Once the ref allows a team to start building a wall I thought the ref had to blow his whistle before a free kick is taken. Is this why Dyche was going mental? Surely you can’t take a quick free kick once the ref has allow the opponent to start building a wall

Big club, they can do what they want with this lot of refs, it's the most infuriating part of football at the moment, they are all inconsistent and make at least two big wrong decision every game.

You have to put shaving foam where the kick is to be taken from

You have to put foam where the wall has to stand

You can't send a player (Westwood) back to the wall and then allow the free kick to be taken

It wasn't their free kick anyway

Of course it was their free kick!
The ref just allowed them to be cleverer than us and it worked.

We should have been awake. But that said it wouldnt have stood for us yet again.

At least he booked sterling for doing a vokes...

Let’s not be arses about this on two counts

1. There is no rule that says they have to wait for the ref to blow a whistle, and irrespective you can see the player ask if he can take it quickly. They were smarter than us
2. It was a matter of time before they scored regardless. You cannot drop back that deeply against man city and survive 45minutes.

No complaints on any account. Get over it and move on back to the league and finishing as high as we can

Did Sterling get booked ?

I am not complaining we would have lost anyway. I was just wondering what the rule is and why Dyche was going mental

SussexDon1inIreland wrote:Did Sterling get booked ?

Did he ****.

That’s twice they have had a dodgy first goal to get going. I’m not suggesting we would have won without them, but the scores would have been a bit more respectable.

Again, nothing dodgy whatsoever about the first goal.

First City goal is a game changer. Always thought ref had to blow his whistle before free kick can be taken ? Thought that was why you see refs pointing at their whistle. But I guess that rule does not apply to Citeh

'Get over and move on'
FFS we're trying to analyse a game that finished barely 25 minutes ago.

FFS I’m off this thread until someone posts the rule for free kicks.

Dyche was quite rightly going mental.

WFT was the referee playing at ? He stops the play to move Westwood and they take the kick.

It`s not City`s fault for trying it on - but that is not out smarting us.....it`s pure and simple rank refereeing for not making them taking it again. You cannot be stopping the game for one reason and then the team restarting it when they want.

NRC wrote:Let’s not be arses about this on two counts

1. There is no rule that says they have to wait for the ref to blow a whistle, and irrespective you can see the player ask if he can take it quickly. They were smarter than us
2. It was a matter of time before they scored regardless. You cannot drop back that deeply against man city and survive 45minutes.

No complaints on any account. Get over it and move on back to the league and finishing as high as we can

Wrong, the rule is the ref asks the taker "do you want me to get them back 10 yard or do you want to take a quick one ?" westwood was well within his rights to stand over the ball, once the ref tells him to go 10 yards then they can't take a quick one and the spray needs to come out.

If you don't have to wait for the whistle, why on earth does every ref make a point of holding the whistle in the air and pointing at it when he's sorting free kicks out,

claretandy wrote:Westwood was well within his rights to stand over the ball, once the ref tells him to go 10 yards then they can't take a quick one and the spray needs to come out.

'If, when a free kick is taken, an opponent is closer to the ball than the required distance, the kick is retaken unless the advantage can be applied; but if a player takes a free kick quickly and an opponent who is less than 9.15 m (10 yds) from the ball intercepts it, the referee allows play to continue. However, an opponent who deliberately prevents a free kick being taken quickly must be cautioned for delaying the restart of play.'

http://www.thefa.com/football-rules-gov ... free-kicks" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The team infringed often looses an advantage so it is a good thing if play can continue quickly. The Laws allow for it. I'm in favour of cautioning players who prevent this happening.

Free kicks in a dangerous area seem to have become a bit of a ritual but the Laws don't say it has to be so.

Hipper wrote:'If, when a free kick is taken, an opponent is closer to the ball than the required distance, the kick is retaken unless the advantage can be applied; but if a player takes a free kick quickly and an opponent who is less than 9.15 m (10 yds) from the ball intercepts it, the referee allows play to continue. However, an opponent who deliberately prevents a free kick being taken quickly must be cautioned for delaying the restart of play.'

http://www.thefa.com/football-rules-gov ... free-kicks" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Well the goal should be void then as Westwood wasn’t booked

If we took that freekick he would have pulled play back, its as simple as that. When you see a referee performance like that it makes you wonder if the ref took home a Saudi gold bar in his rucksack.

Quick thinking by City, we where 30 seconds behind them...difference between winners and also rans

Prior to the one today, can anyone recall when they last saw a ref allow a free kick to be taken early in the final 3rd of the pitch?

Leisure wrote:Prior to the one today, can anyone recall when they last saw a ref allow a free kick to be taken early in the final 3rd of the pitch?

Didn't we get caught like this at West Ham a few seasons back?

I've seen us score at least one goal like this in my lifetime.

Paul Waine wrote:Didn't we get caught like this at West Ham a few seasons back?

Possibly but I was thinking more about since the refs spray was first used. I thought that the days of being able to take a quick free kick were long gone!

Leisure wrote:Possibly but I was thinking more about since the refs spray was first used. I thought that the days of being able to take a quick free kick were long gone!

I can't remember whether it was 2009/10 or 2014/15 season in the Prem. I think it was the game we lost 5-3... (have I got that right?). How long have the refs had their can of "vanishing foam?"

2014/15

England won a world cup on the strength of asking the if the kick could be taken.

Struggling to understand why this is still being disputed.

Fact: the team with the free kick is assumed the advantage.
Interpretation: referees CAN ask (don’t need to) if they want a set piece. Teams can take a free kick whenever they want if they have not asked for a set piece.

Rule 13: Types of free kick
Direct and indirect free kicks are awarded to the opposing team of a player guilty of an offence.

INDIRECT FREE KICK SIGNAL

The referee indicates an indirect free kick by raising the arm above the head; this signal is maintained until the kick has been taken and the ball touches another player or goes out of play.

An indirect free kick must be retaken if the referee fails to signal that the kick is indirect and the ball is kicked directly into the goal.

BALL ENTERS THE GOAL
if a direct free kick is kicked directly into the opponents’ goal, a goal is awarded
if an indirect free kick is kicked directly into the opponents’ goal, a goal kick is awarded
if a direct or indirect free kick is kicked directly into the team’s own goal, a corner kick is awarded
Procedure
All free kicks are taken from the place where the offence occurred, except:
indirect free kicks to the attacking team for an offence inside the opponents’ goal area are taken from the nearest point on the goal area line which runs parallel to the goal line
free kicks to the defending team in their goal area may be taken from anywhere in that area
free kicks for offences involving a player entering, re-entering or leaving the field of play without permission are taken from the position of the ball when play was stopped. However, if a player leaves the field of play as part of play and commits an offence against another player, play is restarted with a free kick taken on the boundary line nearest to where the offence occurred; for direct free kick offences a penalty kick is awarded if this is within the offender’s penalty area
the Law designates another position (see Laws 3, 11, 12)
The ball:
must be stationary and the kicker must not touch the ball again until it has touched another player
is in play when it is kicked and clearly moves except for a free kick to the defending team in their penalty area where the ball is in play when it is kicked directly out of the penalty area
Until the ball is in play all opponents must remain:
at least 9.15 m (10 yds) from the ball, unless they are on their own goal line between the goalposts
outside the penalty area for free kicks inside the opponents’ penalty area
A free kick can be taken by lifting the ball with a foot or both feet simultaneously.

Feinting to take a free kick to confuse opponents is permitted as part of football.

If a player, while correctly taking a free kick, intentionally kicks the ball at an opponent in order to play the ball again but not in a careless or reckless manner or using excessive force, the referee allows play to continue.
Offences and sanctions
If, when a free kick is taken, an opponent is closer to the ball than the required distance, the kick is retaken unless the advantage can be applied; but if a player takes a free kick quickly and an opponent who is less than 9.15 m (10 yds) from the ball intercepts it, the referee allows play to continue. However, an opponent who deliberately prevents a free kick being taken quickly must be cautioned for delaying the restart of play.

If, when a free kick is taken quickly by the defending team from inside its penalty area, any opponents are inside the penalty area because they did not have time to leave, the referee allows play to continue. If an opponent who is in the penalty area when the free kick is taken, or enters the penalty area before the ball is in play, touches or challenges for the ball before it has touched another player, the free kick is retaken.

If, when a free kick is taken by the defending team inside its penalty area, the ball is not kicked directly out of the penalty area the kick is retaken.

If, after the ball is in play, the kicker touches the ball again before it has touched another player an indirect free kick is awarded, if the kicker deliberately handles the ball:
a direct free kick is awarded
a penalty kick is awarded if the offence occurred inside the kicker’s penalty area unless the kicker was the goalkeeper in which case an indirect free kick is awarded

FAQs:
Q1: What is the difference between ‘preventing’ a free kick and ‘intercepting’ a free kick?
When an opposing player who is close to a free kick stops the kick being taken this must be sanctioned with a caution (YC). However, if a player decides to take a free kick quickly, when an opponent is less than 9.15m away and after the kick has been taken the opponent gets possession of the ball (even though less than 9.15 away) this is allowed as the player took a risk by taking the kick quickly.

Outcome: that Our player was not 10 yards is irrelevant. If he had blocked it the kick is not retaken I.e. the team with the free kick has blown its advantage

Interestingly, considering the OP's user name, my favourite goal of this type was Inchy Heath and Rooster some years ago against Preston. So quickly taken that no defenders got back between them and the goal.

I tweeted this earlier with regards to the goal and the overall performance, "I'm slightly concerned about the recurring theme of us collectively switching off whilst defending free kicks, the rest - we're playing an extremely talented & well coached side"

Westwood was trying to stop the quick free kick and was being sent away by the ref.

The ref was doing that so City could gain an advantage.

Again 12 against 11.

We were mugged by Liverpool and by City today. The very top players have a streetwise nature to them, but if you're just not that type then it's hard to keep the concentration regarding the unexpected.

I'm surprised nobody checked Aquero's run for the second, but it's easy to say that watching it back.

cricketfieldclarets wrote:We should have been awake. But that said it wouldnt have stood for us yet again.

At least he booked sterling for doing a vokes...

Did he?

I was watching, but I sure missed this.

Grumps wrote:Big club, they can do what they want with this lot of refs, it's the most infuriating part of football at the moment, they are all inconsistent and make at least two big wrong decision every game.

No they are consistent . Consistently bad. That was awful from him today for the first goal. The big clubs will always get the decisions in their favour. Something we have to accept. If Burnley had done the same he would have brought play back.

The referee can't allow City to ask for a quick free kick and then not respond to Westwood's request about whether a quick free kick can be taken - Dyche is right to be mental about this.

Clear bias.

Yes City would probably have won but that is a long way from this issue

bobinho wrote:Did he?

I was watching, but I sure missed this.

He was being sarcastic I think

Stayingup wrote:No they are consistent . Consistently bad. That was awful from him today for the first goal. The big clubs will always get the decisions in their favour. Something we have to accept. If Burnley had done the same he would have brought play back.

Without a doubt it would have been pulled back for us.

We all know by now rules are different for the ‘big clubs’( those with most cash).

Sterling did not (of course) get booked yet Cork did for what I recall was his first foul

Lets face it the super power clubs will always be just that super power clubs

Corrupt? Probably

Football is lost

I see lots of challenges and decisions throughout games and I end up thinking exactly this. Had that been us, would we have got the decision. Answer? No.

Would we have been allowed to take that free kick like that? no.

Loads of little nudges and touches throughout every game that are awarded to City, Liverpool, Utd that we just wouldn’t get. Yeah I know it’s hypothetical, but we just wouldn’t. That makes it really hard to compete. I know refs don’t deliberately cheat, but the dice are loaded and that’s a cast iron fact.

The ref wasn't ready himself

Wokingclaret wrote:The ref wasn't ready himself

And that’s probably the single most important factor here. He was elsewhere, and he wasn’t watching. For that reason alone, it should have been pulled back.

He (the ref) was still exchanging words with Westwood who wasn't then able to take up his position. Westwood's position may not have been crucial to the goal itself, but whilst the ref was still talking other Burnley players (rightly) assumed nothing would happen and switched off. The ref blundered and should never have allowed the goal to stand and it was absolutely vital in terms of the final score.

The ref doesn't have to whistle and to some extent if an attacking team want to play quickly, the rules shouldn't be interpreted to allow the defending team to break up momentum by giving away free kicks, so you'd want teams to be allowed to take quick free kicks.

However, my understanding is that in these situations, when the free kick is in an attacking position, the ref does usually ask that play be stopped until the ref blows his whistle. Its not clear that Burnley were building a wall here, so that bit doesn't apply, and whilst the ref was himself clearly caught on the hop here, that doesn't in itself matter given that there was nothing subsequent for him to need to make a decision on. But clearly, if the ref was still talking to Westwood (and it looks as though he might have been on the video) then he shouldn't have allowed play to restart.

What I would say is that we should have been better prepared for the eventuality - Mee and Taylor in particular were caught in a bit of a lull, and Westwood had no need to be messing around with the ball. He could have dropped back into position and let us get set a few seconds earlier. it isn't the first time we've been caught out by a set piece recently and we need to snap out of it.

As an aside, I thought it was a debatable free kick in the first place, but hey-ho.

claretspice wrote: As an aside, I thought it was a debatable free kick in the first place, but hey-ho.

Absolutely mate. But given the nature of the goal thats been overlooked. Was never a foul. I remember at the time saying to bfccrazy - watch him. He will be fine in 5 seconds after his theatrics. Low and behold he was.

Pstotto wrote:
I'm surprised nobody checked Aquero's run for the second, but it's easy to say that watching it back.

Barnes did. But hes that quick barnes fouled Mee.

Ironically, Claretspice, many around me thought it was never a free kick either.

bobinho wrote:Did he?

I was watching, but I sure missed this.

Sorry i was being a sarcastic dick. Forgot the ref wont be reading this.

cricketfieldclarets wrote:Absolutely mate. But given the nature of the goal thats been overlooked. Was never a foul. I remember at the time saying to bfccrazy - watch him. He will be fine in 5 seconds after his theatrics. Low and behold he was.

To echo your sentiments from the game ..... I fu***ng hate City nowadays.

All that talent yet they try and contheir way to advantages - before a ball was kicked today I expected a loss..... The way that City win though recently with all the players they have trying to use underhand tactics and hassle refs is what infuriates me about modern football.

Ps.... The insomnia is strong still