Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2005 0:19:01 GMT 1
Just seen him disallow a free-kick from Man City as he said he hadn't blown the whistle. The wall and keeper appeared ready when the shot came in.
However, Poll allowed Henry's quick free-kick against Chelsea.
Poll has explained his decision however why does the rules on this need to be so 'arsy'? I wish we could have some consistency from referees
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2005 0:27:29 GMT 1
The rule seems straightforward to me. Ref asks the player taking if he wants to take it quick or the wall to be marched backwards. If the player insists on ten yards, he has to wait, otherwise, he can take it whenever he wants. Am I right (probably not..... )
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2005 0:38:08 GMT 1
Poll put the whistle to his mouth before the City player struck it. The decision just seems pedantic to me and another example of a ref grabbing the limelight
|
|
|
Post by rob on Jan 23, 2005 2:22:40 GMT 1
He is quoted as "loving himself and loving controversy"
Just about somes him up
|
|
|
Post by mattsnapper NLI on Jan 23, 2005 5:29:46 GMT 1
so what u want..? a grey faced referee with no character..?
did u ever slag off jags for his silver shoes and bex-type hairstyle..? what about sedge and his l love myself car and numberplate..?
it was a super goal scored by man city but poll gave city the 10 yard option before hand and i dont see what the problem is.. and then you go and slag him off for having character and the balls to explain on tv the situation
i dont understand ur criteria
|
|
|
Post by rob on Jan 23, 2005 11:31:34 GMT 1
a ref who doesn't always feel like he has to be centre of attention.
|
|
Wrighty
Midland League Division One
Posts: 465
|
Post by Wrighty on Jan 23, 2005 13:24:16 GMT 1
Thought it was the right decision myself. Gave them the option to take it quickly, they declined and then it anyway. No problems with his decision from me.
|
|
|
Post by Pilch on Jan 23, 2005 13:31:04 GMT 1
the answer around this farce is simple
you go up to the ref before the game and say "we want quick free kicks today"
then you can either take it quick or take your time either way there is no advantage to the opposition
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2005 13:35:55 GMT 1
The Poll incident was a tricky one - yes he did ask City if they wanted to wait for the whistle but the pictures also clearly show he had the whistle in his mouth when the City player hit the ball.
As for referees with character - I'd rather referees who are only seen when they need be. The ref yesterday at Darlo was excellent.
|
|
|
Post by tom_leather on Jan 23, 2005 15:17:17 GMT 1
I agree with Schmeichel (sp) Poll had the whistle in his mouth - why disallow when he would have blown his whistle a split second later, he was clearly ready for the kick to be taken, everybody else was.
If he really didn't want the kick taken when it was then why the hell didn't he blow up and ask them to retake earlier, not 5 seconds after the goal was scored???
|
|
|
Post by Parker on Jan 23, 2005 17:06:35 GMT 1
What a load of pedantic crap this is.
Rules are rules and the game would be a complete mess without them.
Poll clearly asked if they wanted to take it quick and the answer was no. Therefore the wall goes back 10 yards and we play to the whistle. The fact the whistle is seen in his mouth is irrelevent. The kick gets taken after he blows the whistle not sucks on it.
No whistle, no free kick, ball remains dead.
End of..................
|
|
|
Post by The Shropshire Tenor on Jan 23, 2005 19:49:38 GMT 1
Quiet right Parker, I'm fed-up with the ignorant comments of thick ex-pro's who haven't a clue about the laws of the game.
How an inarticulate thicko like scarlet nose gets to be an 'expert' on the Beeb is beyond me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2005 20:04:11 GMT 1
Quiet right Parker, I'm fed-up with the ignorant comments of thick ex-pro's who haven't a clue about the laws of the game. How an inarticulate thicko like scarlet nose gets to be an 'expert' on the Beeb is beyond me. Now now boys everyone has an opinion It just annoys me that the wall was lined up, the keeper was ready and the ref was in a position to see what happened when the free kick was struck. Blowing the whistle would have made no difference in the outcome of the freekick.
|
|
|
Post by The Shropshire Tenor on Jan 23, 2005 21:44:58 GMT 1
I was commenting on Schmichaels iditic remarks on MotD.
He said that Poll made the decision because he likes to create controversy and be the centre of attention.
Many stupid things are said by the gangs of smug ex pros who litter the media and of course never made a mistake or behaved badly in their careers, this is a prize example.
I accept the word of Mr Poll who said that he had not blown the whistle, therefore play had not re-started. Pedantic perhaps, but he is there to uphold the laws of the game.
|
|
|
Post by soupie on Jan 23, 2005 21:54:31 GMT 1
Now now boys everyone has an opinion It just annoys me that the wall was lined up, the keeper was ready and the ref was in a position to see what happened when the free kick was struck. Blowing the whistle would have made no difference in the outcome of the freekick. Sorry Phil, but have to disagree with you and everyone else on this thread who is of the same ilk as you on this matter. If everyone is ready at the start of a game, is it then OK for the kickoff to be taken without the ref's whistle? Similarly with a penalty - should the goal count - or play continue if it's taken without the re'f say so (viz. the whistle)? No of course not. I rest my case.
|
|
|
Post by soupie on Jan 23, 2005 21:57:10 GMT 1
And another thing! Ant, aren't you a qualified ref? Whilst it may seem tricky, what do the laws say about taking a free kick (other than a quick one) without the whistle? Any other refs out there help?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2005 22:02:33 GMT 1
And another thing! Ant, aren't you a qualified ref? Whilst it may seem tricky, what do the laws say about taking a free kick (other than a quick one) without the whistle? Any other refs out there help? The rules say the game has to be re-started by the referee, but that is not necessarily with the use of a whistle i.e. if he says they can take the free-kick quickly then that is a valid allowance to re-start. Your previous post is quite correct. The only question I ask is - if the goal had been given do you think there would be any controversy about it? If not, would it be considered as a referee not enforcing the rules or them employing common sense? Now there's another debate starter
|
|
|
Post by mattsnapper2 on Jan 24, 2005 15:08:49 GMT 1
The only question I ask is - if the goal had been given do you think there would be any controversy about it? If not, would it be considered as a referee not enforcing the rules or them employing common sense? Now there's another debate starter ... the ref asks if they want quick or slow free kicks.. they cant have it both ways in demanding the ref makes sure the wall is 100% back 10 yards, the goalie is ready and he is in the best position to watch play - THEN hit the ball into the back of the net prior to his whistle being blown
|
|
|
Post by Minor on Jan 24, 2005 15:53:53 GMT 1
What a load of pedantic cr@p this is. Rules are rules and the game would be a complete mess without them. Poll clearly asked if they wanted to take it quick and the answer was no. Therefore the wall goes back 10 yards and we play to the whistle. The fact the whistle is seen in his mouth is irrelevent. The kick gets taken after he blows the whistle not sucks on it. No whistle, no free kick, ball remains dead. End of..................
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2005 16:15:20 GMT 1
Surely this was a good application of the laws. The fact that the whistle was in his mouth makes no difference.
Can you imagine if you were in the wall or were the goalkeeper and were told by the ref that the free kick would not be taken until he blew the whistle, but it was taken before the whistle and they scored.
You would go nuts, and rightly so.
|
|