Being offside doesn't make it less of a foul, but it does mean the foul wouldn't be given
The point is that the linesman made a bad call - and it's not like Young was marginally offside, he was a good two yards - and if he'd made it correctly then the seriousness of the foul wouldn't have mattered because it couldn't have been given.
(Darth Foxtrot A one-man army dedicated to making fetch happen, Wed 11 Apr 2012, 10:11, 1 reply, 12 years ago)

no, it could be given.
if you trip a player coming back from offside it'd still be a pen. The only cast-iron reason that him being offside would prevent the foul being given is if he'd touched the ball whilst offside before Derry fouled him. Since he didn't it's down to the vagueness of interpreting the offside law.

I do think he should have been given offside, and that should have prevented the foul mattering. But it doesn't have to. He can be in an offside position, be fouled, and be awarded a penalty without technically the linesman or the ref being incorrect.

But that's all irrelevant. You can argue all you like, there was no way for that decision to be overturned on appeal, and QPR are fucking idiots for not knowing that.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Wed 11 Apr 2012, 10:16, Reply)

I dunno
Even if they were unfamiliar with the fact that the linesman's decision can't be reviewed - and I wasn't, and see no reason why it shouldn't be - Derry really didn't do enough to send Young tumbling like that. Minimal contact or no, the correct decision was a yellow card for simulation. You can't blame them for thinking that a review and some replays might prove that
(Darth Foxtrot A one-man army dedicated to making fetch happen, Wed 11 Apr 2012, 10:24, Reply)

it's only simulation if there's no contact.
I don't like it any more than you, but Derry touched him, so the decision is foul or not, you can't book a player for "going down too easily"

yet, anyway. You never know your luck.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Wed 11 Apr 2012, 10:27, Reply)

Er, you CAN book a player for going down too easily
Obviously in an ideal world this only happens when there's no contact at all. I agree that the FA couldn't award a retrospective booking to Young based on this principle but the correct on-field decision would have been to determine that Derry hardly touched him and Young was looking for it.
(Darth Foxtrot A one-man army dedicated to making fetch happen, Wed 11 Apr 2012, 10:32, Reply)

can you?
since when? I thought it had to be "simulation". Which means there has to be no contanct.

Not denying that you're right about the onfield decision, although Young couldn't really have been booked, but no penalty. But that's not what I was talking about, I was just pointing out why there was no way it would be overturned.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Wed 11 Apr 2012, 10:36, Reply)

Referee's call isn't it?
Even with contact simulation can occur. Cases liek Carroll v Newcastle, where's it's just embarrassingly obvious, are few and far between. I see what you mean as regards the FA overturning a decision on this basis, but perhaps they should assess whether the "foul" was really worthy of a penalty and therefore a red card, which it palpably wasn't. I appreciate this brings it more into the arena of opinion than is desirable.
(Darth Foxtrot A one-man army dedicated to making fetch happen, Wed 11 Apr 2012, 10:42, Reply)

Oh Christ, that Carroll thing was fucking hideous.
The less said about the entirety of that game the better.

Including the offside goal, the penalty, James Perch going down like he was shot, etc
( Agnostic Antichrist Baltimora, Wed 11 Apr 2012, 10:45, Reply)

As I texted you at the time
Liverpool were utterly kippered in that game, but Carroll is a fucking idiot for going down when it was easier to score
(Darth Foxtrot A one-man army dedicated to making fetch happen, Wed 11 Apr 2012, 10:49, Reply)

I think it could have been an altogether different game if he'd even tried to score, or maybe laid it off to Gerrard, who was on his way in
Instead, the spastic dives, and things went even further downhill from there.
( Agnostic Antichrist Baltimora, Wed 11 Apr 2012, 10:54, Reply)

I think you're right there
Dispirits the whole team. No excuse for all the bad decisions but from that point on the momentum was with Newcastle.
(Darth Foxtrot A one-man army dedicated to making fetch happen, Wed 11 Apr 2012, 10:58, Reply)

Definitely

( Agnostic Antichrist Baltimora, Wed 11 Apr 2012, 10:59, Reply)

it's impossible
I mean, you and I both know 95% that Young could have stayed on his feet. But we can't be absolutely sure, because there was contact, maybe he was really off-balance, who knows for sure? So the ref's decision about whether it's worth a foul only goes as far as giving the foul or not, it can't be used to retrospectively decide anything.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Wed 11 Apr 2012, 10:48, Reply)

The question will be asked though
Why is it that when reviews are conducted that they operate on such a basis? Contact or no, that wasn't a penalty. The referee may well have been influenced by various factors such as his view of the incident, appeals from players or the crowd; surely the point of reviewing is to provide an impartial, unaffected decision. Whilst there was contact I can't believe that anyone watching that replay thought it was a penalty. Surely that's all that should matter?

Please let me stress that I'm not arguing with you, I agree that your assesment of the situation is correct.
(Darth Foxtrot A one-man army dedicated to making fetch happen, Wed 11 Apr 2012, 10:53, Reply)

It's like the DRS stuff
if it's down to "interpretation" they'll go with the original decision. They are looking for cast-iron proof. And, like I said, you can only be 95% certain that contact didn't make Young go down.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Wed 11 Apr 2012, 11:20, Reply)