Jump to content

Exeter Highlights ->

Glasgow_Saint

By Glasgow_Saint
in The Saints

 Share

Recommended Posts

Liquidshokk

Liquidshokk

Posted
Posted

The highlights were also available on saints player and the IPhone app last night. Used the iphone app to watch them last night for first time and got me thinking.... the video that is on the app is the same one on player and released at the same time (Before BBC)... dont we pay for the luxury of watching them on player /first on player?? Condsidering thats all i use player for I may aswell cancel and watch them on the app for free.

 

granted if you use player to listen to games then you're getting your moneys worth (Well, when it works).

trousers

trousers

Posted
Posted
The highlights were also available on saints player and the IPhone app last night. Used the iphone app to watch them last night for first time and got me thinking.... the video that is on the app is the same one on player and released at the same time (Before BBC)... dont we pay for the luxury of watching them on player /first on player?? Condsidering thats all i use player for I may aswell cancel and watch them on the app for free.

 

granted if you use player to listen to games then you're getting your moneys worth (Well, when it works).

 

Is it free on the iPhone app? I've got the official 'Saints/Football League" app but don't think I get video highlights without paying extra?

trousers

trousers

Posted
Posted
Is it free on the iPhone app? I've got the official 'Saints/Football League" app but don't think I get video highlights without paying extra?

 

Just checked - it's £4.99 to upgrade. Is that a one-off cost? Good value if it is.

Liquidshokk

Liquidshokk

Posted
Posted
Is it free on the iPhone app? I've got the official 'Saints/Football League" app but don't think I get video highlights without paying extra?

 

Just checked - it's £4.99 to upgrade. Is that a one-off cost? Good value if it is.

 

Ive never logged into the app and pretty sure I didnt ever pay anything. I can watch all the highlight videos for free (???)

Liquidshokk

Liquidshokk

Posted
Posted
Ive never logged into the app and pretty sure I didnt ever pay anything. I can watch all the highlight videos for free (???)

 

Just noticed under subscription I have an activation code and a valid until date... If I am subscribed I can only imagine I was drunk at the time!!! Certainly seems like 4.99 for the year as valid until jul 2011 and its not coming out monthly from my account

trousers

trousers

Posted
Posted
Ive never logged into the app and pretty sure I didnt ever pay anything. I can watch all the highlight videos for free (???)

 

 

When I click on 'videos' it takes me to an 'upgrade' screen - £4.99 per season for highlights and other 'bits and bobs'.

trousers

trousers

Posted
Posted
Just noticed under subscription I have an activation code and a valid until date... If I am subscribed I can only imagine I was drunk at the time!!! Certainly seems like 4.99 for the year as valid until jul 2011 and its not coming out monthly from my account

 

I was just about to venture that very scenario.... :-)

Professor

Professor

Posted
Posted (edited)

Interesting what you notice on the highlights.

(1) Agree with Pancake that the Exeter goal should have been disallowed - Not offside because Nardiello (goalscorer) was not offside when the ball was kicked and the player who was in an offside position reels off to the right and does not interfere with play. BUT the obstruction by Nardiello on Fonte to prevent the CB from getting back to stop the ball before it got to the gaol is so clear that the ref should have seen it, disallowed the goal and given Saints a free kick for obstruction.

(2) Exeter should have had a goal earlier in the first half - the miss by Nardiello when 1-on-1 with KD was surprising.

(3) Dany N'Guessen's miss when he hit the bar was forgiveable as the keeper had the goal well covered and N'Geussen was only just into the area, and Barnard's follow-up shot onto the bar was also at a distance and more difficult than you would have thought from the press reports.

(4) Lambert's winning goal was a great effort by him but very fortunate that the lofted cross came down where it did. Have to say we were very fortunate to get that second goal from such a speculative cross.

Conclusion though, is that Exeter's goal was illegal and both of ours were not, so a correct result. IMHO, of course.

Edited by Professor
Sheaf Saint

Sheaf Saint

Posted
Posted
Terrible camerawork for the N'Guessan/Barnard chance.

 

True, but the move that lead up to it would have had the pundits coming in their pants if it had been Man Utd or Chelsea.

Liquidshokk

Liquidshokk

Posted
Posted
Plus on Saintsplayer the commentator didn't even notice Barnard's shot hit the bar and just said it had gone over.

 

Cos its just dubbed over later so only commentated on the highlight video. he obviously didnt listen or go to the game. tut tut

benjii

benjii

Posted
Posted

Well done to KD for putting off their striker to the extent that it bought Fonte enough time to cover, which he would have done had he not been fouled.

Whitey Grandad

Whitey Grandad

Posted
Posted
How did the ref not give a free kick for the first goal?

 

Fonte is clearly going to get to the ball. Maybe he won't get enough of a touch, maybe he'll help it in or slice it BUT the defender fouls him and stops him getting anywhere near. Very dodgy.

Thanks for the link. It certainly looks like a foul to me. If the ball were in playing distance then Nardiello is entitled to shield it but what he does is an American Football block.

Big Bad Bob

Big Bad Bob

Posted
Posted
Thanks for the link. It certainly looks like a foul to me. If the ball were in playing distance then Nardiello is entitled to shield it but what he does is an American Football block.

 

There's a difference between shielding the ball and making an active move to block someones path.

 

And hasn't this "shielding" rule only come in in the last 5 years or so, didn't it used to be that you were shielding in a ball if you were stationary.

 

Seeing a ball out of play, a la new style, if blatant obstruction IMHO

BotleySaint

BotleySaint

Posted
Posted

Definite obstruction. Fonte would have stopped the ball going in if Nardiello hadn't blocked him off. It isn't like it was trickling harmfully out of play.. this is as bad as someone blocking off a player who is clean through on goal.

Pancake

Pancake

Posted
Posted
Definite obstruction. Fonte would have stopped the ball going in if Nardiello hadn't blocked him off. It isn't like it was trickling harmfully out of play.. this is as bad as someone blocking off a player who is clean through on goal.

 

Exactly, if it had been the other way round and Fonte had been "shielding" a ball out of play and knocked over Nardiello in the box, it would have been a penalty.

Whitey Grandad

Whitey Grandad

Posted
Posted
There's a difference between shielding the ball and making an active move to block someones path.

 

And hasn't this "shielding" rule only come in in the last 5 years or so, didn't it used to be that you were shielding in a ball if you were stationary.

 

Seeing a ball out of play, a la new style, if blatant obstruction IMHO

 

The ball has to be within playing distance of the player doing the 'obstruction' such that he could play it if he wanted to. I don't like to see it, I think the game would be much better without it. In hockey, I believe, it would actually be called as obstruction.

derry

derry

Posted
Posted

If Nardiello had been in playing distance of the ball he would have knocked it in rather than bother with Fonte. He saw Fonte late and realised he might clear the ball so blocked him. It was a definite foul.

benjii

benjii

Posted
Posted
The ball has to be within playing distance of the player doing the 'obstruction' such that he could play it if he wanted to. I don't like to see it, I think the game would be much better without it. In hockey, I believe, it would actually be called as obstruction.

 

Correct, it would. Shielding the ball whilst dribbling is also obstruction. It is also possible to commit obstruction by crossing in front of the player in possession, if they are on your team.

kpturner

kpturner

Posted
Posted
Correct, it would. Shielding the ball whilst dribbling is also obstruction. It is also possible to commit obstruction by crossing in front of the player in possession, if they are on your team.
Are you talking about hockey, rugby or football now?
The9

The9

Posted
Posted

From the laws of the game, Law 12. http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/affederation/generic/81/42/36/lawsofthegame_2010_11_e.pdf

 

There is no such thing as obstruction as a specific offence any more, the only way you can commit an "obstruction" indirect free-kick foul is by getting in the way of an opponent WITHOUT touching them, because as soon as you make contact it's now interpreted as a direct free-kick - as it says at the bottom.

 

Impeding the progress of an opponent

Impeding the progress of an opponent means moving into the path of the

opponent to obstruct, block, slow down or force a change of direction by an

opponent 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.

 

Shielding the ball is permitted. A player who places himself between an

opponent and the ball for tactical reasons has not committed an offence as

long as the ball is kept within playing distance and the player does not hold off

the opponent with his arms or body. If the ball is within playing distance, the

player may be fairly charged by an opponent.

 

Restart of play

• Indirect free kick from the position where the offence occurred

(see Law 13 – Position of free kick)

• If there is contact, a different offence has been committed, punishable by a

direct free kick or penalty kick

The9

The9

Posted
Posted (edited)
There's a difference between shielding the ball and making an active move to block someones path.

 

And hasn't this "shielding" rule only come in in the last 5 years or so, didn't it used to be that you were shielding in a ball if you were stationary.

 

Seeing a ball out of play, a la new style, if blatant obstruction IMHO

 

Shielding the ball when moving, as long the ball is within playing distance, has been within the laws for as long as I've been playing, and I started in 1980.

 

The only thing that's changed recently is the re-writing of the laws to make obstruction offences basically impossible, so all "obstruction" style fouls are now direct free-kicks (or penalties).

 

I did once play a match for Southampton Uni on Soccer Tour in the US where due to some local zaniness, the obstruction law was being interpreted as it is in Basketball, meaning all on and off the ball obstruction was allowed. It was utterly insane, you'd just get bundled out of the way by a different player blocking your path every time you tried to do anything. We still won 1-0, somehow.

Edited by The9
benjii

benjii

Posted
Posted
Wasn't a foul. Tisdale's hat and scarf brought the game into disrepute though. Can't believe the ref and linesmen missed that.

 

You're so Naughties, Deppo. Get with it, girlfriend!

boxosponge

boxosponge

Posted
Posted
I bet it was one of those women linesman. They probably thought he looked nice.

 

No, not a female in sight. All of the tits were male.

 

Hang about, there were the Grecianettes though

Fowllyd

Fowllyd

Posted
Posted
No foul committed for their goal IMO, he was within his rights to block off the space, Fonte wasn't getting there.

 

Have a look at The9's post quoting the relevant law, then see if you still think that the Exeter scorer was within his rights. Whether Fonte was getting there or not is irrelevant; his run was blocked by a player who was not in a position to play the ball (the crucial criterion).

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...