Adamspoon wrote:
Am i missing something? Being in front of the player who passes the ball does not make you offside surely?.
What you are missing is Law 11
In general play a player is offside if the player is in front of a team mate who is carrying the ball, or in front of a team mate who last played the ball.
The opinion expressed above is that of the author and does not imply any acceptance of it by Leicester Football Club PLC or their agents who in no way share responsibility with the author for its publication.
Adamspoon wrote:
Am i missing something? Being in front of the player who passes the ball does not make you offside surely?.
What you are missing is Law 11
In general play a player is offside if the player is in front of a team mate who is carrying the ball, or in front of a team mate who last played the ball.
Ok, granted he may technically be in an offside position but he's not interfering with play so he's not liable to penalised.
A player who is in an offside position is liable to penalty only if the
player does one of three things:
• Interferes with play or,
• Moves forward, towards the ball or Fails to comply with the 10-Metre law (law 11.4).
• A player who is in an offside position is not automatically penalised.
• A player who receives an unintentional throw forward is not offside.
• A player can be offside in the in-goal.
I think making physical contact with a defender constitutes interfering with play.
The opinion expressed above is that of the author and does not imply any acceptance of it by Leicester Football Club PLC or their agents who in no way share responsibility with the author for its publication.
Disagree. Abendenon is entitled to run that dummy line and Tuilagi is entitled to line him up.
As I said, i don't agree with the citing. Tuilagi is clearly watching the ball and preparing to smash Abendenon when he gets it. It's not his fault that the miss pass was thrown but Abendenon hasn't done anything wrong either.
ashbash wrote:Anything more than 1 week and he misses the HC SF! Don't want that do we. Lets hope that the internal ban counts for something.
Would need to be a three week ban for him to miss SF. Ban runs from date Tigers suspended him.
The opinion expressed above is that of the author and does not imply any acceptance of it by Leicester Football Club PLC or their agents who in no way share responsibility with the author for its publication.
Not sure if this has been discussed in the 7 pages on this thread, but does anyone think that Tigers should change their policy on citing? Seeing as we keep getting well and truly done over at every turn, clubs know that even for the slightest thing they should cite a Tigers player as he will be virtually guarnateed a ban. Any thoughts?
magnerstiger wrote:Not sure if this has been discussed in the 7 pages on this thread, but does anyone think that Tigers should change their policy on citing? Seeing as we keep getting well and truly done over at every turn, clubs know that even for the slightest thing they should cite a Tigers player as he will be virtually guarnateed a ban. Any thoughts?
It has. On page 6.
dailywaffle wrote:
Bill W wrote:
I also understand (from the same source) that Tigers are reconsidering their policy.
Good. Bill, you know my position on this, and I believe that Tigers' stance neither protects our players nor the interests of the club.
I do indeed daily. And respect it.
I do feel, however, that the game should be played on the field and not in even smoke free committee rooms or judges chambers. I really do like the rule that says "The referee is the sole arbiter of fact". By all means arm the referee with assistants, TMO's, and anything else. And by all means have disciplinaries for those red carded.
The opinion expressed above is that of the author and does not imply any acceptance of it by Leicester Football Club PLC or their agents who in no way share responsibility with the author for its publication.
The opinion expressed above is that of the author and does not imply any acceptance of it by Leicester Football Club PLC or their agents who in no way share responsibility with the author for its publication.
ashbash wrote:Anything more than 1 week and he misses the HC SF! Don't want that do we. Lets hope that the internal ban counts for something.
Would need to be a three week ban for him to miss SF. Ban runs from date Tigers suspended him.
Surely more than 2 weeks would make him miss the SF as 3 weeks would take him to the Monday after the game on the Sunday?? It was the Monday when Tigers banned him wasn't it?
ashbash wrote:Anything more than 1 week and he misses the HC SF! Don't want that do we. Lets hope that the internal ban counts for something.
Would need to be a three week ban for him to miss SF. Ban runs from date Tigers suspended him.
Surely more than 2 weeks would make him miss the SF as 3 weeks would take him to the Monday after the game on the Sunday?? It was the Monday when Tigers banned him wasn't it?
That may encourage the disciplinary system to be looked at!
