CheLOLsea

[Ouroboros]

The keeper didn't come out with the intention of bringing Remy down. He intended to make a save. In failing to do so he also put Remy off without making any contact - excellent goalkeeping I'd say.

If he comes for a cross, screaming "keeper's ball", flaps at it but misses the ball and by his actions puts the attacker off so it pings off the top of his head over the bar then that's not a foul either.

No real difference.

Sorry RR I don't think this is anything like borne out by the laws, which say:

A direct free kick is awarded to the opposing team if a player commits any of the following seven offences in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force:

kicks or attempts to kick an opponent
trips or attempts to trip an opponent
jumps at an opponent
charges an opponent
strikes or attempts to strike an opponent
pushes an opponent
tackles an opponent

All the referee has to conclude is that it was a careless attempt at a tackle.

[No Fixed Abode]

The keeper didn't come out with the intention of bringing Remy down. He intended to make a save. In failing to do so he also put Remy off without making any contact - excellent goalkeeping I'd say.

.

Same with the Sheff Ufd v Liverpool incident I was talking about which was given.

And was so noteworthy because it was the exception to what was normal in awarding penalties.

Man up.

When the ref gave it the FA came out and supported him saying the player would have caught Gerrard had he not jumped out of the way. Inconsistently this time the ref never gave it and the FA didn't come out and say he got it incorrect. So by the letter of the law it was a penalty.

[No Fixed Abode]

......and another fine handed out (£50k) for failing to control their players v Wet Sham (who only got fined £40k...another bloody conspiracy!!!!)

Just as well all these fines are small change

It will help pay for their expensive lunches. It certainly won't be put back into grass routes football.

[Stranded]

When the ref gave it the FA came out and supported him saying the player would have caught Gerrard had he not jumped out of the way. Inconsistently this time the ref never gave it and the FA didn't come out and say he got it incorrect. So by the letter of the law it was a penalty.

So that ref thought the attempted tackle was careless and gave the pen as per the laws rather nicely posted a couple of posts above. The ref on Saturday clearly thought it wasn't careless so no pen.

That is about consistant as you can get - whether you agree or not makes the internet a fun place to be.

[No Fixed Abode]

When the ref gave it the FA came out and supported him saying the player would have caught Gerrard had he not jumped out of the way. Inconsistently this time the ref never gave it and the FA didn't come out and say he got it incorrect. So by the letter of the law it was a penalty.

So that ref thought the attempted tackle was careless and gave the pen as per the laws rather nicely posted a couple of posts above. The ref on Saturday clearly thought it wasn't careless so no pen.

That is about consistant as you can get - whether you agree or not makes the internet a fun place to be.

How can it be consistent when they're a very similar incident and one was given and one wasn't?

[No Fixed Abode]

Any way - A bel8ed RIP Bobby Campbell.

[stealthpapes]

The keeper didn't come out with the intention of bringing Remy down. He intended to make a save. In failing to do so he also put Remy off without making any contact - excellent goalkeeping I'd say.

If he comes for a cross, screaming "keeper's ball", flaps at it but misses the ball and by his actions puts the attacker off so it pings off the top of his head over the bar then that's not a foul either.

No real difference.

Sorry RR I don't think this is anything like borne out by the laws, which say:

A direct free kick is awarded to the opposing team if a player commits any of the following seven offences in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force:

kicks or attempts to kick an opponent
trips or attempts to trip an opponent
jumps at an opponent
charges an opponent
strikes or attempts to strike an opponent
pushes an opponent
tackles an opponent

All the referee has to conclude is that it was a careless attempt at a tackle.

yeah, one of my gripes from Saturday football was players arguing that "they didn't mean it"

irrelevent.

[Stranded]

When the ref gave it the FA came out and supported him saying the player would have caught Gerrard had he not jumped out of the way. Inconsistently this time the ref never gave it and the FA didn't come out and say he got it incorrect. So by the letter of the law it was a penalty.

So that ref thought the attempted tackle was careless and gave the pen as per the laws rather nicely posted a couple of posts above. The ref on Saturday clearly thought it wasn't careless so no pen.

That is about consistant as you can get - whether you agree or not makes the internet a fun place to be.

How can it be consistent when they're a very similar incident and one was given and one wasn't?

It is a consistant application of the rule as written.

The only argument you could make is that what is "reckless or careless" is subjective. Which it frankly should be - as long as the ref takes his view of that in to account then the rule has been applied consistantly.

[No Fixed Abode]

Two incidents virtually the same. One was given and one wasn't. Pretty sure you don't know what consistency means in that case.

[6ft Kerplunk]

So you pick two cases 9 years apart and say it isn't being applied consistently.

[Hoop Blah]

Two incidents virtually the same. One was given and one wasn't. Pretty sure you don't know what consistency means in that case.

They aren't really similar attempts at tackles though are they?

One is a keeper coming out to smother the ball in front of him and not really dangerous (or reckless, or careless). The Gerrard one was, IIRC, a lunging tackle at pace from the side with studs up.

[Stranded]

Two incidents virtually the same. One was given and one wasn't. Pretty sure you don't know what consistency means in that case.

Not really getting the point are we my rattled friend.

They are consistant to the rules of the game - i.e. the rule has been implemented consistantly in these instances. The difference being that one referee subjectively decided that one incident invovled a careless or reckless action by the defender hence a foul was given, the second the ref decided this wasn't the case so no infringement took place.

Now, if you are arguing against this subjectiveness causing inconsistancy then fair enough - subjective judgement will, by human nature, always lead to inconsistancy because different people see incidents in different ways - as has been shown by the comment around the non-penalty on Saturday.

So we have a choice, accept that as long as the rule is administered correctly (it was) by a human and that Human A will see something differently from Human B, and even the same person may interperet a similar or identical incident differently based on external factors or invent RoboRef to decide everything and remove the subjective element of the rule.

[glass half full]

Any way - A bel8ed RIP Bobby Campbell.

A true gentleman.

[No Fixed Abode]

Not really getting the point are we my rattled friend.

They are consistant to the rules of the game - i.e. the rule has been implemented consistantly in these instances. The difference being that one referee subjectively decided that one incident invovled a careless or reckless action by the defender hence a foul was given, the second the ref decided this wasn't the case so no infringement took place.

Now, if you are arguing against this subjectiveness causing inconsistancy then fair enough - subjective judgement will, by human nature, always lead to inconsistancy because different people see incidents in different ways - as has been shown by the comment around the non-penalty on Saturday.

So we have a choice, accept that as long as the rule is administered correctly (it was) by a human and that Human A will see something differently from Human B, and even the same person may interperet a similar or identical incident differently based on external factors or invent RoboRef to decide everything and remove the subjective element of the rule.

If a player headbutts a fellow player and it happens in another game you expect both to be dealt with in the same manner. A red card. As the Remy and Gerrard incidents were very similar you would expect the same.

I don't know why you find this so difficult to understand....

[No Fixed Abode]

Two incidents virtually the same. One was given and one wasn't. Pretty sure you don't know what consistency means in that case.

They aren't really similar attempts at tackles though are they?

.

Of course they are. They're both late, both players hurdled the challenged to avoid being clattered. One player gets a penalty the other doesn't. Keepers tend to lead with their hands into a challenge and players obviously lead with their feet. That's the only difference here.

[Royal Rother]

The keeper didn't come out with the intention of bringing Remy down. He intended to make a save. In failing to do so he also put Remy off without making any contact - excellent goalkeeping I'd say.

If he comes for a cross, screaming "keeper's ball", flaps at it but misses the ball and by his actions puts the attacker off so it pings off the top of his head over the bar then that's not a foul either.

No real difference.

Sorry RR I don't think this is anything like borne out by the laws, which say:

A direct free kick is awarded to the opposing team if a player commits any of the following seven offences in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force:

kicks or attempts to kick an opponent
trips or attempts to trip an opponent
jumps at an opponent
charges an opponent
strikes or attempts to strike an opponent
pushes an opponent
tackles an opponent

All the referee has to conclude is that it was a careless attempt at a tackle.

Confused me there.

Which one of those 7 offences did Butland commit?

The referee decided none. Fine lines in interpretations but I tend to agree with him, because he clearly made a genuine attempt to make a save, and not in a careless or reckless manner.

That and the fact that it's Chelsea we are talking about here of course. (I didn't say that....)

[TBM]

Not really getting the point are we my rattled friend.

They are consistant to the rules of the game - i.e. the rule has been implemented consistantly in these instances. The difference being that one referee subjectively decided that one incident invovled a careless or reckless action by the defender hence a foul was given, the second the ref decided this wasn't the case so no infringement took place.

Now, if you are arguing against this subjectiveness causing inconsistancy then fair enough - subjective judgement will, by human nature, always lead to inconsistancy because different people see incidents in different ways - as has been shown by the comment around the non-penalty on Saturday.

So we have a choice, accept that as long as the rule is administered correctly (it was) by a human and that Human A will see something differently from Human B, and even the same person may interperet a similar or identical incident differently based on external factors or invent RoboRef to decide everything and remove the subjective element of the rule.

If a player headbutts a fellow player and it happens in another game you expect both to be dealt with in the same manner. A red card. As the Remy and Gerrard incidents were very similar you would expect the same.

I don't know why you find this so difficult to understand....

Maybe the ref was wrong to award the penalty to Gerrard, so in fact in this instance the ref managed to give the correct call which he should be applauded for

[genome]

Two incidents virtually the same. One was given and one wasn't. Pretty sure you don't know what consistency means in that case.

They aren't really similar attempts at tackles though are they?

.

Of course they are. They're both late, both players hurdled the challenged to avoid being clattered. One player gets a penalty the other doesn't. Keepers tend to lead with their hands into a challenge and players obviously lead with their feet. That's the only difference here.

Hypothetically, if the clubs were the other way round, and Gerrard didn't get a penalty and Remy did - would you feel the same way, or be remotely bothered?

[No Fixed Abode]

I would still say it's inconsistent from the officials. So nothing changes from my perspective.

[genome]

I guess I'll just have to trust you on that one.