Marriner handed derby responsibility

I actually said to my brother yesterday that I hoped it would be Marriner, as – in my opinion, naturally – he's one of the least appalling refs around these days.....

Discuss!

I've never liked Marriner but I'm hopeful he is getting better with experience. There's a couple of refs I would have preferred but, for reasons outlined in the my first paragraph, I shan't name them!

So listen up Marriner. The Faithful will be in full-throated roar this weekend. EVERY decision will go in our favor. You listening? There's no "evening up" as the season go on. There's just the Derby. You will fuck up in our favor.

I'm more concerned that we are missing three of our best players and the team will likely be;

Howard
Hibbert
Jagielka
Distin
Baines
Mirallas
Osman
Neville
Naismith
Anichebe
Jelavic

I struggle to remember one...

On recent displays, and if justice were actually to be served, it would be very unusual for the Shite to finish Derby games with more than nine players on the pitch.

"34 years ago this Sunday 28th Oct 1978 Andy King scored derby winner. Everton had drawn their previous game away to QPR 1-1 COYB".

Hey maybe it COULD happ..................naaaaaaaaaahhhh.

(by the way, one of my happiest days as an Evertonian and WHAT a night in the Hermitage - mayhem!)

Now I know you aren't a great Moyes fan, Gavin, but in some ways I think he is a bit too classy to play these sorts of games. There is an old fashioned decency about him, which would prevent him from doing this.

Me? I would organise the ball boys, dressed in special shirts with Gerrard and Suarez written on their fronts and backs, to do synchronised swimming-style dives as the ref came out onto the pitch.

I would also play a youtube compilation of the pair of them diving and organise a crowd vote at half-time on the best winning dive. You could even call it, "Spot the bollock."

Or, arrange for somebody to show the marks up on the main electronic board for effort, difficulty, etc.

I am sure that this would swiftly stop the antics and send a hilarious but clear message out to all players and viewers. :)

Even the FA would sit up and notice - well, maybe not!

Water water everywhere and not a drop to drink and all that

Really? Cos on my massive (HD) TV it was pretty clear that he'd taken the ball first. Looks like you suffered the same problem as the ref in thinking that if 15,000 people shout something it must be true.

In the initial highlights, the BBC only showed the side on replay that makes it look like a blatant penalty. In the analysis, Alan Shearer talks through a super slow-mo, magnified replay, from a different angle. This replay clearly shows Coleman getting the ball (however slightly). This was obvious to me live, from the long distance lens, as the ball clearly changes direction. There is also another replay, the first one Sky showed during the game, which is head on, which showed Coleman getting the ball. The live co-commentator on Sky, having seen this, said it wasn't a penalty.

The truly bizarre thing about this is that having provided all the evidence that Coleman did get the ball, Shearer then pronounces that it is somehow still a penalty! My head nearly exploded.

This is the same argument (although less clear cut) that the kopites and their pet media used to defend the challenge by (I think) Spearing last season against Fulham when he was red-carded (and ditto with the Shelvey red card v United this season)..... "But he got the ball first!!!" they cried..... "It doesn't fucking matter!!!!" yelled those with knowledge of the laws of the game......

"LAW 12:

A direct free kick is awarded when a player commits any of the following in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force:
Kicks or attempts to kick an opponent
Trips or attempts to trip an opponent
Jumps at an opponent
Charges an opponent
Strikes or attempts to strike an opponent
Pushes an opponent
Tackles an opponent

(Further offences reveals the only mention of the ball - for handball)
Or commits any the following offences:
Holds an opponent
Spits at an opponent
Handles the ball deliberately (except for the goalkeeper within his own penalty area).
"

That was a 'careless' challenge by Coleman, and could well have been a direct free-kick, and as it was inside the penalty area, therefore a penalty. Taking it to ridiculous lengths and applying the 'kopite logic', if a player cuts an opponent in half with a chainsaw, it's not a foul provided he gets a 'nick on the ball' first. An extreme case, granted, but purely an illustration of the absurdity of the ".....he got the ball first" argument.

I fully accept that you can 'get the ball' and still be sent off, I fully accept that you can make no contact with the opponent whatsoever and it still be a foul, something most fans, and amateur players, seem unaware of, but to claim that Coleman's is in any way similar to reckless lunging tackles with the very real potential to injure an opponent is bizarre and absurd.

The only thing in the entire law you've quoted that could possibly interpret the Coleman challenge as a foul is the word 'careless' and its pretty clear to me that that is not what the law intends by the word.

I dispute that his challenge was careless, and even if you think that it was, I dispute that the law is worded as to allow such an incredibly subjective interpretation of any event. According to you, a player could make any tackle and if the referee deemed it 'careless', whatever that meant, he could give a foul.

"Yeah great tackle son, I know you won the ball cleanly, but I didn't think you were 'careful' enough so I'm going to give a penalty and send you off".

I think the word 'careless' in that law is not very different to the word 'reckless' and refers solely to the potential to cause injury to an opponent.

I was at the game and from where I was it looked like a cast iron pen. When I saw it again on TV later I said to my mate it looked like he nicked the ball first and this was then confirmed by the replay.

I don't think there was anything 'careless' in Coleman's tackle. He went into the challenge to win the ball and was careful enough to win it without endangering his opponent. Had he just touched the ball and then put a 6 inch gash in the lad's leg then I'm all for giving a penalty but there was no problem with the challenge in reality.

I think Mike's correct in saying that anything can be deemed 'careless' by an individual but most people would agree that Coleman's challenge was legitimate. Including the referee it would appear.

There was a penalty decision a couple of years ago ( think it involved Wolves), were the defender clearly won the ball but the ref still gave it. He came out after the game to explain the decision and said that he seen the defender get a touch on the ball but if the attacker hadn't been brought down he still would have got to the ball and been in a goal scoring opportunity.

Before that I thought all what mattered was if a defender touched the ball first or not. If the ref thought that Coleman had stopped the attacker from getting to the ball again by bringing him down he could still have awarded a pen despite him getting the ball first.

Isn't it funny that when Evreton are on the recieving end of bad tackles , that the referee interprets them totally different to how he would when refereeing the chosen few.

If by some chance a Liverpool player suffers at the hands of the referee on Sunday , wait for the hue and cry in the media, whereas if it is one of ours the media will justify the decision as per usual.

Genuine enquiry, Dave; I'm not a referee and have never read Law 12 (other than in your post).

I can certainly envisage and accept a penalty being given if a defender wins the ball and makes a second movement to bring the player down. We've all seen tackles, and I've made a few, where you get a touch on the ball but don't really change much and the forward still has the ball in his control. If you then 'follow through' or lift the leg to ensure a trip I can see why this would be a foul.

If as a defender you have to be so precise as to have to tackle the ball without making any contact at all with a forward, then the game is going to be in trouble. That simply isn't a workable interpretation of the rule, and hasn't been the interpretation at any point in the 149 years since they were first set down.

I also think Coleman changed the trajectory of the ball, this was clear to me watching at full speed without a replay. I don't think this tackle was similar to the incident you are describing, as Hoilett wouldn't have retained possession of the ball even if there had been no contact with Coleman.

Anyway, mine was more of a rant about the general over-use of the "... but he got the ball!" argument than anything else. (That's everywhere, and not aimed at you Mike, sorry if it came over that way ;)