Al B Posted May 23, 2011 Report Share Posted May 23, 2011 The rules can't, but the referees can. Referees have to judge all the time whether foul play was accidental or deliberate, and in this case the referee indicated that he thought it was accidental, even though everybody else could see that it wasn't. No, he didn't, because whether it was deliberate or accidental doesn't matter in isolation. He indicated that he felt we didn't suffer any disadvantage resulting from it (which does), and being fair that was the case, as if he hadn't handled the ball it would have just bounced into acres of space behind him and he'd have cleared it or knocked it back to the goalie to hoof it. Even if it was deliberate, and even if the ref thought it was, that doesn't necessarily matter because deliberate handball isn't an automatic yellow card and that's a fact. It's not down to interpretation or judgement apart from to decide if we suffered a direct disadvantage as a result of it (which if we have, that is the point where the automatic yellow rule then comes in). In this case we didn't so it's a free kick and no card. The phrase "booking for deliberate handball" is commonly used and is now taken as red as a result, but while it isn't completely wrong....it doesn't tell the full story. To make it accurate it should be "booking for disadvantaging an opponent by deliberate handball" Hypothetical example :- If the ball is heading into the box towards the Celtic goalie, Sutton is chasing it down and has a chance of reaching it first....but Majstorovic knocks it back with his hand deliberately to make sure he can't (pretty much what Craigan did), then that is a foul and an automatic yellow card. If however, Majstorovic had the ball just outside the box and happened to be the only player in the Celtic half....not a Motherwell player within 50 yards.... then bent down, picked the ball up and kissed it, then put it back down, the referee would give a free kick but no card, and would be completely correct. I'm not saying the ref had a good game...in fact I thought he had a shiter and called a lot of things completely wrongly for both sides. The handball incident however, wasn't one of them. He called it completely correctly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cameltoe Posted May 23, 2011 Report Share Posted May 23, 2011 I'm not saying the ref had a good game...in fact I thought he had a shiter and called a lot of things completely wrongly for both sides. The handball incident however, wasn't one of them. He called it completely correctly. I agree the ref was keech but think he got the handball incident wrong, the baldy swede should have walked. You can't go unpunished for that. I remember years ago attending a game at parkhead and Shaun Fagan got a straight red for punching the ball in the net, rules haven't changed much from then. He clearly bottled it. Like a previous poster said, if you look at the TV pictures he's trying so hard not to burst out laughing, he can't believe he got away unpunished. But saying that I didn't expect anything less from Calum Murray. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al B Posted May 23, 2011 Report Share Posted May 23, 2011 Yeah, exactly....he punched the ball into the net! We gained a direct advantage from his handball, and that's where the automatic booking comes in. Jeez....im not trying to convince people of my opinion or view...i'm explaining a misunderstood rule! Handball is a free kick. Using your hand to gain advantage over an opponent is an automatic booking. There's a difference between those two. It's possible (but very rare...which is where the confusion comes in), to have a deliberate handball that does not affect or disadvantage the opponent in any way. That's what happened on Saturday. The criteria for handball being an automatic card or not, and where the referee has to make a judgement isnt "deliberate or accidental".... it's "did it gain an advantage over an opponent". In Shaun Fagan's case from your example, yes...it did. Automatic booking. In Stephen Craigan's case from the final, yes. Automatic booking. In Daniel Majstorovic's case from the same final, no. Free kick. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fatcalf Posted May 23, 2011 Report Share Posted May 23, 2011 I'm not saying the ref had a good game...in fact I thought he had a shiter Should just leave it at that Al. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wellfan1984 Posted May 23, 2011 Report Share Posted May 23, 2011 Referee's lack of bottle in conjunction with McCall's tactics made for a dire spectacle. I'll never watch the game back but I'm sure the Ref put his whistle to his mouth when Craigan stuck his arm out. I'm pretty sure he bottled it there given what he had let go previously. Even better than that, he signaled for us to play advantage as we had the ball. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dosser1886 Posted May 23, 2011 Report Share Posted May 23, 2011 Ref was poor, we were poor best team won. Considering the mess that we were in when CB left pretty amazing end of season TBH. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
numpty Posted May 23, 2011 Report Share Posted May 23, 2011 No, he didn't, because whether it was deliberate or accidental doesn't matter in isolation. He indicated that he felt we didn't suffer any disadvantage resulting from it (which does), and being fair that was the case, The referee waved his arms about to show what the contact looked like to him. What he may also have said, neither of us know, but he certainly made no gesture to indicate the proximity or otherwise of any other players, and thus whether any advantage had been gained (or otherwise). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yosemite sam Posted May 23, 2011 Report Share Posted May 23, 2011 The referee waved his arms about to show what the contact looked like to him. What he may also have said, neither of us know, but he certainly made no gesture to indicate the proximity or otherwise of any other players, and thus whether any advantage had been gained (or otherwise). So what your saying is, as long as the player is not trying to seek advantage, or there are no opposition players near him, it's Ok to use your hands to stop the ball going past you? What a load of bollocks! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
numpty Posted May 23, 2011 Report Share Posted May 23, 2011 So what your saying is, as long as the player is not trying to seek advantage, or there are no opposition players near him, it's Ok to use your hands to stop the ball going past you? What a load of bollocks! No, I'm saying the opposite -- I was disagreeing with Al's claim that the referee had indicated that there had been no disadvantage to Motherwell! It didn't seem to me like that's what he'd indicated at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Busta Nut Posted May 23, 2011 Report Share Posted May 23, 2011 I don't see how him misjudging the flight of the ball, panicking and stopping it with his hand is not trying to gain an advantage, any deliberate hand ball is an attempt to gain advantage Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SS1886 Posted May 23, 2011 Report Share Posted May 23, 2011 Ref had a shocker. Mastorovitch had to walk for the hand ball. That would have changed the whole dynamics of the game and Craigan would never have been in that position, although he was having a shocker himself. Lasley was lucky to stay on as well but that again was after the Swede had tried the leg breaker on Sutts which was a straight red. I do not buy this bullshit about it staying a good game by keeping 11 v 11 on the park. I couldn,t care less if they were down to 8 men. If you deserve to go you deserve to go. However Smeltic were not allowed to lose that game on Saturday after all that has happened to their poor wee manager. Another trophy less season would just add fuel to their conspiracy theory . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haggischomper Posted May 23, 2011 Report Share Posted May 23, 2011 However Smeltic were not allowed to lose that game on Saturday Nonsense. We were crap, simple as that. The better team one and that's the end of it. Yes, guys should have been sent off but they weren't so it's up to Motherwell to go win the game and they didn't/couldn't. No conspiracy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuwell Posted May 23, 2011 Report Share Posted May 23, 2011 Nonsense. We were crap, simple as that. The better team one and that's the end of it. Yes, guys should have been sent off but they weren't so it's up to Motherwell to go win the game and they didn't/couldn't. No conspiracy. That’s a bit unfair of you bringing a touch of realism to the guys fantasy! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tweed Posted May 23, 2011 Report Share Posted May 23, 2011 Some of the tackling in the first half was fairly brutal. But I think he gave concessions with cards because of the wet pitch and he did it consistently so no problem with that. Handball I yelled for at the time but having seen it again there was no well player near enough to gain an advantage so foul only was right for me. But some refs would have sent him packing. Craigan would not have denied a clear goal scoring opportunity so a yellow would have been right call. Overall I think calum murray had a decent game and given conditions it was a tough one to manage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steelboy Posted May 23, 2011 Report Share Posted May 23, 2011 i hope the moderator who has been creaming himself every time lennon, reid or mcbride challenge the sfa and refs is feeling a bit of a tit now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WishyWell Posted May 23, 2011 Report Share Posted May 23, 2011 I accept Al B's explanation on the handball rule. Having sat beside an ex-ref for 5 years at work, i had it drummed into me that handball is the only offence in the game where intent governs whether it is a foul or not - intent can determine the level of punishment in other cases, eg a yellow or straight red for a mistimed or wild challenge respectively, but as far as deciding whether something is a foul or not a foul, only with handball is intent a factor. However, what I can't get my head round is that there was no advantage gained. Surely, unless the hadball doesn't alter the flight of the ball to any great extent, then there is some advantage or disadvantage there to some extent, as the ball then won't go where it was originally going. In the case of the Celtic player, the ball would have run a distance behind him, meaning that, even if no Motherwell player was near him, he would still have to go back and play it, by which time any number of scenarios would have taken place, eg Humphrey bearing down on him, Sutton cutting off the keeper, etc. Instead, the ball dropped much closer to him = advantage. I can't see any other consequence that there should have been than a second yellow, and then the game changes. Imagine, Mulgrew to centre-half. With the extra man advantage, we can still crowd the centre-midfield while allowing Hammell to be switched for Jeffers much earlier, giving us two up top for far longer. We'll never know how it would have gone and we may well still have lost, but it sure wouldn't have panned out exactly the way it did. It would have been nice to find out. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LadywellToi Posted June 27, 2011 Report Share Posted June 27, 2011 Hands up who would have liked to have done this to Callum Murray: BBC News The picture is a teaker Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
underboyleheating Posted June 27, 2011 Report Share Posted June 27, 2011 Hands up who would have liked to have done this to Callum Murray: BBC News The picture is a teaker At least someone wearing C&A brought home some silverwear! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LadywellToi Posted June 27, 2011 Report Share Posted June 27, 2011 How many would ye? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Craig Posted June 27, 2011 Report Share Posted June 27, 2011 Well you'd be feart to saw 'No' to the munters, because they would kick your c**t in! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Busta Nut Posted June 27, 2011 Report Share Posted June 27, 2011 about 4 i reckon, think I'd need to see some of there birth certificates though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian-in-Oz Posted June 28, 2011 Report Share Posted June 28, 2011 Unusually for a womens football team there appears to be more good looking ones than boilers but then i do have beer goggles on at the moment Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waldo Posted June 28, 2011 Report Share Posted June 28, 2011 about 4 i reckon, think I'd need to see some of there birth certificates though. FOUR!!! He doesn't mean "go out with in public" are you trying to pretend you have high standards or are you female? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albi Posted June 28, 2011 Report Share Posted June 28, 2011 At least someone wearing C&A brought home some silverwear! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.