A&H

Wilson Lloris

T

Therealcjhill

Well-Known Member
Who’s giving the free kick to Lloris. Im really glad it wasn’t as Lloris played for FK because he’d messed up as usual. Instead of flopping to the floor, if he’d have just got up and back in his box he’d have actually been able to just catch the ball.

Also Handball from spurs player, would we deem that natural position because of the jump he made.
 
The Referee Store
Therealcjhill said:
Who’s giving the free kick to Lloris. Im really glad it wasn’t as Lloris played for FK because he’d messed up as usual. Instead of flopping to the floor, if he’d have just got up and back in his box he’d have actually been able to just catch the ball.

Also Handball from spurs player, would we deem that natural position because of the jump he made.
Click to expand...
Oof as a keeper I was tempted to say he should've been given one as he gets to the ball well in advance of Wilson, who imo could've and should've seen that was the case and so the collision is his choice. But I think this idea that keepers are more protected probably goes out the window once they come flying out of the box!
 
Absolutely no way was that a foul, it was just a terrible mistake by Lloris. Wilson doesn't have any obligation to get out of the way, Lloris just runs into him and if he'd put his foot through it there'd have been no problem.

Also interesting that both goals were caused by Lloris, yet all the players are on the referee's back and Conte is going off on one on the touchline screaming at the referee. I wonder if he screamed at Lloris at the time or after the game, I suspect not?
 
Surprised it took this long for anyone to comment on it.

Went out to pick up my daughter from work, got in and my wife said Spurs are fuming apparently.... Watched it back several times and was pleasantly surprised to see the goal had been allowed to stand. Lloris made an absolute mess of it and fell to the ground almost comically, possibly trying to exaggerate the contact and buy the foul.
 
I’m torn to be honest. On the one hand every player is entitled to their position on the pitch however Wilson also has time to recognise he isn’t winning the ball but continues on a forward motion. Intentional or not, it feels like a foul for me but I can see why it wasn’t given
 
Mooseybaby said:
Surprised it took this long for anyone to comment on it.

Went out to pick up my daughter from work, got in and my wife said Spurs are fuming apparently.... Watched it back several times and was pleasantly surprised to see the goal had been allowed to stand. Lloris made an absolute mess of it and fell to the ground almost comically, possibly trying to exaggerate the contact and buy the foul.
Click to expand...

Foul or not (personally I think not, however, would I be giving that in a men’s Sunday league game?? Probably!)…. I completely agree with you.

Lloris makes it easier for the ref by throwing himself to the floor, had he not, we wouldn’t be talking about foul or not because he probably would have just carried on as normal.
 
QuaverRef said:
I’m torn to be honest. On the one hand every player is entitled to their position on the pitch however Wilson also has time to recognise he isn’t winning the ball but continues on a forward motion. Intentional or not, it feels like a foul for me but I can see why it wasn’t given
Click to expand...
This was my hesitation, Wilson kind of knows what he's doing, a bit like having right of way and choosing to cut up someone who doesn't when you've seen them coming. Crap metaphor but I think at the top level the goal should stand
 
Tight one and I'm quite strong in my beliefs that GK's are a lot stronger than than behave and don't need quite so much protection in the box. Interesting I am sure there are ref's on this forum and around that are suggesting this wasn't a foul on Lloris but have given free-kicks to GK's from corners and crosses for much less.

Coming from my player brain (and ref brain), think Wilson know's exactly what he's doing and Paul Robinson made the point that Wilson's left arm blocks Lloris. I think the "had nowhere to go" argument is nonsense. Lloris gets to the ball first. Lloris makes an error of judgement and a technical error in not clearing the ball further but it's not down to us or ref's to judge that.

The big thing for me is Lloris gets there first and then Wilson's arm comes up. It's intentional. If it was the other way round, we wouldn't be saying Lloris has nowhere to go. If Wilson get's the ball first and the ball goes forward past Lloris, we would be saying Lloris stopped Wilson getting to the ball and it's a free-kick/penalty etc...same applies when it's the other way round.
 
Never a FK for me - and that comes from a referee who was a GK in former life. I do sometimes get frustrated when pundits say GKs are overprotected - try being the only player who has to have eyes only on the ball and is fully extended with ribs exposed. Mine are comically rearranged from years of forwards who 'had every right to go for the ball' !

But this is not one of those situations. Wilson does nothing wrong and is hardly Malcolm McDonald in full flight. Lloris just needs to clear the ball properly and if he clatters into Wilson in the follow through no-one is penalising him for that.

Goalkeeping error. Simple as
 
Another viewpoint from another referee, which I'm on the same side.

"So I didn't watch much EPL this weekend and am just catching up. By the descriptions here and what I had heard elsewhere, I thought this was going to be a 50/50 type call where I was totally fine with whatever was decided. I've now watched. And I don't understand how people don't have a clear foul.

I'm far from a "book referee," but Law 12 literally says "impedes an opponent with contact" is a direct kick offense. If I could choose one clip that might illustrate what "impeding the progress of an opponent with contact" is, there's a decent chance I would pick this one.

Look, did Lloris make an "awful play?" I don't know, maybe. But also maybe not. If he stays in his penalty area, Wilson gets on the ball and has an OGSO. So it seems like coming out to contest the ball was the right decision of the two options presented. And he gets there first. So far, no problem and again, getting there first vindicates the decision to come out. Rather than clearing it, he taps/touches/whatevers it past Wilson, who arrives second and has now overrun the ball. And Wilson runs into Lloris, impeding him from progressing to the ball. Wilson is not playing the ball. He's not even facing the ball.

Wilson didn't commit a capital offence here. He hasn't even done any of the first seven penal fouls in a careless manner. He just ran into his opponent. But when you run into your opponent and it blocks them from getting to the ball, there's a bullet in Law 12 dedicated to it. It's not allowed.

I'm past the point at being "shocked" by EPL referee/VAR decisions. But I am surprised it seems like so many here are willing to wave this away as a bad play by the goalkeeper. I don't think it could be a clearer example of an impeding foul (other than those ridiculous ones where someone rides an opponent out of touch when the ball is like 8 yards away).

EDIT to think of it this way... if Wilson had touched the ball first and then Lloris ran into him, would we not have a very easy, textbook DOGSO red card?""
 
Hadn't seen until now.

I think if this happens in my game I give a direct free kick to Spurs and no one bats an eyelid after the restart.

I can also see both points of view here and am not going to say whether it is right or wrong.
 
JamesL said:
Hadn't seen until now.

I think if this happens in my game I give a direct free kick to Spurs and no one bats an eyelid after the restart.

I can also see both points of view here and am not going to say whether it is right or wrong.
Click to expand...
Agree about decision you’d make, but of moaning from Wilson but soon gets over it. At same time glad it wasn’t as lloris was pathetic. Sick of these players play acting and cheating for a foul from every single contact.
 
Spanish_Ref said:
Another viewpoint from another referee, which I'm on the same side.

"So I didn't watch much EPL this weekend and am just catching up. By the descriptions here and what I had heard elsewhere, I thought this was going to be a 50/50 type call where I was totally fine with whatever was decided. I've now watched. And I don't understand how people don't have a clear foul.

I'm far from a "book referee," but Law 12 literally says "impedes an opponent with contact" is a direct kick offense. If I could choose one clip that might illustrate what "impeding the progress of an opponent with contact" is, there's a decent chance I would pick this one.

Look, did Lloris make an "awful play?" I don't know, maybe. But also maybe not. If he stays in his penalty area, Wilson gets on the ball and has an OGSO. So it seems like coming out to contest the ball was the right decision of the two options presented. And he gets there first. So far, no problem and again, getting there first vindicates the decision to come out. Rather than clearing it, he taps/touches/whatevers it past Wilson, who arrives second and has now overrun the ball. And Wilson runs into Lloris, impeding him from progressing to the ball. Wilson is not playing the ball. He's not even facing the ball.

Wilson didn't commit a capital offence here. He hasn't even done any of the first seven penal fouls in a careless manner. He just ran into his opponent. But when you run into your opponent and it blocks them from getting to the ball, there's a bullet in Law 12 dedicated to it. It's not allowed.

I'm past the point at being "shocked" by EPL referee/VAR decisions. But I am surprised it seems like so many here are willing to wave this away as a bad play by the goalkeeper. I don't think it could be a clearer example of an impeding foul (other than those ridiculous ones where someone rides an opponent out of touch when the ball is like 8 yards away).

EDIT to think of it this way... if Wilson had touched the ball first and then Lloris ran into him, would we not have a very easy, textbook DOGSO red card?""
Click to expand...
Whoever you are quoting needs to read Law 12 for the definition of impeding an opponent, then the paragraph about a player having a right to be where they are.
 
ChasObserverRefDeveloper said:
Whoever you are quoting needs to read Law 12 for the definition of impeding an opponent, then the paragraph about a player having a right to be where they are.
Click to expand...
Exactly. This is one of those weird book quirks. A definition for impeding progress without contact is given and you're left to imply that definition to with contact as that's just a listed offence with no explanation.
 
Just shows Reffing will never be a perfect science. As a Magpie, I'd like to think I'm giving a direct FK to the keeper as he got there first and sunsequently was impeded
VAR had no place re-reffing cos the R had a perfect view and was brave enough in his conviction
 
JamesL said:
Exactly. This is one of those weird book quirks. A definition for impeding progress without contact is given and you're left to imply that definition to with contact as that's just a listed offence with no explanation.
Click to expand...
Law 12 defines impeding as moving to obstruct, slow down, etc. - with/without contact, that remains the definition.
 
ChasObserverRefDeveloper said:
Law 12 defines impeding as moving to obstruct, slow down, etc. - with/without contact, that remains the definition.
Click to expand...
You're going to need to tell me where that is in law 12...

There is a definition like you describe under a heading of "impeding the progress of an opponent without contact". This is where it talks about players having a right to position etc. etc.

As this appears under a very specific heading we have to imply it also applies to with contact and/or the overall Lotg definition of impede which is:

"Impede" is defined in the glossary as "To delay, block or prevent an opponent’s action or movement"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top