Figueroa's Handball

[coulsonblue]

very true. dont understand why Van Persie didnt get carded on sunday for showing a t-shirt under his shirt but balo did....

Because raising your shirt to show a message isn't a yellow-card offence, but lifting it over your head is. There's no conspiracy there; it's just the laws of the game.

Players must not reveal undergarments showing slogans or advertising. The
basic compulsory equipment must not have any political, religious or personal
statements.
A player removing his jersey or shirt to reveal slogans or advertising will be
sanctioned by the competition organiser. The team of a player whose basic
compulsory equipment has political, religious or personal slogans or statements
will be sanctioned by the competition organiser or by FIFA.

Swear it used to be an offence

 

[Dubai Blue]

very true. dont understand why Van Persie didnt get carded on sunday for showing a t-shirt under his shirt but balo did....

Because raising your shirt to show a message isn't a yellow-card offence, but lifting it over your head is. There's no conspiracy there; it's just the laws of the game.

Players must not reveal undergarments showing slogans or advertising. The
basic compulsory equipment must not have any political, religious or personal
statements.
A player removing his jersey or shirt to reveal slogans or advertising will be
sanctioned by the competition organiser. The team of a player whose basic
compulsory equipment has political, religious or personal slogans or statements
will be sanctioned by the competition organiser or by FIFA.

Swear it used to be an offence

I think that relates to advertising/political messages etc. Personal messages are ok, as long as they do not appear on the compulsory equipment. That's my understanding anyway.

They even define what constitutes removing your shirt:

 

[Paladin]

Re: Re: Figueroa's Handball

It was not a red card because it was not a DOGGSO (Denial of Goal or Goal Scoring Opportunity) by it's strict definition. While it is true that Augero likley would have skinned Figeuroa to goal, the evaluation of DOGGSO has to be based on whether it was a clear chance for any player at that level and on that mark it's not a clear goal or goal scoring opportunity.

"A clear chance for anyone at that level". So you don't take account of the abilities of the players concerned? If Richard Dunne was the player through, you could argue he may have been caught by other defenders, but there was no way Aguero have been caught, so it was a clear scoring opportunity.

Don't you find that referees make a decision and then try to justify it afterwards? The decision was always right. Never a wrong decision. Sometimes they say they didn't see something at the time, but rarely will a referee admit to a mistake.

 

[BlueJill]

Re: Re: Figueroa's Handball

It was not a red card because it was not a DOGGSO (Denial of Goal or Goal Scoring Opportunity) by it's strict definition. While it is true that Augero likley would have skinned Figeuroa to goal, the evaluation of DOGGSO has to be based on whether it was a clear chance for any player at that level and on that mark it's not a clear goal or goal scoring opportunity.

"A clear chance for anyone at that level". So you don't take account of the abilities of the players concerned? If Richard Dunne was the player through, you could argue he may have been caught by other defenders, but there was no way Aguero have been caught, so it was a clear scoring opportunity.

Don't you find that referees make a decision and then try to justify it afterwards? The decision was always right. Never a wrong decision. Sometimes they say they didn't see something at the time, but rarely will a referee admit to a mistake.

This is where the OP lost all legitimacy for me.

 

[Rasher]

Why was it not a clear goal scoring chance ???????????
Did nt Tim Howard score from inside his own half the other week !!! so I am sure Kun has a better chance

 

[coulsonblue]

Because raising your shirt to show a message isn't a yellow-card offence, but lifting it over your head is. There's no conspiracy there; it's just the laws of the game.

Players must not reveal undergarments showing slogans or advertising. The
basic compulsory equipment must not have any political, religious or personal
statements.
A player removing his jersey or shirt to reveal slogans or advertising will be
sanctioned by the competition organiser. The team of a player whose basic
compulsory equipment has political, religious or personal slogans or statements
will be sanctioned by the competition organiser or by FIFA.

Swear it used to be an offence

I think that relates to advertising/political messages etc. Personal messages are ok, as long as they do not appear on the compulsory equipment. That's my understanding anyway.

They even define what constitutes removing your shirt:

doesn't have to be an advertisement or political to fall foul of the laws.

But its up to the fa or premier league to deal with it which they probably dont.

So when balotelli did why always me, if he just held it up rather than over the head no yellow. stupid.