Arsenal (The Gunners) | Special Thread

[Peasant]

sasa yule refa aliwauliza porto kama wanataka kupiga haraka au nimemuelewa vibaya? hao wote wazushi kwa vile issue imewakuta arsenal .ingekuwa nje ya box thats another case na hizo ndio henry alichukulia advantage.

hapa tuheshimu maamuzi ya refa zaidi ya hapo tutabishana tu.

From Poll

There is nothing in the laws of the game that say we have to indicate for the free-kick to be taken.

It's just like when someone wants to take a free-kick anywhere else on the field.

As long as the ball is stationary and in the right place then the attacking team can take it as quickly as they like.

 

[Oxlade-Chamberlain]

Ni kweli hujanielewa. Maelezo yako yanajitosheleza.

Ni hivi.. free kick inapigwa kulingana na kosa, hilo lipo wazi. Faulo ya kipa kudaka mpira wa kurudishiwa adhabu yake ni indirect free-kick ambayo timu pinzani hujipanga kuweka ukuta...na adhabu yake sio penati. Kwa kitendo alichokifanya mwamuzi cha kuwahisha freekick kupigwa kabla ya ukuta ni udhaifu, na hivyo kuizawadia Porto nafasi ambayo ni zaidi ya adhabu ya penati.

Suala la kupiga free kick haraka kwa mpigaji hilo sio kosa kwa upande wake, ndo maana Fab akasema huenda ingekuwa yeye angefanya ivoivo. Mwamuzi ndio mwenye dhamana ya kuruhusu au la na ndiye msimamizi wa haki na sheria. Yeye ndo analaumiwa..

Nadhani sio ngumu kueleweka sasa..

mkuu asante sana kwa kuelezea sie tunajazba bado naona hatutaeleweka.

 

[Oxlade-Chamberlain]

From Poll

mkuu hili swala lilikuwa ni la kutumia common sense tu,refa angeweza kukataa lile goli na warudie kutokana na situation yenyewe ilivyokuwa.kama abdulahim alivyosema kuna foul na foul za kuruhusu kile kitendo japo kuwa sheria inaruhusu na ndio maana marefa wangine kuzuia mamabo kama yale huwa wanawaambia kabisa mchezaji asubiri filimbi.

 

[Peasant]

Ni kweli hujanielewa. Maelezo yako yanajitosheleza.

Ni hivi.. free kick inapigwa kulingana na kosa, hilo lipo wazi. Faulo ya kipa kudaka mpira wa kurudishiwa adhabu yake ni indirect free-kick ambayo timu pinzani hujipanga kuweka ukuta...na adhabu yake sio penati. Kwa kitendo alichokifanya mwamuzi cha kuwahisha freekick kupigwa kabla ya ukuta ni udhaifu, na hivyo kuizawadia Porto nafasi ambayo ni zaidi ya adhabu ya penati.

Suala la kupiga free kick haraka kwa mpigaji hilo sio kosa kwa upande wake, ndo maana Fab akasema huenda ingekuwa yeye angefanya ivoivo. Mwamuzi ndio mwenye dhamana ya kuruhusu au la na ndiye msimamizi wa haki na sheria. Yeye ndo analaumiwa..

Nadhani sio ngumu kueleweka sasa..

Maelezo ya Graham Poll, a retired English Premier League referee, nafikiri yeye anajua sheria vizuri kuliko sisi:

There is nothing in the laws of the game that say we have to indicate for the free-kick to be taken.

It's just like when someone wants to take a free-kick anywhere else on the field.

As long as the ball is stationary and in the right place then the attacking team can take it as quickly as they like.

I think it makes much sense.

 

[Abdulhalim]

Maelezo ya Graham Poll, a retired English Premier League referee, nafikiri yeye anajua sheria vizuri kuliko sisi:
.

Kwamba ukuta kwenye 18 ni optional??. Ndo maana alikuwa anatoa kadi 3 za njano kwa mtu yuleyule Hopeless...lolz

 

[Peasant]

Kwamba ukuta kwenye 18 ni optional??. Ndo maana alikuwa anatoa kadi 3 za njano kwa mtu yuleyule Hopeless...lolz

Naona napigia mbuzi gitaa....lol. Usiku mwema mkuu!

 

[Abdulhalim]

Naona napigia mbuzi gitaa....lol. Usiku mwema mkuu!

He he he..

I can understand if the rules of the game did not consider such a scenario, or remained silent, lakini huezi niambia indirect free-kick kueka ukuta ni option! basi kama ni hivo indirect free-kick ni zaidi ya penati!!

 

[Belo]

as usual poleni

 

[Wacha1]

Sol Campbell says the official prevented him from defending Porto's decisive second goal.


Thats the only goal Porto could score to separate the teams.

 

[Lucchese DeCavalcante]

He he he..

I can understand if the rules of the game did not consider such a scenario, or remained silent, lakini huezi niambia indirect free-kick kueka ukuta ni option! basi kama ni hivo indirect free-kick ni zaidi ya penati!!

Na si tu ni zaidi ya penati bali pia ni sawa na kutoa bao la bure maana ile free kick ilipigwa less than 5m from the goal...

 

[Lucchese DeCavalcante]

Porto 2 Arsenal 1: Graham Poll - why ref Martin Hansson was right to allow Falcao's bizarre goal to stand



By Graham Poll
Last updated at 2:52 AM on 18th February 2010

• Comments (59)
• Add to My Stories

1. Sol Campbell touches the ball back to his goalkeeper. Fabianski instinctively picks the ball up, leaving referee Hansson no alternative but to award an indirect free-kick


Technically, there is nothing wrong with the goal, nor the actions of the referee Martin Hansson. There has clearly been a transgression of law with Sol Campbell's backpass and, once the referee has awarded the free-kick, the rule is that advantage is immediately given back to the team who have been wronged.
In the spirit of the law, it can be argued that the defending team should be given an opportunity to regroup before the kick is taken, but that responsibility falls to the players.

Fabianski could have held on to the ball or thrown it away - as we see so often - thus risking a yellow card but ensuring that Porto would not be able to take a quick free-kick. As for the role of the Porto players, how many times did we see Thierry Henry take a quick free-kick during his Arsenal days under Arsene Wenger?

Most memorably, in an FA Cup tie against Chelsea - and we didn't hear his manager complaining then.It could perhaps be argued that Hansson's positioning prevents Sol Campbell from making an attempt to get back, but that doesn't make the referee wrong.
West Ham and Chelsea fans will remember a similar situation involving myself in a Premier League match some years ago, when I was standing between the ball and West Ham's goal, and then stepped aside to allow Jimmy Floyd Hasselbaink to take a quick free-kick, which flew past David James into the net. Looking back at it, I admit that my positioning could have been better but, in this case, Hansson hasn't blocked the view of the Arsenal goalkeeper and, by, asking for Fabianski to hand the ball back, cannot be accused of taking the Gunners by surprise.

2. Ruben Micael attempts to wrestle the ball from Fabianski, who initially holds on to it, but as Hansson arrives at the scene of the offence, the keeper tosses the ball to the referee

3. Fabianski turns his back to retreat to his goal, while at the same time appearing to protest his innocence to the assistant on the far side. The goalkeeper must be aware that, having handed over the ball, Porto are permitted to take their free-kick immediately, which Ruben does.

4. Ruben places the ball and passes square to the onrushing Falcao. Sol Campbell, spotting the danger, makes a late attempt to get behind the ball but is blocked by the referee. Arsenal's other defenders still have not retreated behind the ball and Falcao has a clear run at the ball and shot on goal.

5. Falcao strokes the ball into the net just as Fabianski finally turns to face the ball. Of the Arsenal defenders, only Vermaelen reacts in an attempt to prevent Porto scoring. The referee is confronted by Arsenal players and Arsene Wenger but he is unmoved by the protest and allows the goal to stand.




Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...Falcaos-bizarre-goal-stand.html#ixzz0ftKqhuiV

 

[Belo]

Sol Campbell says the official prevented him from defending Porto's decisive second goal.


Thats the only goal Porto could score to separate the teams.

Anajitetea huyo

 

[Belo]

Poleeeeeeeeeeee Arsenal Poleeeeeeeeeee

 

[Masanilo]

Poleeeeeeeeeeee Arsenal Poleeeeeeeeeee

Poleni Samaki Porto wamekula hadi Jicho la Sol

 

[Belo]

Poleni Samaki Porto wamekula hadi Jicho la Sol

Bado uko Zenj?

 

[Swahilian]

hayaaaaaaaaa! yetu maicho na masikiyo! kwakuwa mudomo yasema nasi tuiache yendelee kusungumsaaaaaa! best wishes itajukilana tu!

 

[Oxlade-Chamberlain]

Sol Campbell says the official prevented him from defending Porto's decisive second goal.


Thats the only goal Porto could score to separate the teams.

hivi hapo refa kanyoosha mkono juu kwa ajili ya nini? manake mpira ulikuwa tayari uko kwenye play au aliona goli kabla? mwenye kujua zaidi anaimbie huo mkono wa refa uko juu kwa ajili ya nini hapo? kama foul kupigwa ishapigwa ndio iko kwa mfungaji ,sasa yeye mkono juu wa nini?

 

[Baba Mkubwa]

Hata wajeje pale Emirates, tutawafunga Porto tena vizuri na bila kuhangaika......

 

[Peasant]

Porto 2 Arsenal 1: Graham Poll - why ref Martin Hansson was right to allow Falcao's bizarre goal to stand



By Graham Poll
Last updated at 2:52 AM on 18th February 2010

• Comments (59)
• Add to My Stories

1. Sol Campbell touches the ball back to his goalkeeper. Fabianski instinctively picks the ball up, leaving referee Hansson no alternative but to award an indirect free-kick


Technically, there is nothing wrong with the goal, nor the actions of the referee Martin Hansson. There has clearly been a transgression of law with Sol Campbell's backpass and, once the referee has awarded the free-kick, the rule is that advantage is immediately given back to the team who have been wronged.
In the spirit of the law, it can be argued that the defending team should be given an opportunity to regroup before the kick is taken, but that responsibility falls to the players.

Fabianski could have held on to the ball or thrown it away - as we see so often - thus risking a yellow card but ensuring that Porto would not be able to take a quick free-kick. As for the role of the Porto players, how many times did we see Thierry Henry take a quick free-kick during his Arsenal days under Arsene Wenger?

Most memorably, in an FA Cup tie against Chelsea - and we didn't hear his manager complaining then.It could perhaps be argued that Hansson's positioning prevents Sol Campbell from making an attempt to get back, but that doesn't make the referee wrong.
West Ham and Chelsea fans will remember a similar situation involving myself in a Premier League match some years ago, when I was standing between the ball and West Ham's goal, and then stepped aside to allow Jimmy Floyd Hasselbaink to take a quick free-kick, which flew past David James into the net. Looking back at it, I admit that my positioning could have been better but, in this case, Hansson hasn't blocked the view of the Arsenal goalkeeper and, by, asking for Fabianski to hand the ball back, cannot be accused of taking the Gunners by surprise.

2. Ruben Micael attempts to wrestle the ball from Fabianski, who initially holds on to it, but as Hansson arrives at the scene of the offence, the keeper tosses the ball to the referee

3. Fabianski turns his back to retreat to his goal, while at the same time appearing to protest his innocence to the assistant on the far side. The goalkeeper must be aware that, having handed over the ball, Porto are permitted to take their free-kick immediately, which Ruben does.

4. Ruben places the ball and passes square to the onrushing Falcao. Sol Campbell, spotting the danger, makes a late attempt to get behind the ball but is blocked by the referee. Arsenal's other defenders still have not retreated behind the ball and Falcao has a clear run at the ball and shot on goal.

5. Falcao strokes the ball into the net just as Fabianski finally turns to face the ball. Of the Arsenal defenders, only Vermaelen reacts in an attempt to prevent Porto scoring. The referee is confronted by Arsenal players and Arsene Wenger but he is unmoved by the protest and allows the goal to stand.




Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...Falcaos-bizarre-goal-stand.html#ixzz0ftKqhuiV

Thanks Graham, you've explained it very well....Same old Hypocrite Arsene Whinger lazima alalame ikiwa against kwake lakini anasema hajaona ikiwa imempa favour.

 

[Masanilo]

Bado uko Zenj?

Kiongozi

Naimarisha Muungano huku yakhe!