A&H

Mighty Arsenal v West Brom

WilliamD

WilliamD

Well-Known Member
Level 4 Referee
We're not talking about Bobby today and the no call against Mustafi?

I'm an Arsenal fan and I can't find any reason why that's not a pen...and TV guys are so annoying by saying "he was probably playing advantage" What?? A) can't imagine playing advantage in the box B) there was no signal of advantage of any kind. I think Bobby simply didn't see it and when he caught up the ball was going the 'wrong' way to support a penalty shout and he bottled it. Sorry I don't have the clip - thoughts if you've seen it?
 
The Referee Store
It's a penalty yes but tbf I think you can argue the advantage case - two shots are had on goal (Livermore's from 8 yards out if that to a practically open goal) - can't go back and give them a third bite of the cherry as it were in my opinion! But yes, a penalty originally.
 
I just don't believe it...no signal whatsoever for advantage from BM. If this hands were out stretched, mouth wide open shouting, and they hit the post - ok...but I think he had no idea what was going on and then they had a shot so he just went along with it.
 
In real time I didn't see a penalty, (it was in all the replays), he was too honest for his own good, it all happened so quick I sort of understand the 'mistake'... Of course slowed up its a pen, however it was one of those situations that are so obvious they aren't!!!
Not sure the penalty would have been given on a sunday morning... old fashioned shoulder charge there!!!
 
It's a nailed on penalty, and if Madley didn't see it I'd still expect both ARs to be telling him over the comms even though it wasn't in their credible areas. I'm convinced he played advantage, and the reason I say this is that he appeared to have a chat with Rodriguez shortly after. If he did he took an almighty risk, as a player getting up from the floor at an acute angle to goal has much less of a chance to score than someone from the penalty spot.

When he is good Bobby Madley is a top class referee, but sometimes he makes unfathomable decisions, and this was one of them. He was also miles behind play, so made this decision, or non-decision, from a significant distance and with players blocking his view. I suspect that referees who have the explosive pace that he doesn't, such as Oliver and Taylor, would have been much closer to it.
 
When I'm refereeing I'm not going to shout advantage as somebody is about to take a shot. I don't want to put them off. Of course one should still signal.
Of course, a shot on goal doesn't necessarily mean advantage has accrued. One needs to determine whether the shot was still disadvantaged by the original foul. Given that he was under pressure and perhaps slightly unbalanced when he took the shot one could argue that he was disadvantaged but I don't see that to be a very clearcut argument - and if you're going to go back against a shot I think you want it to be clear. The 2nd shot as well - a little bit of pressure, but 15 yards out with really only the keeper to beat. Given those 2 shots, and that it's dubious as to whether the initial foul affected them, I would suggest that going back to the foul is incorrect.

Now, I know that the penalty shot is almost certainly better than either of these shots...but better than both of them? Also, the ref is in a poor situation here. Blow the whistle and guaranteed, the ball goes in the goal. Given the player went to his feet, I think every ref should 'wait and see' here. Had, for instance, the defender running in been able to block the shot, then THAT is a clear impact from the foul and it's a penalty. If, instead of waiting on the line, the keeper actually ran out and charged down the kick, then again it's an impact from the foul because the defenders were in a better position because of the foul
 
This is where the whole notion of advantage as 'you don't get a second bite at the cherry' can seem a bit foolish to me. What was stopping Madley awarding the penalty after some thinking time, but allowing the goal if Cech hadn't pulled off the save? It's a win-win scenario really. A referee is surely not obliged to participate in the criteria of the advantage rule when he/she hasn't signalled it.
 
'Advantage vs 2nd bite at the cherry' is also severely misunderstood by players, spectators and referees.
But it's a shame that we effectively punish a player for doing the right thing. He was clearly fouled. Had he stayed down it's a PK, no controversy.
I mean, the fact that usually a player needs to fall over to get a free kick means we're always punishing players who do the right thing, but this is a clear example of it.
And I'm not convinced the current laws approach this fairly.
Perhaps the laws SHOULD encourage 2 bites at the cherry? Perhaps instead of 'possession + opportunity', it should be 'outcome' we're looking at?
That no matter how good the opportunity is in the PA, if he doesn't score, it's a PK?
 
"two bytes at the cherry" is what we have 'invented' for good reason. Its all about fairness and restoring balance after an offence has been committed. When applying advantage it should mean you can restore balance in a fairer way compared to awarding a free kick/penalty kick. However if you allow 'two bytes at the cherry' the balance is restored overly and unfairly in favour of the attacking team. Punishment should fit the crime and all that stuff.

In the case of the OP, for me, its a clear error by the referee. He either missed the foul or applied advantage incorrectly.
 
one said:
"two bytes at the cherry" is what we have 'invented' for good reason. Its all about fairness and restoring balance after an offence has been committed. When applying advantage it should mean you can restore balance in a fairer way compared to awarding a free kick/penalty kick. However if you allow 'two bytes at the cherry' the balance is restored overly and unfairly in favour of the attacking team. Punishment should fit the crime and all that stuff.

In the case of the OP, for me, its a clear error by the referee. He either missed the foul or applied advantage incorrectly.
Click to expand...

OR maybe he just gets one look at it in real time, instead of multiple camera angles with the ability to slow down, freeze or manipulate the image frame by frame until he gets a definitive answer?
 
Padfoot said:
OR maybe he just gets one look at it in real time, instead of multiple camera angles with the ability to slow down, freeze or manipulate the image frame by frame until he gets a definitive answer?
Click to expand...
When you use "OR" it implies only one one of us can be right which is not correct. I agree with you that its a tough one to call real time. But it does not change the fact that he made an error. I am not analysing the reason for it.
 
Padfoot said:
OR maybe he just gets one look at it in real time, instead of multiple camera angles with the ability to slow down, freeze or manipulate the image frame by frame until he gets a definitive answer?
Click to expand...
Yes. And as a result, he missed the foul, as @one said.
 
  • Like
Reactions: one
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top