What does the amount of pain someone is in have to do with anything? A red card for VC has nothing to do with whether you hurt someone or not.
Handling the ball deliberately is punished by a direct free kick. There is only further punishment when it say is used to stop an attack or to score a goal. I'm not sure what play you're talking about sooo I don't know if any of that happened.
Of course VC is a red card. We're talking about an instance where player "A" commits VC and player "B" exaggerates injury. In this instance, the Laws say that player "A" should be sent off, and player "B" should be cautioned.
Strange. I don't see any mention of intent in those. Also, as has been discussed too many times on here before, that deliberate and intentional are not the same in the laws of the game. They might be the same in a thesaurus but not in the LOTG. If they meant for it to be intentional, they would use that word not deliberate.
The word "intent" doesn't have to be in the language. Judging a players "tactics" in tactical fouls require judgement of intent. And why would FIFA put this language; in the laws if they didn't want you to judge whether a player was feigning injury?
I don't understand...how is he deceiving the referee by pretending to be more injured than he is if the referee has already given the player the worst punishment he can. Can he give him double red cards?
Yes. That is the definition of a tactical foul. http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/pro-fessional-foul What are you talking about? How did the victim of VC get a red card?
I'm saying how is the player deceiving the referee by faking that he's more injured than he is. There's no deception there...the player that committed the foul gets a red card because of the challenge not because the player acts more hurt than he is.
There's a time period between the incident of violent conduct and the resulting card. During this period, it isn't unusual for the victim to "play up" the injury to influence a decision. This act is illegal under the LOTG.
Referees ask WHY players are doing things. You have decided in your head that the player will be sent off. So him flopping around means nothing. The only reason I can see justifying it is when he takes too long. Call on the medics and make him leave the field for a second if you think he's faking. You don't need to card the player, it will just make things worse. You shouldn't blindly follow text, you must use Reason.
Then why do FIFA and the USSF use the language that they use to describe these incidents: http://www.massref.net/ussfpositionpapers/7_7_Memo_2009_ENG.pdf Clearly, exaggerating the seriousness of an injury is a serious concern to FIFA, regardless of the result.
I know this is slightly off topic, but it was a complete dick move by Geoff Shreeves. [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tTo54DX4oGM&"]Geoff Shreeves tells Branislav Ivanovic he will miss The Champions League final 2012 - YouTube[/ame] After this, Chelsea should ban all reporters from Sky Sports from the locker room.
Yes Barcelona has won all those games and championships only because there is a vast international conspiracy that no one can find any evidence of. Do they still teach science everywhere or are we just done with looking at things objectively?
Perhaps I don't see the problem here. What did Geoff Shreeves do besides tell the truth? Granted it wasn't tactful or polite. It still wasn't wrong and I think the truth should be worth something.
I can see that. I'm talking about gathering evidence, something solid that you can use to prove a hypothesis. It's proven to be much better than heresy or guesswork.
Quite a bit of uproar on Shreeves but you know he's actually a well known Chelsea fan and very close to a lot of the players! Thought the ref did really well tonight and wasn't swayed by the home fans or Barca players. I've seen a lot of games at the Nou Camp (and most big stadiums) where the official will side slightly with the home team i.e 50/50 calls on throw in's etc but he did well to show the nerve to give Chelsea some free-kicks in their defensive third that were warranted but Chelsea wouldn't have necessarily expected.
Interesting game management here. Having just allowed Mata to burn 45 seconds walking off the field, Cakir cautioned Cech about 6 seconds after the ball had left the field of play (and Cech had promptly gone behind the goal for a new ball). On one hand, this appears extremely inconsistent, but perhaps Cakir was effectively punishing Cech for Mata's offense. Did he feel he needed to send a message?
As I said, I didnt state my claim as being a fact. If I did I would back it up with credible evidence. But it being an opinion, there is no burden of proof for me to satisfy. If there were any, UEFA as an organisation would be dissolved. Can you read? You can argue that my opinion does not weigh much without significant evidence. Seems like you dont know the difference between an opinion and a fact. Learn it, then come preach about science from your high horse.
This in essence is my problem. Everyone thinking their opinion matters and people need to hear it. This is a referee forum...we didn't need to hear your opinion about Barcelona. Move on.
I thought it was very harsh, but I believe I know why it was given. Cech is thrown a new ball (which Barca does MUCH faster than any other club) with the orginal ball on the back of the net about 5 yards away. Instead of using the new ball, Cech sends it back and then picks up the ball on the back of the net, and almost immediately, got the yellow. I believe this is really harsh, because I can't fault a GK for taking the ball off the back of the net, especially with it being so close to him. Having said all that, Cech was almost certainly going to get a yellow for time wasting at some point in the 2nd half, so at the end of the day, this had basically no impact on the match.