't have reached that ball is beyond me!
 


timbha

Well-known member
Jul 5, 2003
9,833
Sussex
Mind you, as I said in my earlier reply to Triggaaar, how the hell March wouldn't have reached that ball is beyond me!

I bet if it had been Hazard instead of March it would’ve been a Red.card
 






drew

Drew
Oct 3, 2006
23,007
Burgess Hill
According to Gallagher the first consideration there is 'Was he in possession of the ball.' No he wasn't, so the next consideration is, 'Was he likely to get the ball.' Again, according to Gallagher, that is a grey area - the ref couldn't be absolutely certain he would have got the ball ................... so no red card.

Mind you, as I said in my earlier reply to Triggaaar, how the hell March wouldn't have reached that ball is beyond me!

The wording says nothing about being 'absolutely certain', just likelihood which I think everyone probably agrees was the case.
 



Paying the bills

Latest Discussions

Paying the bills

Paying the bills

Paying the bills

Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here