Ian Darke - Do You Rate Him?

[Exeter Blue I am here]

I'm still not entirely sure why the general media consensus is that Basel should have had a penalty. Obstruction in the penalty area is still an indirect free kick is it not?

I would have been raging had the shoe been on the other foot. Otamendi knew exactly what he was doing, stepped across his man and body checked him with the ball long gone. Not the worst decision of the season, but was still a peno in my opinion

 

[MillionMilesAway]

I'm still not entirely sure why the general media consensus is that Basel should have had a penalty. Obstruction in the penalty area is still an indirect free kick is it not?

There is no such thing as 'obstruction' nowadays.
Direct free kick for: push/trip/tackle/challenge and attempts (if deemed careless). If there is contact, it's a direct freekick.
Indirect freekick: the most appropriate par seems to be "impedes the progress of an opponent without any contact being made" which wouldn't apply.

To my mind, the argument raised in the studio (as I heard it) that "he didn't move his feet and therefore it's a penalty" is the wrong way round. If he had moved his feet (I don't think he did, but he did turn a shoulder which may have been viewed as self-defence), then it would have been a challenge for certain; as it was, he was run into, but they're given all the time outside the area, usually with yellow cards in tow.

The next part to the indirect freekick line above says:
Impeding the progress of an opponent without contact
Impeding the progress of an opponent means moving into the opponent’s path to obstruct, block, slow down or force a change of direction when the ball is not within playing distance of either player.
All players have a right to their position on the field of play; being in the way of an opponent is not the same as moving into the way of an opponent.

To my mind, the last line is why it wasn't given. Move his feet, and the first part doesn't apply due to there being contact (and thus it's a direct freekick).

As for Darke, no, he was practically begging for Basel to score, and regularly appears overly negative about a minor error.

 

[Greg.W2]

Wasn't it Darke who villified Sterling in a newspaper article for daring to leave the dippers?

 

[blue b4 the moon]

Better than Tyler but my dead gran could give Martin a run for his money.

What he has developed is that fucking horrible chuckle (sic) that both him and Tyler use while trying to be controversial/funny/giving crap facts/sucking raggy cocks.

 

[CityInWashingtonState]

I seem to be in a minority of one. His commentary has never struck me as being overtly biased against us, and unlike that c**t Tyler who toes the party line with his funereal reaction to City goals, Darke at least has the decency to sound excited about us from time to time. Far worse out there in my opinion.....

Rate Ian or not is subjective - @mancity1 seems to share your opinion (if I'm interpreting his post correctly) so you're in a minority of at least 2 :-).

 

[PannickAtTheDisco]

he commentates like a granny who gets constantly startled by everything.

"did you know that City have the most...yadda yadda yadda...blah blah blah....oh I say, Aguero scored!...zzzzz...remember Beryl from the bowls club? her son's a...yawn...what was that? Blimey, the bins were banging then, I know it's trumpeting a gale out but I bet it was those pesky hooded youths...they don't know they're born Robbie".

 

[Henkeman]

He doesn't overly bother me. I've had less cause to throw things hearing him than some others. I always thought his 'oh he's won the title, surely' line in 2012 was every bit as good as Tyler's scream.

 

[TCIB]

When i look at the alternatives he is solid gold...

 

[cadds92]

Awful commentator, gets facts wrong, should have stuck to boxing. As a sidenote his co commentator the Afghan hound couldn't praise us enough last night, Robbie savage loves us again.

I think with Savage living in and around Manchester he understands the viewpoints of the City fans like the tackling situation and where we were 20 years ago.

 

[Uncle Clockwise]

There is no such thing as 'obstruction' nowadays.
Direct free kick for: push/trip/tackle/challenge and attempts (if deemed careless). If there is contact, it's a direct freekick.
Indirect freekick: the most appropriate par seems to be "impedes the progress of an opponent without any contact being made" which wouldn't apply.

To my mind, the argument raised in the studio (as I heard it) that "he didn't move his feet and therefore it's a penalty" is the wrong way round. If he had moved his feet (I don't think he did, but he did turn a shoulder which may have been viewed as self-defence), then it would have been a challenge for certain; as it was, he was run into, but they're given all the time outside the area, usually with yellow cards in tow.

The next part to the indirect freekick line above says:
Impeding the progress of an opponent without contact
Impeding the progress of an opponent means moving into the opponent’s path to obstruct, block, slow down or force a change of direction when the ball is not within playing distance of either player.
All players have a right to their position on the field of play; being in the way of an opponent is not the same as moving into the way of an opponent.

To my mind, the last line is why it wasn't given. Move his feet, and the first part doesn't apply due to there being contact (and thus it's a direct freekick).

As for Darke, no, he was practically begging for Basel to score, and regularly appears overly negative about a minor error.

Well that's just shown me up and made me feel old at the same time. I must admit that rule change had passed me by. I'd love to see a referee award an indirect free kick in the box for 'impeding the progress of an opponent without contact' though! Warnock and the all the other cloggers would blow their tops!

PS. Bearing this in mind, Ottamendi did get away with one.