Post the strange, the weird, and the just plain wrong things football commentators say about the laws when you watch games. Threads are closed after 500 posts (so sometime next week). Man City - Liverpool Ireland drifts into offside position. Adebayor tries to play the ball to him. Deflects off Liverpool defender into the path of Ireland. Flag goes up. Easy and correct decision. Analyst watches replay and says - "the ball deflected off a Liverpool player, surely he must be onside".
Yep, noticed that. Also stated that a draw would pull Liverpool (1 p down to ManCity) even with ManCity! As if ManCity doesn't also get a point... (not a Law issue per se but jeez, did those two have a rough Friday night?)
Setanta "talking head" who said the Porto IFK should be retaken because the laws say the referee must have his arm up to signal indirect before the kick can be taken. Every commentator in the world who says "there was no intent/malice in it". These guys could make a fortune as pro mindreaders. They seem to have a favorite phrase every season. Last year it was "he whipped it in with pace". This year it's "he dug it out from between his feet"
Not saying it needs to be called back, but law 13 states: The official did not raise his arm until well after the kick was taken. I must admit, the late arm was very confusing. For a moment, I thought he put his arm up to wave the play back.
Does it matter whether the arm was raised in this case? It was passed to another player an put into the net, it wasn't a point of contention that it was touched by two players or that it had to be. So no biggie, put the arm up and it's a goal.
i thought that was an odd comment about pulling even. but, umm, as this was a Sunday game, I assume you mean Saturday night... i mean if we're going to pick on them for what they say....
On the "it's stupid and I don't want to hear it any more" scale, I put this with "but there was contact" as either a reason why a flop shouldn't have been called a dive or a foul should have been called. Of course there was contact. This is football - a contact sport. Contact does not = foul.
I think that we all need to have a button on our remote so that every time Tommy Smyth refers to the "ole onion bag", we can push it and deliver an electric shock.
Tons of them here: http://www.btinternet.com/~homepage/ballsa.htm#foo David Coleman has his own category: http://www.btinternet.com/~homepage/ballsa.htm#cole Affectionately known as "Colemanballs".
Chelsea V W Ham: W Ham throw-in assist to goal. Thrower, Dyer has part of 'front' foot on field. Heel on line. "technically, you could say that was a foul throw, couldn't you?" In fact, rear leg is much more of the suspect - off ground as ball is released? 7:02 mark here: http://www.footytube.com/video/chelsea-west-ham-united-mar13-36739
code1390 is correct. Let me explain. No, there is too much, let me sum up. Obsvervation from video: Thrower, Dyer has part of 'front' foot on field. Heel on line. Comment from annoucner: "technically, you could say that was a foul throw, couldn't you?" Title of thread: Football Commentators Say the Darndest Things thread [R] With that said, I have a nice video from my son's high school match from a couple of years ago. Dual system so one referee is in the corner, on the line, about 20 ft from the throw-in location. I am at midfield with a video camera and on the touch line (ok, naughty me). Video down the line shows part of front foot of thrower (my son, of course) into the field - remainder of foot behind the line. Referee looking right at foot, blows whistle - throw in to opponent- announces loudly "part of his foot was over the line". grrrr made some stills from the video for ref classes so it wasn't a total loss.
I'm glad some one else caught this too. This clip has added significance for the following reasons: - The commentator, John Motson, is one of England's most experienced announcers. His last int'l for the BBC was the 2006 WC Final. - As a previous poster mentioned, the raised back foot was the only valid reason to call a foul throw. Motson even missed that too. Inexcusable.
Thank god I'm not the only one who gets annoyed by this!!! If ESPN offered a monthly fee of $5 for an ESPN feed that had Tommy's microphone on mute, I'd hop on that so damn quick!
Seems like the buzz phrase is "challenge from behind" this year. Seem to hear it every game. Also, it apparently is an automatic foul as well.
Sure its an automatic foul, just like when a defender challenges from behind and pokes the ball away (cleanly) from an attacker who has his legs wide open..... LOL!!!!!!
Saturday March 20, Portsmouth v. Hull on FSC, 33rd minute or so: Portsmouth keeper David James goes for the ball far to his right. He appears to trap the ball against the ground with his hands as much of his body slides outside the Penalty Area, but the ball never fully crosses the line. The edge of the ball may be hanging over the line, but that's it. The referee calls James for handling the ball outside the Penalty Area. I think the call is wrong but, OK, all refs make mistakes sometimes. Announcer Tony Gale (Gayle? Gail?) says something to the effect that because James' hand was touching the ball while he was outside the Penalty Area, it's a good call. He says NOTHING about the whole ball having to entirely cross the line for it to be ruled outside the Area. Get a rule book, Mr. Gale! You get paid for this job, and if this is any indication of your knowledge of the game, you suck.
I was watching the replay of a Serie A game, Roma v Udinese last night. Vicinic's (sp?) cleats were a very interesting lavender color. I don't know who the commentator was, but he could not get away from the color of those boots! Players all over the pitch had on bright yellow, blue and orange cleats, but every time Vicinic got the ball, he had to mention the "lavender colored boots". It was driving me nuts!
A site I frequent has Paul Parker, former ManU defender as a columnist. While he never distinguishes himself, this week he goes above and beyond. Discussing the Mascherano pull down against Liverpool, that we have discussed here: http://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1369652 Parker opines: For Benitez to suggest the winger dived is wrong - Mascherano clearly pulled him back and was deservedly punished. But whether it should have been a penalty or a free-kick was less clear cut. Initial contact was outside the box, but I felt there was prolonged contact before Valencia eventually tumbled. <snip> But I don't think Mascherano should have been sent off for the foul - he was making a genuine attempt to win the ball. There should be a distinction made between the likes of Mascherano's challenge - and others that are simply mistimed - and those which are committed in a deliberate attempt to prevent a goalscoring opportunity. So it seems that Paul Parker, former player and current commentator, truly believes that "I was going for the ball, ref!" actually stands as a defense. At least now when I hear this absurdity, I should know that the claimant may someday play for the England National side. Equally astonishing is the conclusion that Parker knows nothing about judging DOGSO-F. He is ignorant that any foul in certain circumstances generates the DOGSO, it doesn't have to be mean or cynical, just a foul. But what is truly incredible is that, having admitted that Mascherano "pulled him back", Parker, a former defender, believes that action falls into the category of a "genuine attempt to win the ball". No doubt grabbing someone and spinning them about their vertical axis is one way to win the ball, but come on here... Read the whole column: http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/football/paul-parker/article/22236/ Of course, it is easy to just shake our heads in dismay as we hear these stories related by fellow referees, but it is important to remember that this is what players and commentators actually think. It argues for a calm explanation to the players when these 'teaching moments' arise. We all know players don't know the rules, I guess we have to educate them.
