The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
I'm not amused. Being a Rovers fan I was almost eating my arm with nervous tension last night when they took a 2-1 lead over United. Beating the best team in Europe (well, in my opinion for now, it'll be officialized at hampten in nine months) is not to be sniffed at, espically when you've just got promoted.
Fair enough, a draw was maybe the fair result, but the nature that draw was arrived at made a joke of referring (again). For those who don't know, a new directive has been made that says referees have to try and get the game going again as quickly as possible after play has stopped. So, when Rovers had a man sent off United ended up with a threatening looking free kick. While Rovers were setting up the wall the referee blew for play to start again and Beckham chipped Friedel (the Rovers keeper) to net the equalizer. Now I'm not saying the rules were broken or that Beckham was in the wrong - it was a bloody good chip, espically considering Friedel is a big guy, even for a keeper. What I'm complaining about is the stupid rule that made this legal.
The main problem is that for the other 10 or so free kicks requiring a wall to be set up the teams were alowed to get organized before play resumed. On this one ocassion the referee decided that getting a player sent off and giving away a threatening free kick wasn't enough of a penalty for a slightly late challange; but that he'd also not allow Rovers to get their defence organized. How can this blatnet inconsistency be allowed? How can you expect Keepers to get used to this new system if it is only inforced in one free kick out of ten?
Why does it exist is the first place? To keep play "flowing" is the usual excuse - rubbish. For one, that's a waffly sentence anyway, and no top of that a free kick is a dead ball situation anyway. Whether you stop for five seconds or thirty, play is still resuming from an identically "dead" state. Play stops - that's what the term "dead ball" means for goodness sake!
Other claim, so that match time isn't wasted. Emmmm... but the referee played five and a half minutes of added time at the end of that match anyway - surely that accounts for it...
It's a stupid rule that atcively hinders the defending team. One wonders that if it had've been Fergie at the receiving end and he kicked up a fuss there'd be more press about the matter today.
Anyway, 2-2 was a fair result taking into account the performances - I just wished Beckham had've scored with the simply brilliant free kick that hit the bar, rather than the latter on that left a bitter taste in the mouth.
On an unconnected subject, hello! Still working too hard to be keeping up with goings on here. Wrote a nice long post in the office today - people were distraced with a huge office politics argument so I kicked back and enjoyed the break from work typing something for here. I'll stick it up later - Simpsons time.
Fair enough, a draw was maybe the fair result, but the nature that draw was arrived at made a joke of referring (again). For those who don't know, a new directive has been made that says referees have to try and get the game going again as quickly as possible after play has stopped. So, when Rovers had a man sent off United ended up with a threatening looking free kick. While Rovers were setting up the wall the referee blew for play to start again and Beckham chipped Friedel (the Rovers keeper) to net the equalizer. Now I'm not saying the rules were broken or that Beckham was in the wrong - it was a bloody good chip, espically considering Friedel is a big guy, even for a keeper. What I'm complaining about is the stupid rule that made this legal.
The main problem is that for the other 10 or so free kicks requiring a wall to be set up the teams were alowed to get organized before play resumed. On this one ocassion the referee decided that getting a player sent off and giving away a threatening free kick wasn't enough of a penalty for a slightly late challange; but that he'd also not allow Rovers to get their defence organized. How can this blatnet inconsistency be allowed? How can you expect Keepers to get used to this new system if it is only inforced in one free kick out of ten?
Why does it exist is the first place? To keep play "flowing" is the usual excuse - rubbish. For one, that's a waffly sentence anyway, and no top of that a free kick is a dead ball situation anyway. Whether you stop for five seconds or thirty, play is still resuming from an identically "dead" state. Play stops - that's what the term "dead ball" means for goodness sake!
Other claim, so that match time isn't wasted. Emmmm... but the referee played five and a half minutes of added time at the end of that match anyway - surely that accounts for it...
It's a stupid rule that atcively hinders the defending team. One wonders that if it had've been Fergie at the receiving end and he kicked up a fuss there'd be more press about the matter today.
Anyway, 2-2 was a fair result taking into account the performances - I just wished Beckham had've scored with the simply brilliant free kick that hit the bar, rather than the latter on that left a bitter taste in the mouth.
On an unconnected subject, hello! Still working too hard to be keeping up with goings on here. Wrote a nice long post in the office today - people were distraced with a huge office politics argument so I kicked back and enjoyed the break from work typing something for here. I'll stick it up later - Simpsons time.
Yeah - cost me £8 to watch and it wasn't even interactive. I wouldn't be been using the interactive stuff, but it would have been nice to know it was there just in case considering the price.
It's a bit steep, unless you've got Sky Digital. If you have, then you can get all the pay per view games for a total of £60 (about £1.50 a game). If not it's EIGHT BLOODY QUID per game. Don't think so somehow, unless it's a seriously good prospect.
Does anyone know how much this match cost on Pay per View? I didnt see the game but from reading about it, it sounds as though it was a very exciting and dramitic game. This sort of thing is needed in the game to make the game more intresting or would be complaining that it is too boring...
The real problem I have with this particular incident was that, Craig Short was still on the pitch when the goal was scored. Technically the free kick should not have been taken until the dismissed player had left the field. Even from a dead ball situation, Blackburn had an extra player on the field that could of inadvertently interfered with play. The ref should not allowed the free kick until Short had left the pitch.
That aside, for free kicks that pose a threat to the goal from a direct strike, the referee needs to make clear to BOTH teams that he is ready to allow the game to continue, or failing that, the F.A. need to make it very clear what the ruling is so their can be no complaints.
Well, we fans can still complain. It wouldn't be football if you couldn't moan about it....
That aside, for free kicks that pose a threat to the goal from a direct strike, the referee needs to make clear to BOTH teams that he is ready to allow the game to continue, or failing that, the F.A. need to make it very clear what the ruling is so their can be no complaints.
Well, we fans can still complain. It wouldn't be football if you couldn't moan about it....
To be honest though it's one of those things that's a work of genius if it's your team that scores it, or completely unfair if it goes against you!
Look at the way the Germans got that goal against Engalnd last year, darn cheats.......
Look at the way the Germans got that goal against Engalnd last year, darn cheats.......
I know there is some confusion surrounding quick free kicks at the minute but even so, Friedel had no business being that far off his line to organise his wall. He needlessly came out way too far and practicaly invited the chip.
Dr Gonzo wrote:
It's a stupid rule that atcively
> hinders the defending team.
And i think thats exactly what a free kick should do. It works both ways ya know. Hopefully this rule will lead to more goals in the premiership and more drama.
It makes more discussion, more bitterness, more EXCITING!
It's a stupid rule that atcively
> hinders the defending team.
And i think thats exactly what a free kick should do. It works both ways ya know. Hopefully this rule will lead to more goals in the premiership and more drama.
It makes more discussion, more bitterness, more EXCITING!
I'm not amused. Being a Rovers fan I was almost eating my arm with nervous tension last night when they took a 2-1 lead over United. Beating the best team in Europe (well, in my opinion for now, it'll be officialized at hampten in nine months) is not to be sniffed at, espically when you've just got promoted.
Fair enough, a draw was maybe the fair result, but the nature that draw was arrived at made a joke of referring (again). For those who don't know, a new directive has been made that says referees have to try and get the game going again as quickly as possible after play has stopped. So, when Rovers had a man sent off United ended up with a threatening looking free kick. While Rovers were setting up the wall the referee blew for play to start again and Beckham chipped Friedel (the Rovers keeper) to net the equalizer. Now I'm not saying the rules were broken or that Beckham was in the wrong - it was a bloody good chip, espically considering Friedel is a big guy, even for a keeper. What I'm complaining about is the stupid rule that made this legal.
The main problem is that for the other 10 or so free kicks requiring a wall to be set up the teams were alowed to get organized before play resumed. On this one ocassion the referee decided that getting a player sent off and giving away a threatening free kick wasn't enough of a penalty for a slightly late challange; but that he'd also not allow Rovers to get their defence organized. How can this blatnet inconsistency be allowed? How can you expect Keepers to get used to this new system if it is only inforced in one free kick out of ten?
Why does it exist is the first place? To keep play "flowing" is the usual excuse - rubbish. For one, that's a waffly sentence anyway, and no top of that a free kick is a dead ball situation anyway. Whether you stop for five seconds or thirty, play is still resuming from an identically "dead" state. Play stops - that's what the term "dead ball" means for goodness sake!
Other claim, so that match time isn't wasted. Emmmm... but the referee played five and a half minutes of added time at the end of that match anyway - surely that accounts for it...
It's a stupid rule that atcively hinders the defending team. One wonders that if it had've been Fergie at the receiving end and he kicked up a fuss there'd be more press about the matter today.
Anyway, 2-2 was a fair result taking into account the performances - I just wished Beckham had've scored with the simply brilliant free kick that hit the bar, rather than the latter on that left a bitter taste in the mouth.
On an unconnected subject, hello! Still working too hard to be keeping up with goings on here. Wrote a nice long post in the office today - people were distraced with a huge office politics argument so I kicked back and enjoyed the break from work typing something for here. I'll stick it up later - Simpsons time.
Fair enough, a draw was maybe the fair result, but the nature that draw was arrived at made a joke of referring (again). For those who don't know, a new directive has been made that says referees have to try and get the game going again as quickly as possible after play has stopped. So, when Rovers had a man sent off United ended up with a threatening looking free kick. While Rovers were setting up the wall the referee blew for play to start again and Beckham chipped Friedel (the Rovers keeper) to net the equalizer. Now I'm not saying the rules were broken or that Beckham was in the wrong - it was a bloody good chip, espically considering Friedel is a big guy, even for a keeper. What I'm complaining about is the stupid rule that made this legal.
The main problem is that for the other 10 or so free kicks requiring a wall to be set up the teams were alowed to get organized before play resumed. On this one ocassion the referee decided that getting a player sent off and giving away a threatening free kick wasn't enough of a penalty for a slightly late challange; but that he'd also not allow Rovers to get their defence organized. How can this blatnet inconsistency be allowed? How can you expect Keepers to get used to this new system if it is only inforced in one free kick out of ten?
Why does it exist is the first place? To keep play "flowing" is the usual excuse - rubbish. For one, that's a waffly sentence anyway, and no top of that a free kick is a dead ball situation anyway. Whether you stop for five seconds or thirty, play is still resuming from an identically "dead" state. Play stops - that's what the term "dead ball" means for goodness sake!
Other claim, so that match time isn't wasted. Emmmm... but the referee played five and a half minutes of added time at the end of that match anyway - surely that accounts for it...
It's a stupid rule that atcively hinders the defending team. One wonders that if it had've been Fergie at the receiving end and he kicked up a fuss there'd be more press about the matter today.
Anyway, 2-2 was a fair result taking into account the performances - I just wished Beckham had've scored with the simply brilliant free kick that hit the bar, rather than the latter on that left a bitter taste in the mouth.
On an unconnected subject, hello! Still working too hard to be keeping up with goings on here. Wrote a nice long post in the office today - people were distraced with a huge office politics argument so I kicked back and enjoyed the break from work typing something for here. I'll stick it up later - Simpsons time.