baldy Posted November 9, 2014 Report Share Posted November 9, 2014 Jamie Redknapp freely admits on SKY that he, Ruud Gullit and 1 other did not know the "rule" regarding the player taking a free-kick cannot touch it twice in a row (Joe Hart incident yesterday). Time to hang your heads in shame and for SKY to get rid and employ some better people. Try Clarke Carlisle and Danny Murphy who were both excellent during the WC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brianmooreshead Posted November 9, 2014 Report Share Posted November 9, 2014 To be fair that stumped most people I thought that if he had touched it twice it was free kick to the opposition - I didn't think he was allowed to re take it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baldy Posted November 9, 2014 Author Report Share Posted November 9, 2014 Ball not in play till it clears the area. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bighairydave Posted November 9, 2014 Report Share Posted November 9, 2014 To be fair that stumped most people I thought that if he had touched it twice it was free kick to the opposition - I didn't think he was allowed to re take it That would be correct had the free-kick been outside the area. It was only because an offence occurred before the ball left the penalty area that there was a re-take. Similar to the Rob Green free-kick v West Ham at the start of the season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MOUNTAINEER Posted November 9, 2014 Report Share Posted November 9, 2014 Experts - Yuck So many of them praising the referee but it was the assistant referee who noticed it and mentioned what he had seen to the referee through their communication system, did anyone praise the assistant? The referee had positioned himself where there were two players between him and the incident, no way could the referee have seen it. As touching the ball with one foot whilst kicking with the other was all in the same intended movement I would be in favour of allowing the goal to stand, you don't see attacking players getting second chances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brianmooreshead Posted November 10, 2014 Report Share Posted November 10, 2014 I agree Mountaineer ( Didn't think I'd ever say that ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St Darren Posted November 10, 2014 Report Share Posted November 10, 2014 Please no Clarke Carlisle. Far to much publicity for that convicted drink driver already. The majority of experts commentating on games are shocking. Michael Owen being one of the worst but no one touches andy Townsend when it comes close to shiteness. Gary Neville is the best by far Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kempy Posted November 10, 2014 Report Share Posted November 10, 2014 Please no Clarke Carlisle. Far to much publicity for that convicted drink driver already. The majority of experts commentating on games are shocking. Michael Owen being one of the worst but no one touches andy Townsend when it comes close to shiteness. Gary Neville is the best by far Actually Phil Neville knows his stuff as well ! But Gary is very good . Michael Owens voice gets on my t@ts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fenman Posted November 10, 2014 Report Share Posted November 10, 2014 In the 60's we saw very little football on television ( not many people had tele either come to think of it ) the games we did see had Kenneth Woolstenholme on BBC or Brian Moore on ITV . The programme came on as the teams were warming up and ended with the players shaking hands at the end . The commentator just reported the events of the game , there were no instant replays . We saw a game of football !!!!!!!!! Nowadays we have talksport drivelling on , and on for 20 odd hours a day mainly about football 5 days a week plus more on weekends plus a game . Television which virtually everyone has , nowadays shows at least one game a day or night on several channels each employing an arsenal of experts plus 2 commentators paid huge amounts of money to talk about what will or could happen in the game , tell, us what happened in the first half and then analyse the finished game for half an hour afterwards . At the end of it we still end up as we did in the 60's watching a game . All the rest of the speculation , if's but's and so on are irrelevant . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now