Stuart attwell today

[LamieRobertson]

The guy wanted to be the star of the show

 

[Mellor 3 Ward 4]

What about the penalty that he gave as a freekick outside the box in the first half. Couldn't believe it!

Watch the highlights, is was outside the box.

 

[Richy_Seagull]

Not letting Bridcutt back on was absolutely pathetic. Fair enough if players have gone down too easily and are deliberately wasting time make them wait a bit but HE had sent Bridcutt to get a new shirt. Abysmal.

 

[Mellor 3 Ward 4]

Ok I've just checked the rules!!

http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/footballdevelopment/refereeing/81/42/36/lawsofthegame_2012_e.pdf

under law 4 "Player equipment"

if a player has to sort their kit out, they're only allowed back on the pitch when the ball is out of play... I never knew that.

- - - Updated - - -



blood

So in other words, he got that right too.

 

[JCL666]

Not letting Bridcutt back on was absolutely pathetic. Fair enough if players have gone down too easily and are deliberately wasting time make them wait a bit but HE had sent Bridcutt to get a new shirt. Abysmal.

It's actually in the rule book. If a player leaves the pitch because of something to do with his kit, he is only allowed back on when the ball is out of play.

 

[blue2]

The ref and the forth official were poor today I do think they have a hard job but even so they were poor

 

[BensGrandad]

Was it to do with his kit or because his nose was bleeding

 

[Mackenzie]

He missed El-Abd barging Hull's wall for the goal.......

 

[JCL666]

Was it to do with his kit or because his nose was bleeding

His nose was bleeding.

But he also had blood on his shirt. That's why when he came back on he had a shirt with no number as he had changed it.

Frustrating, but I guess we were all angry because of our ignorance of the rules. Me included.

 

[Acker79]

Something similar happened in a premier league match on sky a few weeks ago, so I knew about the law (though didn't before that).

Oddly, I think some of his actual mistakes barely received any criticism from our fans, while he suffered a host of abuse for decisions (like the bridcutt thing, like the two orlandi penalty claims, and the ulloa (?) free kick, and a few incidents when our players went down too easy and the fans claimed as fouls) that he actually got right.

 

[Richy_Seagull]

It's actually in the rule book. If a player leaves the pitch because of something to do with his kit, he is only allowed back on when the ball is out of play.

Fair enough, stand corrected. Seems a ridiculous rule though, and sure I have seen other players with blood injuries let straight back on.

 

[Pole in Goal]

Ironically, the only thing he seemed to get right was not letting Bridcutt back on! Some of the free-kicks that he didn't give to Hull in the first half in front of the North were shocking. He wasn't biased, he was generally woeful for both sides. I didn't like the ref at Wednesday either, too many want to be the start of the show

 

[kevtherev]

He could have disallowed the goal, for a push by El Abd on the wall, allowing room for Vicente to score. So there was something else he got wrong. Just to redress the balance a bit.

 

[Guinness Boy]

It's actually in the rule book. If a player leaves the pitch because of something to do with his kit, he is only allowed back on when the ball is out of play.

It wasn't to do with his kit though was it? He was cut and had to go off due to blood rules but when he took the field he was correctly kitted up. We're only asking for a bit of common sense here. I can remember Terry Butcher and Paul Ince playing drenched in blood for England.

Those rules SHOULD apply to where a player is intentionally or stupidly incorrectly kitted up, not where an injury has caused them to have a spot or two of blood on their shirt. The ref today played EXACTLY by the rules to gain himself attention because he's been such a spectacular f*** up in the past. I'd much rather the game was officiated with common sense.

 

[BensGrandad]

His nose was bleeding.

But he also had blood on his shirt. That's why when he came back on he had a shirt with no number as he had changed it.

Frustrating, but I guess we were all angry because of our ignorance of the rules. Me included.

So technically he was injured and the changing of shirts was a by the way as a result of the injury, so the ref was wrong even on that one.

 

[Hornblower]

#

Which one was that as I sit opposite the 18 yd line of the South goal and there wasn't a kick that even resembled a penalty claim. Ulloa was fouled 2 yd out side of he box and stumbled well into it before falling over and that was the nearest to a penalty shout.

This, Ulloa was fouled (possibly) outside the box.

 

[JCL666]

Fair enough, stand corrected. Seems a ridiculous rule though, and sure I have never seen other players with blood injuries let straight back on.

you can come straight back on from an injury. It's because of the kit change that he had to wait (I think).

BTW - I am interpreting the rules and trying to understand why he made the decision he did. Not saying that it's right. That's not directed at you Richy, I've just noticed the other quotes!

 

[stss30]

The ref was an absolute joke. Simple as that.

 

[JCL666]

It wasn't to do with his kit though was it? He was cut and had to go off due to blood rules but when he took the field he was correctly kitted up. We're only asking for a bit of common sense here. I can remember Terry Butcher and Paul Ince playing drenched in blood for England.

Those rules SHOULD apply to where a player is intentionally or stupidly incorrectly kitted up, not where an injury has caused them to have a spot or two of blood on their shirt. The ref today played EXACTLY by the rules to gain himself attention because he's been such a spectacular f*** up in the past. I'd much rather the game was officiated with common sense.

Hey man, I'm just trying to interpret the rules. Based on what I've read I can see why Atwell wouldn't let him back on. Under todays rules Butcher and Ince would have been sent off the pitch to change their shirts.

 

[Acker79]

So technically he was injured and the changing of shirts was a by the way as a result of the injury, so the ref was wrong even on that one.

There is a distinction in the laws of the game between injuries that are a result of an infringement of the laws and those that are not. He wasn't sent to get treated after being fouled (that is, the ref didn't award a foul against him then send him off for treatment, the ball had gone out for a throw when atwell noticed the bleeding), so it was just about law 4 - the player's equipment. If he had been fouled and went off for treatment that involved changing his shirt, he would have been allowed back on whenever the ref was ready to let him on (when he is satisfied the bleeding has been sorted)