Justice must be Done.

[Big J R]

The Jury in this case has been out for such a long time now, I suggest another round of drinks !

 

[TRS]

At the request of Smudge:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5W9iHD0ynxs

[Smudge]

Thanks T.R.S.,Latest News from the Court,Justice Piffle has sub- poenaed Krooner and Mewcenary to appear before him ,they are now to be Known as the SILENT 2.

[TRS]

The Justice for YHW bandwagon is rolling on. The stats tell me that this video is the highest rating all-CCL video with over 1100 views at the time of writing, it's sweeping the country's forums with support coming from:

 

Tonbridge Angels

Kingstonian

Cambridge City

Port Vale

Conference South Forum

Conference National Forum

 

and it's not me that's been hawking it around!!

 

YHW, you need a solicitor or an agent

[YHWhitby]

The Justice for YHW bandwagon is rolling on. The stats tell me that this video is the highest rating all-CCL video with over 1100 views at the time of writing, it's sweeping the country's forums with support coming from:

 

Tonbridge Angels

Kingstonian

Cambridge City

Port Vale

Conference South Forum

Conference National Forum

 

and it's not me that's been hawking it around!!

 

YHW, you need a solicitor or an agent

 

It hasn't been me either! Do you have any links to these places?

[Smudge]

The Justice for YHW bandwagon is rolling on. The stats tell me that this video is the highest rating all-CCL video with over 1100 views at the time of writing, it's sweeping the country's forums with support coming from:

 

Tonbridge Angels

Kingstonian

Cambridge City

Port Vale

Conference South Forum

Conference National Forum

 

and it's not me that's been hawking it around!!

 

YHW, you need a solicitor or an agent

 

 

Maybe it will hit FACEBOOK,BEBO,MYSPACE,then T.R.S. and YOUNGHAMMERWHITBY will be Famous and Infamous.THE FIGHT GOES ON FOR JUSTICE.

[Wattsy]

Careful YHW, the words 'global phenomenon' are starting to be spread about you!

[Mewcenary]

Fellow Combined Countians and honoured guests.

 

In my capacity as expert witness I have studied the video as provided in regard to the second caution given to the Keeper Of The Goal.

 

Delaying the restart of play is indeed worthy of a caution. Let us consider whether the video provides a clear case for either the prosecution or the defense.

 

The video does not show the entire sequence of events. It neglects to show:

 

1. Any previous delays from the player.

 

2. The full sequence for the caution in question (e.g. from the point the keeper collected the ball).

 

3. Any warnings given by the referee (both at the time and for previous occasions)

 

As a result, I consider the evidence INCONCLUSIVE. The caution could be have been extremely harsh or entirely justified. Without the full facts, and I was not fortunate enough to be present at this sporting occasion, I cannot be any more precise.

 

Let us now consider the FIRST caution for the keeper.

 

The video does not allow me to see whether the ball was handled out of the area. The assistant has the best view and has advised the referee accordingly. Clearly he has judged the ball to have been handled deliberately outside of the area. This is a mandatory caution.

 

However, as the video appears to indicate this denied an obvious goalscoring opportunity (I can't see any defenders in range) a red card could have been appropriate.

 

I wish the players, officials and all of the forumites the very best in their future footballing adventures.

Edited April 8, 2010 by Mewcenary

[Green_Fingers]

Fellow Combined Countians and honoured guests.

 

In my capacity as expert witness I have studied the video as provided in regard to the second caution given to the Keeper Of The Goal.

 

Delaying the restart of play is indeed worthy of a caution. Let us consider whether the video provides a clear case for either the prosecution or the defense.

 

The video does not show the entire sequence of events. It neglects to show:

 

1. Any previous delays from the player.

 

2. The full sequence for the caution in question (e.g. from the point the keeper collected the ball).

 

3. Any warnings given by the referee (both at the time and for previous occasions)

 

As a result, I consider the evidence INCONCLUSIVE. The caution could be have been extremely harsh or entirely justified. Without the full facts, and I was not fortunate enough to be present at this sporting occasion, I cannot be any more precise.

 

I wish the players, officials and all of the forumites the very best in their future footballing adventures.

 

Do you need any tweezers to remove those splinters Mewc?

[Smudge]

Mewcenary a very concise argument for the Prosecution,but under cross examination, could you please give your view on YHW's first yellow,which is there for all to see.

 

 

[Mewcenary]

Mewcenary a very concise argument for the Prosecution,but under cross examination, could you please give your view on YHW's first yellow,which is there for all to see.

 

I have (I edited my initial post shortly after posting it)...

[Big J R]

So - Is the jury still out ?

 

Time for another drinkies ?

 

[Footy Mad]

Mewcenary ..... Is it a mandatory caution for a goalkeeper if he deliberately handles outside the penalty area???

If so, is it mandatory to caution every outfield player when they deliberately handle the ball??????

[Mewcenary]

I was a bit unclear. From LOTG:

 

Disciplinary sanctions

There are circumstances when a caution for unsporting behaviour is required

when a player deliberately handles the ball, e.g. when a player:

• deliberately and blatantly handles the ball to prevent an opponent gaining

possession

• attempts to score a goal by deliberately handling the ball

 

Outside his own penalty area, the goalkeeper has the same restrictions on

handling the ball as does any other player.

 

Sometimes this is described as a 'cynical' handball!

 

A keeper who comes out of the area and deliberately handles the ball with an attacker bearing down on them has clearly 'earned' a caution... and more if it is DOGSO as well!

 

As you can also see, this does not mean that every player who ever deliberately handles the ball should be granted a caution.

Edited April 8, 2010 by Mewcenary

[Footy Mad]

So if a keeper collects a ball in his area but slides out of the area with the ball in his hands ...... automatic caution or not in your opinion??

[Smudge]

Thank you for that clarification Mewcenary,the key point being Deliberate can you honestly say that YHW did it on purpose,the same as the Ball Moving,was that Deliberate on his behalf,as it clearly shows the Ball was moved by the elements,or was it moved by Yhw,huffing and puffing,surely your not saying that.Can you be booked for any non deliberate act in Football.

[Footy Mad]

Thank you for that clarification Mewcenary,the key point being Deliberate can you honestly say that YHW did it on purpose,the same as the Ball Moving,was that Deliberate on his behalf,as it clearly shows the Ball was moved by the elements,or was it moved by Yhw,huffing and puffing,surely your not saying that.Can you be booked for any non deliberate act in Football.

 

 

Indeed you can Smudge .... if you mistime a tackle badly enough it can earn you a yellow card ..... or worse

[johnnojudo]

I might appeal my yellow card against Camberley. Played a one two with a Cove forward, only for his pass to be over hit and was sailing past and over my head. I stuck my hand up next to my head for no reason really and it struck my hand. The ref then blew his whistle and booked me.

 

I was 30 yds from the Camberley goal line and 5 yds in from the bye line.The ball was sailing out of play. Not near my own goal. Not going to a Camberley player. It was heading for the stands.

 

Did he need to book me??

 

Will i get the same publicity YHW has recieved?

 

Will anyone spot i spelt recieved wrong?? Twice?? ( 'i' before 'e' except after 'c')

 

Will anyone make a cheap joke about the ball sailing past and OVER my head as i'm vertically challenged??

 

Your comments are not appreciated!!

[VPCTFC]

The video does not show the entire sequence of events. It neglects to show:

 

1. Any previous delays from the player.

 

2. The full sequence for the caution in question (e.g. from the point the keeper collected the ball).

 

3. Any warnings given by the referee (both at the time and for previous occasions)

 

As a result, I consider the evidence INCONCLUSIVE. The caution could be have been extremely harsh or entirely justified. Without the full facts, and I was not fortunate enough to be present at this sporting occasion, I cannot be any more precise.

 

1 - Irrelevant. If the player had delayed things previously the ref should have cautioned him previously. As he didn't caution him, we must assume this was the first instance of what the ref deemed time-wasting.

 

2 - Irrelevant. The player was only cautioned after the ball moved and he went back to replace it. If he had been time wasting before the edited section we see on the clip then the ref would have cautioned him. As he wasn't cautioned we must assume he wasn't time-wasting before the ball moved.

 

3 - Irrelevant. The refs don't have to give warnings (note to lino at tonight's Bedfont v Camberley game - don't warn the goalie he's handling the ball outside the area when taking kicks (even though I don't think he heard you), put your flag up to alert the ref that an infringement's occurred) but I digress....

Can the ref warn a player that if the ball moves again in-between the player placing the ball on the ground and the kick being taken he'll be booked? Would that happen at a penalty?

 

The ball clearly moved (is the wind classed as an outside agent?) and it clearly wasn't the fault of the player. This booking, and therefore the sending-off, is unjust.

 

The first booking for the Cobham goalie I haven't looked at properly but then the ref wouldn't have time to look at it properly on video either therefore I think that one should stand

 

I think it was at the Leg O'Mutton where our goalie got booked a few years ago when getting the ball from the trees cos he wasn't quick enough (in the ref's view). Most goalies would have just stood there and waited for another ball to come from the benches. You try to help out and it gets you nowhere.

Edited April 9, 2010 by VPCTFC

[Weeble]

Guilty as charged...........Never liked goalkeepers.....Any of them.

Edited April 9, 2010 by Weeble