Utd v villa

[SelbyRef]

For me in determining whether the actual decision appears incorrect, the law wording does us no favours whatsoever.

Clearly the relevant part is “…by touching it with any part of the hands or arms except if the ball rebounds from the goalkeeper or the goalkeeper has made a save”. First point is I’m frustrated neither Dean (who they went straight to on Sky when the incident happened) nor Gallagher on RefWatch made explicit reference to this wording as far as I can tell.

Anyway, can see some here are referring to this but then saying GK didn’t appear to be touching it at the point Roger’s plays it, so not in control. Perhaps this is indeed the issue i.e. the way it’s worded and perhaps that’s why it’s being removed - but my interpretation of that language is he’s deemed in control by touching it with hand or arm but, provided it’s not rebounded away from him or he was in the process of making a save (which clearly this isn’t), in theory the ball being still right in front of him with hands around it (but not touching) could be deemed in control.

It feels very minor but if they intended it to be only under control of the keeper if they’re physically touching it, surely the wording would be IS touching not BY touching? Personally on balance, based on my view of the law wording, I think the decision was fair enough but I genuinely get the counter argument given the wording isn’t clear. I’m sure IFAB always think they’ve come up with something that helps but then along comes an incident that pulls it apart!

It’s a shame TB not following VAR protocol has led to what’s happened afterwards.

 

[DavidObs]

For me in determining whether the actual decision appears incorrect, the law wording does us no favours whatsoever.

Clearly the relevant part is “…by touching it with any part of the hands or arms except if the ball rebounds from the goalkeeper or the goalkeeper has made a save”. First point is I’m frustrated neither Dean (who they went straight to on Sky when the incident happened) nor Gallagher on RefWatch made explicit reference to this wording as far as I can tell.

Anyway, can see some here are referring to this but then saying GK didn’t appear to be touching it at the point Roger’s plays it, so not in control. Perhaps this is indeed the issue i.e. the way it’s worded and perhaps that’s why it’s being removed - but my interpretation of that language is he’s deemed in control by touching it with hand or arm but, provided it’s not rebounded away from him or he was in the process of making a save (which clearly this isn’t), in theory the ball being still right in front of him with hands around it (but not touching) could be deemed in control.

It feels very minor but if they intended it to be only under control of the keeper if they’re physically touching it, surely the wording would be IS touching not BY touching? Personally on balance, based on my view of the law wording, I think the decision was fair enough but I genuinely get the counter argument given the wording isn’t clear. I’m sure IFAB always think they’ve come up with something that helps but then along comes an incident that pulls it apart!

It’s a shame TB not following VAR protocol has led to what’s happened afterwards.

You have made some very valid points, including your final paragraph, though let’s just say that it did go to VAR, the likelihood is that VAR would not have overturned & there would have still been controversy because of VAR.

 

[SelbyRef]

You have made some very valid points, including your final paragraph, though let’s just say that it did go to VAR, the likelihood is that VAR would not have overturned & there would have still been controversy because of VAR.

Agreed - the ‘controversy’ wouldn’t have gone away just because VAR were able to take a look.

We’ll never know but IMO they’d have advised stay with on field call. If (big if) they’d have been looking for just touching or not touching at point Rogers plays it - as opposed to my interpretation described above - I don’t feel it’s 100% conclusive either way despite all the angles, super slow motion etc.

Probably one of those that whichever decision TB made, they wouldn’t have recommended him to separately review/overturn.

My separate irritation is with the media coverage, albeit it’s entirely expected. Choose your phrase from across the papers and TV/radio shows: Villa robbed, awful error, unacceptable etc. All of that coverage suggests not in control, but not specifically why (and why the ref has made the decision he has, VAR protocol notwithstanding).

Literally no one has made explicit reference to the relevant part of the laws which means this decision (like many others) is entirely subjective on this aspect i.e. you can sell a foul here but by the same virtue, with the same law wording, you could sell a goal. Infuriating all round.

 

[Tealeaf]

This whole experienced versus inexperienced debate is another pointless distraction.

How do you get experience without an opportunity?

Sink or swim time. If you can’t handle it, and I mean seriously mess it up, you won’t get another go for a long time. And so it should be; look elsewhere.

As for this game, given the other variables and permutations it was a good option as an appointment.

Team chasing a prize playing a team with nothing to play for. And incidentally the lowest ranked team in all of the final day fixtures with something riding on the game (Spurs plus relegated 3 having no bearing on anything).

Far lower levels of jeopardy than Forest - Chelsea was for example.

 

[Paul_10]

At what point did it look clear to you please? First watch at full speed, first replay in slow motion or after a forensic type review looking at all the different angles? Just wondering, not disputing your views but putting myself in the referees boots at that point I’m giving a free kick, but that’s applying a grassroots view .

Replay during slow motion from behind the goal where it's clear the ball was in the air when Rogers kicked it and from what I understand from the laws, even if the keeper had one hand on the ball it's still not a foul as the ball is not touching the ground.

Of course fine at grassroots to blow there but at PL level with VAR then of course let play continue then blow for the potential foul, easier said than done in the moment I'm sure.

In terms of experience, I'm usually on the side that experience should be irrelevant and it's an easy stick to bash the referee with but on this occasion for such a big game then having an official who is more used to refereeing in matches without VAR then it was a risky appointment and as Graeme says, it backfired.

 

[JamesL]

I understand from the laws, even if the keeper had one hand on the ball it's still not a foul as the ball is not touching the ground.

You understand it wrong...

"A goalkeeper is considered to be in control of the ball with the hand(s) when:

the ball is between the hands or between the hand and any surface (e.g. ground, own body) or by touching it with any part of the hands or arms"

 

[Runner Ref]

Replay during slow motion from behind the goal where it's clear the ball was in the air when Rogers kicked it and from what I understand from the laws, even if the keeper had one hand on the ball it's still not a foul as the ball is not touching the ground.

Think of it this way, would you be okay with someone challenging the goalkeeper in the below image?

 

[Archer]

Think of it this way, would you be okay with someone challenging the goalkeeper in the below image?

Queen Mary!

Don't think anyone would have the balls tbh.

 

[GraemeS]

This whole experienced versus inexperienced debate is another pointless distraction.

How do you get experience without an opportunity?

Sink or swim time. If you can’t handle it, and I mean seriously mess it up, you won’t get another go for a long time. And so it should be; look elsewhere.

As for this game, given the other variables and permutations it was a good option as an appointment.

Team chasing a prize playing a team with nothing to play for. And incidentally the lowest ranked team in all of the final day fixtures with something riding on the game (Spurs plus relegated 3 having no bearing on anything).

Far lower levels of jeopardy than Forest - Chelsea was for example.

A season consists of 380 league games, 370 of which aren't on the final day and this season, 376 of which aren't a final day CL-qualification decider.

For me, that feels like quite a few opportunities to gain experience without risking one of your most promising young officials making a (possible) mistake that directly costs a team millions in CL qualification.

 

[Runner Ref]

This whole experienced versus inexperienced debate is another pointless distraction.

How do you get experience without an opportunity?

I agree with you to a point, but I think there are far better occasions for someone to gain experience.

Whether people like it or not, European football qualification is seen as on par, if not bigger than winning the FA Cup these days due to the finances involved. You wouldn't give someone The FA Cup Final to gain experience

 

[GraemeS]

I agree with you to a point, but I think there are far better occasions for someone to gain experience.

Whether people like it or not, European football qualification is seen as on par, if not bigger than winning the FA Cup these days due to the finances involved. You wouldn't give someone The FA Cup Final to gain experience

Exactly.

 

[Paul_10]

You understand it wrong...

"A goalkeeper is considered to be in control of the ball with the hand(s) when:

the ball is between the hands or between the hand and any surface (e.g. ground, own body) or by touching it with any part of the hands or arms"

Well it's all a bit of a moot point seeing as it looks fairly clear too me the keeper was not touching the ball when the contact from the attacker occured.

Reason why I mentioned about the one hand on the ball which is in the air may not count as a foul is from Dale Johnsons VAR review which he says "The ball just being in contact with Bayindir's glove wouldn't be enough to qualify as control". Of course if the ball is touching his glove it must be touching his hand so no wonder people get confused at times and it's why even if it went to VAR im not sure it would get overturned and hide behind the referees call nonsense.

 

[one]

It wasn't smart refereeing though, it's been agreed upon he should of held onto his whistle until after the goal was scored and then VAR can check.

Agree that would be in accordance with protocol. However this would be even a worse conrraversy. Because it's unlikely VAR would have intervened and in the eyes of many we now have two officials who got it completely wrong.

 

[JamesL]

Well it's all a bit of a moot point seeing as it looks fairly clear too me the keeper was not touching the ball when the contact from the attacker occured.

Reason why I mentioned about the one hand on the ball which is in the air may not count as a foul is from Dale Johnsons VAR review which he says "The ball just being in contact with Bayindir's glove wouldn't be enough to qualify as control". Of course if the ball is touching his glove it must be touching his hand so no wonder people get confused at times and it's why even if it went to VAR im not sure it would get overturned and hide behind the referees call nonsense.

It's not a moot point.

If the keeper is in control of the ball then he can't be challenged. This is not about a moment in time. At any point bayindir touches the ball and he is being challenged (defined as 2 players competing / contesting for the ball) all bets are off.

 

[Paul_10]

It's not a moot point.

If the keeper is in control of the ball then he can't be challenged. This is not about a moment in time. At any point bayindir touches the ball and he is being challenged (defined as 2 players competing / contesting for the ball) all bets are off.

But then if his hands are not touching the ball when the attacker makes contact with the ball then surely that's fair game? Not the attackers fault if his presence makes the keeper spill the ball?

Either way, if that is the interpretation then it needs to be put out there to the media more because every pundit thinks it should be a goal even after reading the laws.

 

[Runner Ref]

Either way, if that is the interpretation then it needs to be put out there to the media more because every pundit thinks it should be a goal even after reading the laws.

That really wouldn't make a difference. The media aren't interested in fact vs fiction or right vs wrong. Theyre interested in clicks

 

[SelbyRef]

It's not a moot point.

If the keeper is in control of the ball then he can't be challenged. This is not about a moment in time. At any point bayindir touches the ball and he is being challenged (defined as 2 players competing / contesting for the ball) all bets are off.

This is where I’m at (see my above posts) - I’m still confused why there has been little to no reference to the key part of the laws on this i.e. the ‘by touching it’ wording.

That wording implies that if the keeper touches it with hand/arm & the ball stays very close to them (doesn’t rebound away or it wasn’t a save) - which in this case it does as it’s between his hands - the laws deem him in control.

If they wanted it to be literal on touching, they’d have surely said ‘is touching’ i.e. hand/arm always in contact with the ball, rather than ‘by touching’ which implies don’t necessarily have to be in constant contact, once already touched by hand/arm.

 

[DavidObs]

I agree with you to a point, but I think there are far better occasions for someone to gain experience.

Whether people like it or not, European football qualification is seen as on par, if not bigger than winning the FA Cup these days due to the finances involved. You wouldn't give someone The FA Cup Final to gain experience

Though they gave it to Attwell who is not your favourite! They also gave the Liverpool/Everton derby to Sam Barrott!.

 

[JamesL]

This is where I’m at (see my above posts) - I’m still confused why there has been little to no reference to the key part of the laws on this i.e. the ‘by touching it’ wording.

That wording implies that if the keeper touches it with hand/arm & the ball stays very close to them (doesn’t rebound away or it wasn’t a save) - which in this case it does as it’s between his hands - the laws deem him in control.

If they wanted it to be literal on touching, they’d have surely said ‘is touching’ i.e. hand/arm always in contact with the ball, rather than ‘by touching’ which implies don’t necessarily have to be in constant contact, once already touched by hand/arm.

I think we have a difference in that I do expect to at least have some actual contact with the hand.

What I am saying is that a challenge isn't a snapshot moment in time. So whilst the ball may not have been in contact at all times there was contact during the challenge, that wasn't a save or rebound and so a strict application of the law, as written, makes the challenge a foul.

 

[Runner Ref]

Though they gave it to Attwell who is not your favourite! They also gave the Liverpool/Everton derby to Sam Barrott!.

They did and he certainly isn't! But he can at least be described as a veteran these days.

The derby was certainly a gamble giving it to Barrott and it didn't necessarily go to plan since he (and VAR) missed a very clear red card. But they got away with it due to when it was in the calendar.