• Thank you very much | Diolch yn fawr

    All at JackArmy.net would like to thank everyone who has played a part on this site over the past 25 years whether that is through writing, contributing, moderating, posting or just visting and reading.

    Without any of you the work that has gone into the site would have been pointless and we will always be proud that we built, generated and managed a community that was such a big part of the Swansea City supporting life for so long.

    It has been a pleasure to bring to you the site for so long but the time is now right to turn the lights out for the last time but we do it both with a heavy heart and a sense of pride driven by the so many messages received since we announced the closure.

    The site will remain here for a period until we archive and mothball it for the last time later this summer but all aspects are in a read only format.

    Thank you though for all the memories

    Phil Sumbler
    Owner, jackarmy.net

Schumacher: "I thought it was a ridiculous decision at the time"

  • Thread starter Thread starter JA News
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies: Replies 7
  • Views Views: Views 2,361
On closer inspection it looks like we got away one last night, maybe two if you include the penalty.

Makes a change though, we're normally on the receiving end of these types of decisions.
 
With the game he was having, I’m surprised Stroud never sent the Stoke lad off for it.
 
Definition of 'possession' by a goalkeeper

"Once the goalkeeper has gained possession (also known as “control”) of the ball, an opponent may not interfere with or block the goalkeeper’s distribution of the ball. For example, players have a right to maintain a position achieved during the normal course of play, but they may not try to block the goalkeeper’s movement while he or she is holding the ball and trying to distribute it. Nor may opposing players do anything to hinder, interfere with, or block a goalkeeper who is throwing or punting the ball back into play. The goalkeeper has already gained possession and is granted up to six seconds to release the ball back into play by other players. A goalkeeper in the act of distributing the ball may not be challenged under these circumstances. (This includes trying to head a ball out of the goalkeeper’s open hand or playing a ball being bounced or tossed into the air by the goalkeeper.) An opponent does not violate the Law, however, if that player takes advantage of a ball clearly released by the goalkeeper directly to him or her, in his or her direction, or deflecting off him or her nonviolently”

In yesterday's case, Rushworth definitely had 'possession' and 'control' of the ball with both hands but it was dislodged from his 'possession' by Ennis's head as he stood up. Yes, it was clearly unintentional but that doesn't matter, any infringement is still an infringement whether intentional or unintentional. In fact, free-kicks are probably awarded more often for unintentional fouls or handballs than for clearly intentional ones with the latter more likely to result in a yellow card. Maybe it was borderline at worst but reading that, I think the ref just about got it right.
 
It was the correct call in regards the Rushworth incident.

If the goalkeeper is in control be it with 2 or even 1 hand then it can't intentionally or unintentionally be taken from him.
Rushworth had control and was in the process of giving a quick throw out when Ennis popped his head up and knocked it out of his hand/s.........to give a quick throw out then he clearly has control on the ball because he intentionally trying to create a play by throwing the ball out.

Wether the ref knew 100% or not the rulr.......he got the call spot on.
 
Thank you. I said exactly that in the match thread, but there are still many posters on here saying we 'got away with one'.
At the time. I certainly thought we got away with it. I was like all of us relieved when he disallowed it.
 

Members online

Back
Top