More Bad News For Hearts On The Disciplinary Front

[Mikey]

I saw in the Metro this morning that Hugh Dallas will be instructing referees to give a penalty for shirt pulling in the box. Even if it means giving six penalties in a game!

Along with blatant blocking, that's been their main form of defence when it comes to free kicks and corners and is bad news for Zaliukas and Wallace in particular. If each offence comes with a booking too they'll end up well clear at the top of the crime count yet again.

[StevieC]

I saw in the Metro this morning that Hugh Dallas will be instructing referees to give a penalty for shirt pulling in the box. Even if it means giving six penalties in a game!

Along with blatant blocking, that's been their main form of defence when it comes to free kicks and corners and is bad news for Zaliukas and Wallace in particular. If each offence comes with a booking too they'll end up well clear at the top of the crime count yet again.

The trouble with "blatant blocking" is the number of players that will kick a ball past an opponent and deliberately run into them to gain a free kick.

:rolleyes:

[DaveF]

I really hope this is acted upon by the referees, though remind me to bump this thread back to the top when the OF get away with it :rolleyes:

[down the slope]

Zal the "octopus" will not have a game plan anymore.

[CallumLaidlaw]

Always remember zaluikas using those tactics against jones, and after about the 4th corner, the ref saying 1 more time and it's a pen. Surely if it's a pen the 5th time, then so is the first???????

[Kaiser1962]

Nice thought but wont happen I'm afraid. Somebody like Brechin will get picked on.

[Argylehibby]

The trouble with "blatant blocking" is the number of players that will kick a ball past an opponent and deliberately run into them to gain a free kick.

:rolleyes:

:agree: Always wondered why a defender should move out of the way of an attacker? IMO it is only a "block" if they move into the path of the forward who is trying to get round them. Standing still, even turning side-on but on the same spot, isnt "a block".

[HibeeB]

:agree: Always wondered why a defender should move out of the way of an attacker? IMO it is only a "block" if they move into the path of the forward who is trying to get round them. Standing still, even turning side-on but on the same spot, isnt "a block".

You're auld enough to remember the obstruction rule.

That one should be brought back to stop defenders standing in front of the ball with their arms out, doing nothing to play the ball, and looking for a foul from a forward trying to get round him and play football :grr:





I'm no keen on obstruction if you hadn't noticed :rolleyes:

[Twa Cairpets]

You're auld enough to remember the obstruction rule.

That one should be brought back to stop defenders standing in front of the ball with their arms out, doing nothing to play the ball, and looking for a foul from a forward trying to get round him and play football :grr:

I'm no keen on obstruction if you hadn't noticed :rolleyes:

It does still exist, although not in name. The key is that they need to be in playing distance of the bvall for a shield to be legal. Heres a link (page 11, instruction to referees) (http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/resources/documents/LawsoftheGame/LawsandInterpretations/12%20Fouls%20&%20Misconduct.pdf)

[HibeeB]

It does still exist, although not in name. The key is that they need to be in playing distance of the bvall for a shield to be legal. Heres a link (page 11, instruction to referees) (http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/resources/documents/LawsoftheGame/LawsandInterpretations/12%20Fouls%20&%20Misconduct.pdf)

Couldn't find the right bit in your link but I do know the defender doesn't need to actually play the ball to be deemed to be in control of it.

But you must have seen defenders backing into attackers to prevent them getting to a ball slowly rolling out for a goal kick? If the obstruction rule was used the defender could be penalised and the attacking team would get a free kick in a very useful area. The alternative for the defender is to actually play the ball and beat the attacker to play the ball out of danger. Either way it would make the game more exciting as it would lead to more play near the goal instead of a bye kick.

I know it may be a rare sight now, but I pay to watch football being played. Not wrestling matches.

[RyeSloan]

Couldn't find the right bit in your link but I do know the defender doesn't need to actually play the ball to be deemed to be in control of it.

But you must have seen defenders backing into attackers to prevent them getting to a ball slowly rolling out for a goal kick? If the obstruction rule was used the defender could be penalised and the attacking team would get a free kick in a very useful area. The alternative for the defender is to actually play the ball and beat the attacker to play the ball out of danger. Either way it would make the game more exciting as it would lead to more play near the goal instead of a bye kick.

I know it may be a rare sight now, but I pay to watch football being played. Not wrestling matches.

Interesting one this:

The 'rules' state:

Shielding the ball is permitted. A player who places himself between
an opponent and the ball for tactical reasons has not committed an
offence as long as the ball is kept within playing distance and the
player does not hold off the opponent with his arms or body. If the
ball is within playing distance, the player may be fairly charged by an
opponent.

So if the player (in this case the defender) can place himself between the ball and the attacker to shield the ball with no requirement to play it.

However if he then uses his arms and body to hold off said attacker he is committing a foul.

Maybe it's me but how can you place yourself between the ball and the attacker and NOT use your body to then shiled the ball??

finally I wonder what "fairly charged" means?

[Hibercelona]

Interesting one this:

The 'rules' state:

Shielding the ball is permitted. A player who places himself between
an opponent and the ball for tactical reasons has not committed an
offence as long as the ball is kept within playing distance and the
player does not hold off the opponent with his arms or body. If the
ball is within playing distance, the player may be fairly charged by an
opponent.

So if the player (in this case the defender) can place himself between the ball and the attacker to shield the ball with no requirement to play it.

However if he then uses his arms and body to hold off said attacker he is committing a foul.

Maybe it's me but how can you place yourself between the ball and the attacker and NOT use your body to then shiled the ball??

finally I wonder what "fairly charged" means?

I suppose it just means that its ok to block off an attacker by getting between him and the ball as long as you don't use your arms to pin him back. :dunno:

[HibeeB]

The 'rules' state:

Shielding the ball is permitted. A player who places himself between
an opponent and the ball for tactical reasons has not committed an
offence as long as the ball is kept within playing distance and the
player does not hold off the opponent with his arms or body. If the
ball is within playing distance, the player may be fairly charged by an
opponent.

Thanks :thumbsup:


I suppose it just means that its ok to block off an attacker by getting between him and the ball as long as you don't use your arms to pin him back. :dunno:

Well the referees should apply the law then.

Defenders always use their arms to keep the attacker away from the ball.

'Fairly charged' should mean yer no carryin' :devil:

[Mikey]

I saw in the Metro this morning that Hugh Dallas will be instructing referees to give a penalty for shirt pulling in the box.


Colin Nish doesn't read hibs.net :rolleyes:

[H18sry]

Colin Nish doesn't read hibs.net :rolleyes:

Or the Metro, he may not even be able to read :greengrin