What's all this MANutd. and Lille commotion about?

[Chip Monk]

Perfectly good goal.

If the Lille players had been watching they would have seen the referee walk backwards away from the ball. They would also have noticed that he was not making any signal for the attacking player to wait.

There's no difference between that and a free kick in the middle of the park. How often are quick ones taken there, most of the time in my opinion. They rarely have to wait for a whistle, unless the referee tells them to.

As to the aftermath, it was like watching a bunch of big weans.

[morphine]

Apprently Giggs asked the ref if he could take it quickly. He said "yes" and as soon as he backed away from the ball the free kick is allowed to be taken as it was. Quick thinking rather than cheating if you read the rule book.

So now the referee said yes to the quick free kick? That's even worse. He aproved the wall to be formed and then went "ok, if you want to shoot it now, regardless of the wall that i allowed being ready or not, do it". Why form a wall in the first place. As soon as the wall is at a regular distance just take a shot? It makes no sense to me.

Referees have instructions to let the defense set the wall properly and only allow the free kick to be taken after they whistle. I dont think the goal is ilegal but i think it should have been disallowed. It was a dangerous free kick, not a meaningless middle of the park foul.

I wonder if it was the other way around, if manchester utd fans wouldnt be complaining. I dont know if it was unsportsmanlike but it was a shame that it hapened. And to set the record straight, i dont care for any of the teams and i'm not french. It's just my point of view.

[Barbarossa]

So now the referee said yes to the quick free kick? That's even worse. He aproved the wall to be formed and then went "ok, if you want to shoot it now, regardless of the wall that i allowed being ready or not, do it". Why form a wall in the first place. As soon as the wall is at a regular distance just take a shot? It makes no sense to me.

Referees have instructions to let the defense set the wall properly and only allow the free kick to be taken after they whistle. I dont think the goal is ilegal but i think it should have been disallowed. It was a dangerous free kick, not a meaningless middle of the park foul.

No. Referees have a duty to make sure that the defenders are at least 10 yards away from the ball. There is nothing to say that the defence need to say when they are ready for the free kick to be taken. If they're not ready, that's their lookout.

It's the same for any set-piece.



On what grounds do you want to disallow the goal, if it's not illegal


If it had been the other way round, I'm sure the Man Utd fans and players would have screamed blue murder, but the goal would still stand.

[manker]

Goals like that are scored from free-kicks fairly regularly, I'm sure Thierry Henry has done it at least four times in the Premiership, including one this season. It is well within the rules and most people who watch and participate in the game know this.

In Holland (where the referee is from), the refs rarely whistle to indicate that a free-kick is allowed to be taken by the attacking team. To the ref, what Giggs thought he had to ask for is normal.

The problem is not the free-kick - it's what went before. I thought the ref was biased toward United the whole game, I remarked upon it at the time. Still fresh in the Lille players' minds was their disallowed goal, their winger barely touched Vidic but Vidic was unbalanced and made a meal of his fall - thus the referee disallowed it. What happened previous to the free-kick was why the Lille players were so incenced, any other comments by their players or staff is subterfuge.

Now, I would have screamed blue murder if United had a goal disallowed for such an inocuous challenge as the one on Vidic -- but I would think fair dos if we conceeded a free-kick after a ref had walked away from the ball and our wall wasn't ready.

The defence is culpable. Simple as that.

[morphine]

On what grounds do you want to disallow the goal, if it's not illegal

I've seen situations like this plenty of times. A player takes the free kick before the referee whistles and the goal is disallowed because of that. It hapens all the time. Who can say that it was illegal to take the free kick before the referee whistles? But goals are disallowed because of that anyway.

You said yourself that referees have a duty to make sure that the defenders are at least 10 yards away from the ball. After that it might be fair game but that doesnt stop goals from being disallowed. I think that if the referee acepts the wall being formed then he should only let the free kick to be taken after he whistles. We see them all the time pointing to the whistle. That should mean something.

[4play]

As soon as lille were 10 yards away the referee walked away which meant giggs could take it. Its not the refs responsibilty to make sure lille are ready to defend the free kick. the goal was in no way illegal so how could the ref disallow the goal.

youtube video

The vidic push was a very harsh decision by the ref but he was right.

[Barbarossa]

We see them all the time pointing to the whistle. That should mean something.

We didn't see that this time.

[4play]

seems that lille are blaming the overcrowding on lots of fake tickets. they claim united released the tickets too early allowing excellent copies to be made and sold. united say they released them a week before the match which is standard for them and that the tickets where of shite quality so they were easy to forge.

even though lille claim too many people where in the stand the chief of security claims the stand was not full and he reacted to the situtation. someone seems to be wrong here.

source

[Mr JP Fugley]

On what grounds do you want to disallow the goal, if it's not illegal

I've seen situations like this plenty of times. A player takes the free kick before the referee whistles and the goal is disallowed because of that. It hapens all the time. Who can say that it was illegal to take the free kick before the referee whistles? But goals are disallowed because of that anyway.

You said yourself that referees have a duty to make sure that the defenders are at least 10 yards away from the ball. After that it might be fair game but that doesnt stop goals from being disallowed. I think that if the referee acepts the wall being formed then he should only let the free kick to be taken after he whistles. We see them all the time pointing to the whistle. That should mean something.

The ref only need to blow the whistle for a free kick if he has told the attacking team to wait. He will indicate that to both sets of players. Whether it's near enough to score from is neither here nor there. The fact that he did not and walked away from the ball made it pretty obvious what was going to happen

If the defence is not ten yards away and the attacking side take the free kick that's their own problem.

It was a cracking good goal, well imagined and expertly executed. It's just a pity it was a diver who scored it.