Nothing like a little referee assault to start of the season. Pardew dismissed for shoving the AR...after he disagreed with a touch line in or out call that led to a Newcastle GK... Hopefully the video pops up the foxsoccer website soon.
Two things caught my eye in this game: 59' - Newcastle manager is dismissed for pushing the AR while disagreeing with a ball in/out decision. The manager knows full well he screwed up and he leaves without issue. However, he collected a radio communication device to take with him to the stands (doing this in full view of the 4th). As the match goes on, you see shots of the assistant managers going over to chat with him. I thought a dismissed manager was not permitted to have communication of any kind with the team for the duration of the match. In a quick check of the LOTG I couldn't find that. Am I just wrong? Competition rule? Tradition? 73' - Newcastle defender saves the ball from crossing the goal line for a corner kick, just by the post. His keeper being just two yards away, the defender lies down and heads the ball to the keeper, who picks it up. Legal? Again, I've been told this is considered "deliberately circumventing the Laws of the Game" and is punishable by an IFK and caution for the defender. Edit: Scratch this, code beat me to it. I'll copy my post over. Delete please.
So - if i am not mistaken, a player can head the ball back to his goalkeeper, and the goalkeeper can pick it up - as long as the player didn't "flick the ball up to head it back" right? If so, would the following be considered a "back pass" in the same way, and therefore should have been an indirect free kick? (wasn't expecting it to be given). In the Newcastle v Spurs game, Krul (Newcastle keeper) made a great save, and the Newcastle defender (Perch maybe?) stopped ball from going out for a corner, and had ball under control. Instead of just clearing it - he did something clever, and got down on the ground and nodded the ball back to the keeper. Would any of you consider giving that as a backpass using the "can't flick the ball up to head it back" rule?
Three threads on the same game all in the span of 8 minutes... never had that happen before! Everything is merged, no need to copy and paste.
I hope Pardew faces a lengthy ban for that. I'm talking at least a 9-10 match touchline ban. That's just totally unacceptable and if you let that go on the first week of the season, what sort of signal are you sending? If it's a player, it would be more than the typical 3-match violent conduct ban (at least I hope). The standard should be higher for a non-player and a man responsible for his team. It didn't appear that Pardew showed much shame over his actions, either.
I obviously thought so lol. Im actually a little shocked that nobody even asked the question of the referee.
Wow. I'd expect a 5 game ban for it. Can't seem to even get close to getting away with it. I also think the AR's decision was the correct one - didn't think the whole ball was over the line. AR's view was also blocked.
On the alleged backpass, I haven't seen the replay yet so I reserve the right to amend these comments. But, first, the "deliberately circumvents" passage in the Laws might be one of the least known explicit stipulations (by non-refs). Now, ignorance isn't an excuse for violating the Law, but it's something for referees to keep in mind--because if/when we ever call it, we are going to get vociferous dissent and probably even some perplexed looks from the team attacking. Second, if he didn't actually flick the ball up and just went to ground to head it, well... you might not have reached the threshold for a violation. You'd allow a diving header back to the keeper when a defender could play it with his foot instead, right? Is this all that different... perhaps just a little more extreme? Regardless, if there's some doubt, then I combine that doubt with point 1 (that almost no one knows there is a prohibition on something like this anyone) and I'd argue for no violation and to just keep playing.
If it is a diving header that isn't under your teams control, then it is fine. If the ball was under control by your team - that's when it wouldn't be allowed right? (as in the GK then is counted as an "outfield player" so can't handle it) At least that's how i've always interpreted what the rule is suppose to be.
The FSC commentators in the studio were actually being very reasonable it just now and making no excuses for Pardew. No one suggested a specific ban-length, but terms like "big trouble" and "double whammy" were used. Melchiot even pointed out the fact that children are watching and you can't show that as acceptable behavior.
Well, let's go to the language in the Laws. What is a "deliberate trick?" I've always been under the impression that it's something like--as mentioned above--flicking the ball up to your head and then heading it back. If the player isn't playing in a manner deemed to be dangerous, why can't he head the ball on the floor if that's most advantageous to him? And if he can play the ball on the floor with his head, is that really a "trick?" There are a lot of questions to digest here. And if there are questions, the violation is dubious. And if you have a dubious violation of one of the most unknown infringements (you yourself said that no one even asked a question of the referee), what do you gain by blowing the whistle?
I wasn't saying it should be given. Just wondering if people thought it was "against the rules" or not. I would also say that lying on the ground, when you weren't already on the ground would be a deliberate trick to get around it. It's like the "showboating" you joke about as a kid when you have an open goal, stop the ball on the line, get on your knees and head it in.
I didn't see the whole replay (just caught the end of it) but calling it would be gotcha refereeing at the least. He used his head to keep the ball in play and prevent a corner, not to circumvent the passback law.
From the disciplinary code: It doesnt say how or when an official may communicate with his replacement, so it appears perfectly legal.
The EPL needs to stop allowing managers to radio their assistants once they have been dismissed or banned from the touchline. It's ridiculous and totally defeats the whole point of the ban/being dismissed from the technical area. Once Pardew was dismissed he was waiting for his assistant to give him a a radio to communicate back with the technical area. Just a total farce. I would be surprised if Pardew gets more than a one match ban. I don't see the EPL cracking down on this, especially, since they don't view as really violent conduct.
On the backpass, I think it's fine. To describe it, the ball was rolling toward the end line under no pressure and the defender makes a sliding tackle to keep it in play. After his slide, he is on his hands and knees with his hands on the end line and his feet off the pitch. The ball was directly in front of him. He simply leaned down and nodded the ball with his head. The reason this isn't a deliberate trick is because with his position at the moment he noticed the ball, it was actually easier to head it than kick it: he would have had to stand up or make a leg sweep. Even if it could be deemed a deliberate trick, it was probably trifling anyway because there was no pressure and the keeper could have simply walked over and picked it up himself. There was also a penalty in this game. My main reaction is that it never would have been given in MLS. No video yet.
The second sentence in this paragraph is a very good point and one that any referee should be considering in a situation like this. But I wonder where you have found the instruction to make the conclusion ("the reason this isn't a deliberate trick is because...") that you draw in the first sentence. You're essentially saying that if it's easier to kick a ball and someone opts to head it instead, that could be enough to classify it as a "deliberate trick." I've never seen that and it seems like an invented standard. Why would something be a "trick" just because it is more difficult to execute?
No, I haven't gotten instruction on this point. I said that because he didn't use his head to circumvent the backpass rule, he headed it because it happened to be the easiest way to pass it. But if someone makes some sort of acrobatic play in this spot to head the ball when a simple play is available, a ref should wonder why. Highlights are up. The penalty is at 1:30: http://msn.foxsports.com/video?videoid=47f5d4ac-ba29-4841-af20-570bb4801979&src=v5:share:sharepermalink:related_2&from=sharepermalink"Story_MP2_PREMIER LEAGUE"
http://msn.foxsports.com/foxsoccer/...79&from=foxsports/foxsoccer/videomodule-home# Video of the shove by Pardew. The first link posted by MassRef is no longer available. Look at the available videos indicated on the right. There is a one minute video showing the shove. For whatever reason there is no direct link to the incident video, only the page with the video highlights for the match.
I'm heartened that Pardew apologized in the press and to the assistant. That said, he still needs to be suspended.
True, but I'm glad to see it was more of a "did you see that" push than an anger push. Because it wasn't an angry push and he apologized immediately, I don't think he'll see more than 2-3 games. And know, I'm not saying it is acceptable. Because it is not.