The Ref Stop

Benteke Goal Yesterday

Who's talking about taking it literally?
Anyway, as you can see the defender clearly stops his challenge because he can see what's coming. So you don't think the attacker created a situation where the defender was unable to safely challenge?
 
The Ref Stop
Who's talking about taking it literally?
Anyway, as you can see the defender clearly stops his challenge because he can see what's coming. So you don't think the attacker created a situation where the defender was unable to safely challenge?

I'm just quoting the law Capn B - that's what the criteria should be. If your phrase was in the law then yes agree with you, but its not.
 
Good question!

Like others it just doesn't feel right to disallow the goal. Its straying into 5 a side laws if we're saying an attacker can't play the ball at head height or above with his feet - can see both sides but I'm in the "goal" camp.
 
You could argue benteke was there first and shooting before herera put his head there therefore making the Man Utd player guilty of piadm...

:)

Not even I buy that one. Liverpool fan in me escaped there for a second...
 
Good question!

Like others it just doesn't feel right to disallow the goal. Its straying into 5 a side laws if we're saying an attacker can't play the ball at head height or above with his feet - can see both sides but I'm in the "goal" camp.
Why doesn't it feel right though? Let's get past the spectacle here.
We're not saying at all that the attacker can't play the high ball - he just can't do it if it puts the opponent at risk.
If we're allowing the goal, then aren't we saying that 'a high boot near the opponent's head is illegal on the field but not in the PA'?
 
Why doesn't it feel right though? Let's get past the spectacle here.
We're not saying at all that the attacker can't play the high ball - he just can't do it if it puts the opponent at risk.
If we're allowing the goal, then aren't we saying that 'a high boot near the opponent's head is illegal on the field but not in the PA'?

Good discussion btw, but I would say you ARE saying an attacker can't play high ball in the area, because a defender would always want to challenge an attacker in the pen area.

Same applies to a GK - when they come flying out to claim a high ball, it could nearly always be construed as literally playing in a a dangerous manner but GK is hardly ever penalised for this offence - hence my "it doesn't feel right" comment.
 
Surely you're just taking the mickey now....
Whether it's 'abuse' or dissent, the same point remains anyway.
'It's emotive' is an excuse, but it seems to be the expected one in the game today....

So just so we're clear, do you think the defender's capacity to safely play the ball was affected by the overhead kick?

To keep it clear I think it was a great goal.

Too many people on here can't differentiate between pro-football and what they referee, then moan about the way that the Premier League is refereed.
 
Brilliant goal. Too bad Cameron Jerome's the day before wasn't counted because it was cracking too.
 
Too many people on here can't differentiate between pro-football and what they referee, then moan about the way that the Premier League is refereed
Jacko, I'm going out on a limb here but I think anyone with the character and intelligence to referee can probably spot the fairly glaring differences between pro football and park football. :rolleyes:

The reason folk have an issue with how the Premier League is refereed is that those 10 games each weekend have an enormous knock on impact on the literally thousands of games going on up and down the country .. it makes the life of any referee wishing to properly implement the LOTG 10x harder and leads to much frustration from the players when they end up penalised for offences they see their role models get away with. I think we all understand why the Premier League might wish to manage things this way ... that doesn't mean we have to like it or just take it uncomplainingly ....

And my opinion (which I'm not trying to persuade anyone else to adopt or endorse!) is that Benteke was PIADM and not penalising him will encourage other strikers to put the safety of defenders at risk in future
 
While everybody is entiteld to their opinion (even when it's delivered in a somewhat condescending fashion), I'm intrigued by the fact that everybody who thinks it's a good goal seems unwilling to answer the simple question of whether the defender was prevented from safely playing the ball due to the bicycle kick :)
 
Jacko, I'm going out on a limb here but I think anyone with the character and intelligence to referee can probably spot the fairly glaring differences between pro football and park football. :rolleyes:

The reason folk have an issue with how the Premier League is refereed is that those 10 games each weekend have an enormous knock on impact on the literally thousands of games going on up and down the country .. it makes the life of any referee wishing to properly implement the LOTG 10x harder and leads to much frustration from the players when they end up penalised for offences they see their role models get away with. I think we all understand why the Premier League might wish to manage things this way ... that doesn't mean we have to like it or just take it uncomplainingly ....

And my opinion (which I'm not trying to persuade anyone else to adopt or endorse!) is that Benteke was PIADM and not penalising him will encourage other strikers to put the safety of defenders at risk in future

Clubs and players can also see the difference.

When you step on your pitch on a Saturday you develop your own consistency, your own foul recognition, your own level of tolerance which in every case is different. Providing you are consistent you won't have any issues. You're not at Old Trafford, your on your parks pitch. You have look after number one. Last week's referee could have not put his/her cards through which could cause you an issue, let number 6 play with his earings in. Two central midfielders get away with a few reckless challenges which allows them to think its acceptable. That can be more difficult before you've even kicked off because other referee's lower down haven't done the basics. Don't worry about the way the premier league is refereed. You're not on the Premier league, your pitch, your rules, your consistent approach to them and the players after 15 minutes will be singing to your tune.
 
While everybody is entiteld to their opinion (even when it's delivered in a somewhat condescending fashion), I'm intrigued by the fact that everybody who thinks it's a good goal seems unwilling to answer the simple question of whether the defender was prevented from safely playing the ball due to the bicycle kick :)

He didn't try to play the ball. He watched it, turned as it connected with Benteke's and it hit the back of the net.

I think Andy Gray would call it a beauty.
 
He would not have been able to play the ball if benteke wasn't about to overhead thump it into the corner - bentekes great big body would have been in the way! :D
 
Except as fans we also will worry about how the premier league is refereed. We worry about it as referees when aspects of the laws are blatantly ignored, and we worry about it as fans when decisions seem more random than fair.
And of course what happens at that level affects everybody else. Players mob the referee every decision without repercussion, so they'll do the same thing on a Sunday arvo. Players encroach several yards at a penalty without problem, then what the hell are you doing when you order a retake?

And of course the frustration also lies in the fact that if presenting the game is more important than refereeing it, then it implies that everything we're actually taught is incorrect if you have any ambition.

He didn't try to play the ball. He watched it, turned as it connected with Benteke's and it hit the back of the net.

I think Andy Gray would call it a beauty.
Well, at least one person finally answered. The way I see it, he started to approach it then realised that if he challenged the ball he was going to lose teeth. I still feel like anywhere else on the field, that would have been a foul.

Good discussion btw, but I would say you ARE saying an attacker can't play high ball in the area, because a defender would always want to challenge an attacker in the pen area.

Same applies to a GK - when they come flying out to claim a high ball, it could nearly always be construed as literally playing in a a dangerous manner but GK is hardly ever penalised for this offence - hence my "it doesn't feel right" comment.

That's not saying he can't play the high ball - it's just saying that if he's in heavy traffic, that's going to limit his options. And that's no different to any other area with high traffic. But plenty of high kicks can occur in the PA because the attacker has found space and nobody is challenging him - but he shouldn't be allowed to play in a manner that's so dangerous that nobody wants to challenge him lest they wind up seriously injured, penalty area or not. The fact that the penalty area is more likely to be crowded doesn't negate the player's responsibility to play in a safe manner.

It's a bit like when players complain about being penalised when they go for a lunging dangerous slide tackle, they sometimes respond saying that they're allowed to play the ball and they had no other way of reaching him. But under the laws, if you can't challenge safely then you don't challenge. You don't suddenly have the right to challenge unsafely because there's no safe way to do it. You just have to find another way of doing it. And if that means you lose an opportunity, then so be it. There's no exemption in the laws for that.

Don't really agree with the GK point, but I feel that there are so many ways they come out that it's more likely to cloud the issue than find common ground :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Haven't seen the Benteke goal .....and I don't think anyone has mentioned this point yet .....?

In the high boot , player cannot put his head in debate isn't it a relevant point who starts their action first ?

if the ball is swung in and the striker decides he's gonna try a bicycle kick then the defender tries to put his head in when the striker is already in motion that's fine .

On the other hand the defender is going for the clearance and the Flying boot comes in its Dangerous.....?

maybe its about quick thinking and acting first ?

Just my observation ......

Just watched it ......goal all day long .....!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Except as fans we also will worry about how the premier league is refereed. We worry about it as referees when aspects of the laws are blatantly ignored, and we worry about it as fans when decisions seem more random than fair.
And of course what happens at that level affects everybody else. Players mob the referee every decision without repercussion, so they'll do the same thing on a Sunday arvo. Players encroach several yards at a penalty without problem, then what the hell are you doing when you order a retake?

And of course the frustration also lies in the fact that if presenting the game is more important than refereeing it, then it implies that everything we're actually taught is incorrect if you have any ambition.

You're looking at the the premier league as a referee not as a fan in an entertaining fast game that has got the world paying Billions to watch it.

The referees still have to apply law correctly. Which they do. They just manage more and use their opinion.

They haven't turned their back on us, when offering us advice they would never dream of saying take what I do onto your game because it wouldn't work.
 
Haven't seen the Benteke goal .....and I don't think anyone has mentioned this point yet .....?

In the high boot , player cannot put his head in debate isn't it a relevant point who starts their action first ?

Not really....maybe in those 50-50 scenarios where the head came down a little and the foot came up a little. But the whole thing is that playing in a manner that's dangerous that's preventing an opponent from challenging safely is a foul. The definition is pretty much the exact opposite of what you're saying :)
 
Back
Top