By Walter Broeckx
The laws of the game and the interpretation of the laws of the game are two totally different things. And certainly the interpretation given by the pundits. Anyone who thinks that pundits know the rules are people who believe in Santa Claus, the fairy tooth even when they have gotten to an age that most of us know they don’t really exist.
Now the pundits said that tumble nr. 19 from Robben was a penalty ‘because there was contact’. Now what is strange is that there is nothing in the rule book that says: that contact = foul. Now let us for the sake of it hold the pundits opinion and apply this: player goes down – there was some contact = penalty.
So how many penalties will we have in each match? At least one penalty with every corner we have. And at least one penalty with every time a free kick is being dropped in the box. As there is always contact in such situations and there is almost a player going down in such situations. Yet none of these pundits take it that far. Why? Of course we know why. Because there is no such rule. It is all made up stuff.
And more importantly made up stuff to fit the agenda. Remember the first match of the season? In that match Wilshere tried to run to a ball but was stopped in his run by a defender that stretched out his arm to block Wilshere. Wilshere went down. There was clear contact. So a definite penalty? Oh no not according to the pundits. They didn’t even comment on the incident. Yet in this incident there was not just contact. No there was a foul. Sticking out your arm to prevent a player to run to a new position is a foul. But as you know there is one rule for all and one for the Arsenal.
Let us take another example. The Arsenal – Chelsea match. Walcott turns his man in the penalty area, Willian (If I remember correctly) plants his foot on the foot of Walcott who goes down. In the penalty area.
Again we take the pundits logic first. Player goes down + there is contact = penalty. Yet that time the pundits entered a new phrase to the laws of the game. It goes like this: “There wasn’t enough contact”. Now things are getting difficult don’t you think so? Remember we are just following the pundits and their way of thinking. Suddenly it is not just contact but it also has to be enough contact.
Yet I again I search the official laws of the game and I really cannot find this ‘there has to be enough contact’ that the pundits let loose on their audience. So once again I can only come to the conclusion that they try to tell us lies. Or that they don’t know the laws of the game. But if they don’t know them, then what are they doing there? A good excuse to be away from their wives and being well paid for it.
Now if we examine the Walcott incident according to the laws of the game we can only say that Walcott went past his man with a crochet, the defender tried to stop him from going past him and kicked him on his foot. He kicked his standing leg away and that is a foul. So according to the laws the Walcott incident was a foul and thus a penalty. But according to the pundits laws it wasn’t. Why this difference dear pundits?
I could give other examples. Like the WBA penalty incident. Where Lumumbu (I think) came crushing in from behind on Wilshere and went completely through Wilshere and then after bringing Wilshere down he made contact with the ball.
We all remember the pundits view of it. No penalty they said because ‘he got the ball’. Now of course refs can be lenient when a player makes a tackle and clearly gets the ball but after that the players tangle a bit and the other player goes down as a result of the fact that the player making the tackle cannot stop his sliding. To make sure we understand each other I am talking about a sliding tackle from the side. Not a tackle from behind because when you then make contact with the player it is a foul certainly when going trough him.
Or the dangerous frontal tackle. You know the Flamini tackle at Southampton? The red card. Yeah, that’s the one.
In the WBA match the tackle was from behind, both legs clamping around the legs of Wilshere, bringing him down. No penalty according to the pundits as he finally made contact with the ball. But let us go back to the pundit laws of the game as they dish them out when it fits their agenda. Lets examine it their way: Wilshere goes down + there is contact = penalty. But no there wasn’t they said at the time.
So it is all getting a bit confusing if we want to listen to the pundits to get an explanation of the laws of the game.
So to understand the laws of the game as the pundits do it seems that you just have to remember this: If an Arsenal player goes down we look for any excuse to not call it a foul. If an Arsenal player is close to another player going down it must be a foul. It seems that this is their interpretation of the laws of the game. It is as if they agreed to look at it that way. And all towing the line of course.
Isn’t it strange?
To finish this article about fouls I will link you to a little clip and we might add a little quiz to it. https://vine.co/v/Mbu9YTMdMT6
For those who remember the incident from out match against Bayern. The question is :
a) how many fouls there has been made in this clip
b) and what the decisions from the ref should have been.
c) And finally what did the ref make of it.
Answers in the comments section. The winner gets a kiss from me or Tony whenever we see each other at an Arsenal match. Come on ladies, this is your chance.
- What the media doesn’t tell you, part 6. There’s a financial problem…
- The Big 7 clubs, how much they spent and what good is it doing?
- What the media won’t tell you about football 5: Fifa lends money to Switzerland
- What the media won’t tell you about football, part 4 – referee variations
- The final transfer rumours: 3 new names to make 66 players tipped for Arsenal