West Ham - Liverpool (R)

West Ham - Liverpool (R)

Post by Jussi Uosukaine » Fri, 28 Apr 2006 05:38:38


ATM 83' , 1 - 2

Interesting moment. Garcia keeps hold of Mullins hand, Mullins loses his
cools and touches Garcia on the face. Garcia falls down like Robben.
After the fracas, Mullins gets a red card (harsh, but everyone saw it
coming). Garcia also gets a red, apparently for acting. I agree that
Garcia acted, and it is a behaviour that needs to be removed from the
game. But is it really a red card offence?

And if it really is a red card offence, doesnt that enable the FA to
instill bans on player on video evidence if the referee misses it?

/jussi

 
 
 

West Ham - Liverpool (R)

Post by Benn » Fri, 28 Apr 2006 06:15:05

Quote:
> Subject : West Ham - Liverpool (R)

>ATM 83' , 1 - 2

>Interesting moment. Garcia keeps hold of Mullins hand, Mullins loses his
>cools and touches Garcia on the face. Garcia falls down like Robben.
>After the fracas, Mullins gets a red card (harsh, but everyone saw it
>coming). Garcia also gets a red, apparently for acting. I agree that
>Garcia acted, and it is a behaviour that needs to be removed from the
>game. But is it really a red card offence?

>And if it really is a red card offence, doesnt that enable the FA to
>instill bans on player on video evidence if the referee misses it?

>/jussi

I don't think there's anything in the rules preventing 'trial by TV' as
it happens in Italy every weekend.

                                http://soccer-europe.com
                     Rss feed : http://soccer-europe.com/RSS/News.xml

 
 
 

West Ham - Liverpool (R)

Post by Jussi Uosukaine » Fri, 28 Apr 2006 06:32:04


Quote:
> > Subject : West Ham - Liverpool (R)

> >ATM 83' , 1 - 2

> >Interesting moment. Garcia keeps hold of Mullins hand, Mullins loses his
> >cools and touches Garcia on the face. Garcia falls down like Robben.
> >After the fracas, Mullins gets a red card (harsh, but everyone saw it
> >coming). Garcia also gets a red, apparently for acting. I agree that
> >Garcia acted, and it is a behaviour that needs to be removed from the
> >game. But is it really a red card offence?

> >And if it really is a red card offence, doesnt that enable the FA to
> >instill bans on player on video evidence if the referee misses it?

> >/jussi

> I don't think there's anything in the rules preventing 'trial by TV' as
> it happens in Italy every weekend.

I dont remember anyone getting judged by videoreview for acting in the
EPL. Do they actually do this in Italy?

/jussi

 
 
 

West Ham - Liverpool (R)

Post by Benn » Fri, 28 Apr 2006 07:36:55

Quote:
> Subject : West Ham - Liverpool (R)

>I dont remember anyone getting judged by videoreview for acting in the
>EPL. Do they actually do this in Italy?

If a ref misses a '***' foul or over the top simulation the
disciplinary committee will hand out suspensions after viewing video
evidence. Ibrahimovic, Adriano, Samuel and I believe Totti are among
those who have been found guilty via trial by TV. FIFA don't like this
because they feel it undermines the officials but then they're a bunch
of crooked bastards and FIFA is run by people who've never played the
game at a high level.

                                http://SportToday.org/
                     Rss feed : http://SportToday.org/

 
 
 

West Ham - Liverpool (R)

Post by Sven Mischki » Fri, 28 Apr 2006 09:05:31

Quote:

> > Subject : West Ham - Liverpool (R)

> >I dont remember anyone getting judged by videoreview for acting in the
> >EPL. Do they actually do this in Italy?

> If a ref misses a '***' foul or over the top simulation the
> disciplinary committee will hand out suspensions after viewing video
> evidence. Ibrahimovic, Adriano, Samuel and I believe Totti are among
> those who have been found guilty via trial by TV. FIFA don't like this
> because they feel it undermines the officials but then they're a bunch
> of crooked bastards and FIFA is run by people who've never played the
> game at a high level.

The same is happening in Germany for years now. I think it is a good
thing.

Ciao,
        SM
--
http://SportToday.org/
Christian Ziege: "Vom HSV lernen hei?t Siegen lernen."
R. Fowler: "Sure, I was an Evertonian, but I wasn't stupid: deep
down [..] I always knew that Liverpool were the better side.

 
 
 

West Ham - Liverpool (R)

Post by ruud » Fri, 28 Apr 2006 08:24:56


Quote:

>The same is happening in Germany for years now. I think it is a good
>thing.

What sort of penalties are being meted out in the trial-by-video?
Suspensions? Fines? Just a couple of examples off the top of your
head. It certainly is a good thing and should be used everywhere. They
could almost wipe diving out of the game, although there are still
some (Michael Owen a good example) who look like they've stepped on a
landmine with the slightest touch. In that case it's not necessarily a
dive, it's just a brilliant overreaction.

But if it gets rid of most of the diving and most of the worst fouls
that go unpunished it can never be a bad thing. It's used in most of
the football codes in Australia and works well.

--
World Cup 2006 spreadsheet:
http://users.bigpond.net.au/ftr/
--

 
 
 

West Ham - Liverpool (R)

Post by Benn » Fri, 28 Apr 2006 08:41:26

Quote:
> Subject : West Ham - Liverpool (R)

>The same is happening in Germany for years now. I think it is a good
>thing.

>Ciao,
>        SM

I believe it happened in Germany first, I remember reading something
about trying to use video evidence in order to get a match replayed
because of a controversial incident (must have been a Bayern match).

                                http://soccer-europe.com
                     Rss feed : http://soccer-europe.com/RSS/News.xml

 
 
 

West Ham - Liverpool (R)

Post by Benn » Fri, 28 Apr 2006 08:41:27

Quote:
> Subject : West Ham - Liverpool (R)

>What sort of penalties are being meted out in the trial-by-video?
>Suspensions? Fines? Just a couple of examples off the top of your
>head. It certainly is a good thing and should be used everywhere. They
>could almost wipe diving out of the game, although there are still
>some (Michael Owen a good example) who look like they've stepped on a
>landmine with the slightest touch. In that case it's not necessarily a
>dive, it's just a brilliant overreaction.

>But if it gets rid of most of the diving and most of the worst fouls
>that go unpunished it can never be a bad thing. It's used in most of
>the football codes in Australia and works well.

Ibrahimovic was banned for three games for elbowing an opponent, Inter's
Samuel got a three game ban for spitting on Nedved though he didn't
actually spit at him, just near him. I think Adriano was also banned for
***. Iiev (Messina) got a two game ban for diving but that was a
year ago, I don't recall any recent examples, bans for 'simulation' are
rare. The system isn't foolproof, Cannavaro should be serving a three-
four game ban for a shameful foul on Lazio's Mudingayi which ended his
season while another Lazio midfielder, Dabo, has been hit with a two
game ban for criticising a ref. It's a step in the right direction
that's for sure.

                                http://SportToday.org/
                     Rss feed : http://SportToday.org/

 
 
 

West Ham - Liverpool (R)

Post by Sven Mischki » Fri, 28 Apr 2006 21:31:40

Quote:

> > Subject : West Ham - Liverpool (R)

> >The same is happening in Germany for years now. I think it is a good
> >thing.

> >Ciao,
> >        SM

> I believe it happened in Germany first, I remember reading something
> about trying to use video evidence in order to get a match replayed
> because of a controversial incident (must have been a Bayern match).

Yes, that was in the early 90s: Bayern v.s Nuernberg, Helmer scored a
goal that never was (the ball missed the goal just, but the goal was
counted by the ref :)), it was quite clear on tv that it was a wrong
decision. DFB ordered the match to be replayed and it was - FIFA was
upset, though, as this reverted a ref's decision which should not happen
under any circumstances.

Ciao,
        SM
--
http://www.gourockviews.co.uk
Christian Ziege: "Vom HSV lernen hei?t Siegen lernen."
R. Fowler: "Sure, I was an Evertonian, but I wasn't stupid: deep
down [..] I always knew that Liverpool were the better side.

 
 
 

West Ham - Liverpool (R)

Post by Sven Mischki » Fri, 28 Apr 2006 21:31:40

Quote:

> What sort of penalties are being meted out in the trial-by-video?

Offenses that the ref missed - hits, ellbowing, kicking, spitting,
things like that.

Quote:
> Suspensions? Fines? Just a couple of examples off the top of your
> head.

E.g. IIRC Guy Demel of HSV got banned for 4 games IIRC after hitting an
opponent. Ismael got banned for somethign similar. Micoud and someone
else might be banned this week, too - Micoud for grabbing the balls of
an opponent.

Quote:
> It certainly is a good thing and should be used everywhere. They
> could almost wipe diving out of the game, although there are still
> some (Michael Owen a good example) who look like they've stepped on a
> landmine with the slightest touch. In that case it's not necessarily a
> dive, it's just a brilliant overreaction.

Forget about the diving part. Trial-by-videos are only allowed on
incidents the referee didn't see and therefore couldn't make a decision
about. The ref will always see a dive or a foul in the box and make a
decision about it - this decision can't be reversed.

In the 90s DFB tried to do that and banned Andi Moeller for a clear dive
in the box, but IIRC DFB got huge stick from FIFA for it.

Ciao,
        SM
--
http://www.gourockviews.co.uk
Christian Ziege: "Vom HSV lernen hei?t Siegen lernen."
R. Fowler: "Sure, I was an Evertonian, but I wasn't stupid: deep
down [..] I always knew that Liverpool were the better side.

 
 
 

West Ham - Liverpool (R)

Post by Ezelsdor » Fri, 28 Apr 2006 20:31:41

Yes,  it happend in 1994 between Nrnberg and Bayern:

http://soccernet.espn.go.com/columns/story?id=289153&root=europe&cc=5739

[...]
On April 23, 1994, Bayern Munich had played Nuremberg at home. After 26
minutes, Bayern's Thomas Helmer tried to backheel the ball into the net
from five feet out. He missed the target. Nuremberg's goalkeeper
Andreas K?pke grinningly told him: 'It was more difficult to miss than
to score!' Then he noticed that the referee was pointing to the centre
circle.

Linesman J?rg Jablonski had seen the ball cross the line, which was a
much bigger blunder than the one in October of 1978, because this time
the ball wasn't lying in the net.

Thanks in part to what has become known as the 'phantom goal', Bayern
won 2-1. Nuremberg filed a protest, and the match was replayed on May
3.

This time Bayern won 5-0. Nuremberg got relegated, level on points with
lucky Freiburg.
[...]

The funny thing was that we got a penalty shortly before the end but we
missed and lost the game. If the game would have ended 2-2 there
wouldn't have been a rematch and we would have stayed in the Bundesliga
for at least one more year...the rematch was a disaster for FCN.

 
 
 

West Ham - Liverpool (R)

Post by Benn » Sat, 29 Apr 2006 09:15:23

Quote:
> Subject : West Ham - Liverpool (R)

>E.g. IIRC Guy Demel of HSV got banned for 4 games IIRC after hitting an
>opponent. Ismael got banned for somethign similar. Micoud and someone
>else might be banned this week, too - Micoud for grabbing the balls of
>an opponent.

That was a bit forward, why didn't he ask him in a bar or something?

Quote:
>Forget about the diving part. Trial-by-videos are only allowed on
>incidents the referee didn't see and therefore couldn't make a decision
>about. The ref will always see a dive or a foul in the box and make a
>decision about it - this decision can't be reversed.

>In the 90s DFB tried to do that and banned Andi Moeller for a clear dive
>in the box, but IIRC DFB got huge stick from FIFA for it.

It's allowed now.

                                http://soccer-europe.com
                     Rss feed : http://soccer-europe.com/RSS/News.xml