A&H

Spurs 'Pool pens

santa sangria

santa sangria

RefChat Addict
So, some of the reviews seem to be forgetting the real penno appeals in this game.

First up, the given pen: slightest contact outside the box, then Firminio clips his own heels, either because of the contact, or because he dived. Basically impossible to see all this in real time and the slo mo is misleading. Really the ref is on a hiding to nothing here. As a 'Pool fan, very happy with the pen.

But before that, Vorm totally wipes out Mane in the box. No officials in sight, nothing given. It's a long ball, but it's obvious on camera in real time and just nailed on via replay.

And then the handball "John Terry TM" two handed save at the end - was it Vertonghen? - hands up, on the half turn, ball is on target, ref has a fairly good view, has to be deliberate, has to be handball - you can't even make the "reaction" or "defending himself" arguments (not that either exist in the laws;)).

On one hand happy with a point, but on the other... should have been two penalties for my (red) money... and probably not the one that was given... very, very hard for the officials - especially the Vorm - with no one within 40 yards to make a call...
 
The Referee Store
As a Tottenham fan ... I half agree with you :). The Vorm one looked a clear pen to me, both on first viewing and on replay. Think the fact the ball moved away from goal persuaded the officials it was a fair challenge but actually Vorm had gone straight throught the attacker to get to the ball.

The one that was given may or may not have been correct (really tough to tell) but ca totally understand it being given, no complaints

The 'handball' towards the end, personally I'd give the defender the benefit of the doubt. Arms well tucked in and 'natural' to defend yourself like that.

Good game, fair result. Just a shame about the other results today!
 
As a Liverpool fan the Vorm challenge certainly looked dodgy at first but in the replay I personally thought it looked an alright challenge. With the penalty that is given I thought the contact happened above the line, which I think constitutes as inside the box?
 
Russell Jones said:
The 'handball' towards the end, personally I'd give the defender the benefit of the doubt. Arms well tucked in and 'natural' to defend yourself like that.
Click to expand...

I know this has been talked about at length here - and this isn't really about the game in question - but there is nothing in the handball laws about defending yourself (and in this case, showing your elbows with your hands at chest height looks like using your arms to make yourself as big as possible, especially when the body is not behind the arms when the ball strikes... but I digress... good game in the end.. great Rose goal).
 
Rightly or wrongly keepers often seem to get extra leeway when it comes to last gasp tackles, and frequently get away with challenges that would be penalised anywhere else on the pitch. I personally don't think it would have been credible to penalise Vorm here even if he did make contact with Mane before the ball, as no one will understand it and no one, Mane included, was expecting a free kick.

Agree with Russell on the handball, you cannot play football with your arms pinned by your side. For all he has placed his arms across his chest, they are pinned right into his body and I think a handball award there would be very, very harsh.
 
Agree with all of the above - Vorm's two challenges were pretty risky (in terms of risking a PK or DOGSO), but think he actually judged them both perfectly.

What are our thoughts on the most controversial penalty decision - where Vertonghen was given a warning? I'm not particularly comfortable with the fact that the referee on the day is making a major distinction between a foul a split second before the ball is kicked (outcome is a brief chat) and a foul a split second later when it's in play (outcome would presumably have been a PK and YC, based on the "Mike Dean" precedent). Ignoring the fact that I think the ball was actually in play, does anyone think there's a case for giving the YC anyway? And could he have justified a PK?
 
santa sangria said:
there is nothing in the handball laws about defending yourself
Click to expand...
True. But equally there is nothing in there about 'unnatural position' but that has become an accepted and somewhat useful shorthand. So the debate is whether it is 'natural' to defend yourself in this way .. I'd say it is so long as you don't make yourself 'bigger' in the process.

GraemeS said:
What are our thoughts on the most controversial penalty decision - where Vertonghen was given a warning?
Click to expand...
. In the referee's opinion, the ball was not in play when he blew his whistle therefore can't be a PK. Regardless of any new directives, referees are still encouraged to clamp down on holiding in the box at corners before the kick is taken by giving a stern warning to the players involved. Whether this is a good thing / necessary is a valid debate but in principle, as of now, what Mr Madley did was largely right. Where it got difficult was he blew his whistle half a second too late and therefore the ball was already on its way ..
 
GraemeS said:
Agree with all of the above - Vorm's two challenges were pretty risky (in terms of risking a PK or DOGSO), but think he actually judged them both perfectly.

What are our thoughts on the most controversial penalty decision - where Vertonghen was given a warning? I'm not particularly comfortable with the fact that the referee on the day is making a major distinction between a foul a split second before the ball is kicked (outcome is a brief chat) and a foul a split second later when it's in play (outcome would presumably have been a PK and YC, based on the "Mike Dean" precedent). Ignoring the fact that I think the ball was actually in play, does anyone think there's a case for giving the YC anyway? And could he have justified a PK?
Click to expand...

The problem referees have here is if they ignore the holding and pushing until the ball is actually kicked they risk even bigger problems. If a referee sees two people all over each other and ignores it who's fault will it be if the player being held loses his temper and lashes out at the person holding him? The answer unequivocally is the referee, so why would you let yourself get into that position? If two players were holding and pushing at a throw in you wouldn't wait until the ball had been thrown, so why is a corner any different?
 
I accept why it can't be a PK....even if that doesn't feel right, laws as they are don't allow a PK to be given. But how can a warning be justified for what would have otherwise been a YC offence?

What was the actual offence Sterling/Shawcross got cautioned for the week before and why does that not apply because the ball isn't in play a week later? The Liverpool attacker was actually thrown to the floor (where Sterling and Shawcross only blocked their man) and I'm not convinced that "timing" justifies that carrying a much lesser punishment.
 
Holding an opponent should only merit a caution if the referee deems the foul to have interfered with, or stopped a promising attack. Alternatively, you can caution if you feel the holding offense constitutes persistent infringement (obviously only if the player has committed several offenses/has been warned recently/the team have been constantly holding etc). I would suggest that Dean punished the two holding offenses in the Stoke v City game as he felt they interfered with a promising attack: unfairly denying the attacker the opportunity to play the ball in a position that could result in a shot at goal. So, unless Madley felt that the hold that was committed whilst the ball was out of play warranted a caution for persistent infringement, there's no real argument to be made for a caution.
 
santa sangria said:
So, some of the reviews seem to be forgetting the real penno appeals in this game.

First up, the given pen: slightest contact outside the box, then Firminio clips his own heels, either because of the contact, or because he dived. Basically impossible to see all this in real time and the slo mo is misleading. Really the ref is on a hiding to nothing here. As a 'Pool fan, very happy with the pen.

But before that, Vorm totally wipes out Mane in the box. No officials in sight, nothing given. It's a long ball, but it's obvious on camera in real time and just nailed on via replay.

And then the handball "John Terry TM" two handed save at the end - was it Vertonghen? - hands up, on the half turn, ball is on target, ref has a fairly good view, has to be deliberate, has to be handball - you can't even make the "reaction" or "defending himself" arguments (not that either exist in the laws;)).

On one hand happy with a point, but on the other... should have been two penalties for my (red) money... and probably not the one that was given... very, very hard for the officials - especially the Vorm - with no one within 40 yards to make a call...
Click to expand...

1. Def not conclusive from MOTD replays that this was inside/outisde box. However 100% a foul.
2. Whilst I agree this is a foul in law these (take ball first then wipe out out player) have never been given
3. Ball hits him on the elbow which is tucked into his abdomen. No idea what you want him to do. I would show this to new refs as a NON handball it's so not a handball
 
MatthewC said:
Holding an opponent should only merit a caution if the referee deems the foul to have interfered with, or stopped a promising attack. Alternatively, you can caution if you feel the holding offense constitutes persistent infringement (obviously only if the player has committed several offenses/has been warned recently/the team have been constantly holding etc). I would suggest that Dean punished the two holding offenses in the Stoke v City game as he felt they interfered with a promising attack: unfairly denying the attacker the opportunity to play the ball in a position that could result in a shot at goal. So, unless Madley felt that the hold that was committed whilst the ball was out of play warranted a caution for persistent infringement, there's no real argument to be made for a caution.
Click to expand...
I think there's a pretty strong argument that neither Sterling or Shawcross had a pattern of offenses in the match or interfered with a player who was anywhere near the eventual location of the ball - yet they both saw yellow. Rightly or wrongly, the precedent was set that holding at a corner is a yellow and it's inconsistent application of law like this that gives referees a bad name.

I'm concerned that this incident has now set a precedent of "anything short of VC goes" before the ball is kicked - and I'm not totally sure what in law can be done to disprove that?
 
GraemeS said:
I think there's a pretty strong argument that neither Sterling or Shawcross had a pattern of offenses in the match or interfered with a player who was anywhere near the eventual location of the ball - yet they both saw yellow. Rightly or wrongly, the precedent was set that holding at a corner is a yellow and it's inconsistent application of law like this that gives referees a bad name.
Click to expand...

Totally agree, can't really understand why Sterling or Shawcross were cautioned at the time, other than to 'sell the decision'. Surely it's better to referee to the laws though, rather than to the 'precedent' that was set by last week's ref?
 
MatthewC said:
Totally agree, can't really understand why Sterling or Shawcross were cautioned at the time, other than to 'sell the decision'. Surely it's better to referee to the laws though, rather than to the 'precedent' that was set by last week's ref?
Click to expand...
Of course, but that's not how player brains work - nothing aggravates them more than inconsistency and the majority of players you encounter on a Sunday morning will now believe that a yellow is mandatory for a PK at corners.

I've just been listening to a podcast discussing this and they make a very good point - the only reason the liverpool attacker wasn't being fouled after the ball was kicked is because he was already on the floor. Why do we referees do this at corners: try to stop play before it begins to warn players that they're about to foul? We don't do this elsewhere on the pitch?
 
I don't thin the referee stopped play to warn players.
It appeared to me the referee stopped play beacuse a liverpool player was on the deck before the corner was taken, which was unfair to liverpool.
However as the referee couldn't have awarded a PK what else could he do?
 
GraemeS said:
Why do we referees do this at corners: try to stop play before it begins to warn players that they're about to foul? We don't do this elsewhere on the pitch?
Click to expand...
I'm fairly sure it's because that's what the Laws instruct referees to do.

Page 192, LotG 2016-17 (pdf version)
Referees are reminded to make an early intervention and to deal firmly with holding offences, especially inside the penalty area at corner kicks [...]. To deal with these situations:
• the referee must warn any player holding an opponent before the ball is in play
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top