Is this twit suggesting Gallagher suggests the Irishman should of been sent off for obstructing Veltman?
The international break is a gift that can't stop giving.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Albion] Arsenal fans
- Thread starter mrjon1976
- Start date
Is this twit suggesting Gallagher suggests the Irishman should of been sent off for obstructing Veltman?
The international break is a gift that can't stop giving.
Greg Bobkin
Silver Seagull
- May 22, 2012
- 15,859
I might be missing something, but they are completely different situations, no?
As far as I can see, Arsenal fans wanted both Pedro and Velts sent off for two different 'offences', neither of which were worthy of a red - all because Rice picked up a second yellow for kicking the ball away.
Hilarious
Greg Bobkin
Silver Seagull
- May 22, 2012
- 15,859
You are the REAL Crodo and I claim my £5. And an evening with Polly and Giles.
You couldn't handle an evening with Polly and Giles.
ChickenBaltiPie
Well-known member
- Jan 3, 2014
- 937
“It always looks bad in slow motion.” FFS Maybe that’s because it was SHOCKING! …thankfully, for all the faults re its ‘USE,’ VAR would 99/100 get that one right, not that it would seem to have made a great deal of difference in that match, given the point at which it occurred on the cusp of full time it would seem.
Refs will NEVER get it right every time. It’s impossible, but when it comes to a retrospective reading of the laws and multiple replays after the fact, I think we can rely on any refs interpretation. Both Dermot and Dean are aligned on it. Pundits and ex players, not so much!
re Rice/Veltman, it’s really not as subjective as Arsenal would like to think. As harsh as it is, it’s actually very black and white. When considering the laws of the game as written, ‘with’ common sense applied, he delayed play. Job done!
Last edited:
Greg Bobkin
Silver Seagull
- May 22, 2012
- 15,859
Maybe just a quick pumpkin spiced latte, then.
That's a euphemism if ever I heard one.
Seeing 'Dermot Gallagher' and 'Irish' in the same sentence, has reminded me of something I discovered a while back. Bizarrely, Dermot has two completely separate accents: an 'English' one he uses, as a referee and in media, and his own Irish one that he talks in otherwise!
Uh_huh_him
Well-known member
- Sep 28, 2011
- 12,004
I might be missing something, but they are completely different situations, no?
As far as I can see, Arsenal fans wanted both Pedro and Velts sent off for two different 'offences', neither of which were worthy of a red - all because Rice picked up a second yellow for kicking the ball away.
Hilarious
The amount of guff I've read regarding Velts challenge is ridiculous.
It just isn't a red...
Not enough force or intent to warrant a red card. his calf catches Rice near the knee., i don't think his foot even touches Rice.
It certainly could have been a yellow, but Rice's playacting probably doesn't help that cause.
It was looked at by VAR who rightly decided it wasn't a Red.
The Ref watch clip they are comparing it to, has a player running up for a massive hoof and catches the player flush in the ankle.
Probably a red, with the mitigation that the Swansea player has no right to be anywhere near the ball - despite what Dermot says, I can completely understand why it wasn't given
oldboyroy
Well-known member
Looks very much like Veltnam went to kick the ball and Rice moved it away.Genuinely surprised that having seen that anyone can argue about the ref giving a yellow
Uh_huh_him
Well-known member
- Sep 28, 2011
- 12,004
Hard to say but it looks like Velts foot doesn't actually touch Rice at all.
I think he catches him with his leg.
And only does so because Rice moves into his path.
If it was a deliberate kick, to cause damage, it's a very poor attempt from a professional footballer.
Uh_huh_him
Well-known member
- Sep 28, 2011
- 12,004
you got me.
- Nov 15, 2006
- 4,111
Hard to say? Rice looks down and surreptitiously taps the ball away with his foot as Velts goes to kick it, so he ends up mis kicking a slow moving ball and connects with Rice who is effectively stepping across.
A yellow card for Rice all day long
Or am I being whooshed here?
origigull
Well-known member
- Jun 29, 2009
- 1,242
That's the crux of the matter. Play to the whistle lads. If the ref had blown the whistle before JP had kicked the ball away . . .
Uh_huh_him
Well-known member
- Sep 28, 2011
- 12,004
Sorry my point was how bad Velts challenge was.
Initially I felt yelllow for both.
On first viewing I thought he's deliberately kicked him, but on second (actually more like 168th viewing) it looks like the contact is more calf on knee.
And that's predominantly because rice gets in the way.
oldboyroy
Well-known member
It's arsenal. It'll still be talked about until they play again. If Keown is on talk sport Friday it'll be another "worse decision ever made" which could cost arsenal the title!
But there is no scope for "common sense" in the Rice scenario. In the extract of the Laws published earlier in this thread, the word "MUST" is used. Don't know where that version came from but the Laws as published on FA.com state:-Talked again for the 1567th time on sports bar last night where an Arsenal fan and semi pro referee agreed the decision was spot on despite Jamie O'hara still arguing that the ref should of used common sense and NOT sent Rice off!!. At least Cundy mocked the Arsenal fans for still going on about it 4 days later
CAUTIONABLE OFFENCES
A player is cautioned if guilty of:
- delaying the restart of play
The crucial word here is "IS". Not might be. "IS". No discretion, no "common sense". The wording places an obligation on the referee to issue a caution.
It really is that simple.
Uh_huh_him
Well-known member
- Sep 28, 2011
- 12,004
Similarly the Pedro "must be a yellow" doesn't seem to qualify , as kicking the ball away needs to be after the ref has stopped playBut there is no scope for "common sense" in the Rice scenario. In the extract of the Laws published earlier in this thread, the word "MUST" is used. Don't know where that version came from but the Laws as published on FA.com state:-
CAUTIONABLE OFFENCES
A player is cautioned if guilty of:
- delaying the restart of play
The crucial word here is "IS". Not might be. "IS". No discretion, no "common sense". The wording places an obligation on the referee to issue a caution.
It really is that simple.
Not particularly well worded as the comma implies that only provoking a confrontation needs to be after the ref has stopped.
But if purely for kicking the ball awy is a bookable offence, it would be under it's own bullet point (I think)
Any refs care toclarify the potential ambiguity?
Agreed. Rice feigning serious injury would have been sufficient to have got him a second yellow anyway.
Even if Rice hadn't kicked the ball away, the OTT reaction to a tap on the shin was deserving of a sanction. (Although if Veltman had tapped Rice without the excuse of Rice kicking the ball away, I would have booked Velts).
Totally agree that Veltmans tap on the shin could never have been a red card.
But even seasoned international Rice admitted he did wrong and was fairly punished so I'm not sure where all the hissy-fits are coming from.