Yes. I find it hard to believe the ball shot off toward the corner flag like that without it being propelled by the hand.In the build-up to the goal?
Yes. I find it hard to believe the ball shot off toward the corner flag like that without it being propelled by the hand.In the build-up to the goal?
And when the fourth official explained why it wasn't a caution was he any less ballistic? "Whose stupid idea was that?" But you'd think people paid to commentate could have spent an hour during the summer looking at the changes - if only so they could sound like experts rather than idiots.
What was Walton doing? Does he not have a feed to the commentary box?
Yes. I find it hard to believe the ball shot off toward the corner flag like that without it being propelled by the hand.
They’re irrelevant because whether or not Taylor wants to issue a yellow card, red card or give the player a hug and gift him a unicorn he is obliged to follow the laws of the game. What ‘fans want’ is irrelevant. In Europe, he’d probably caution him for a ‘lack of respect for the game’ but that just doesn’t happen in the UK. And Moyes going ballistic didn’t happen until after the restart and lack of a caution...
Well I raised months ago what "immediately" meant. If it means only from scoring or an assist, why use an imprecise word like "immediately"? (That's not a question needing any answer other than "IFAB".)I suspect they did have an angle either way (remember that broadcast pictures don't show all that the VAR has) but the time that elapses prior to the goal would discount any offence - like the equaliser Chelsea got v Palace a few weeks back. Not immediately leading to a chance.
And when the fourth official explained why it wasn't a caution was he any less ballistic? "Whose stupid idea was that?" But you'd think people paid to commentate could have spent an hour during the summer looking at the changes - if only so they could sound like experts rather than idiots.
What was Walton doing? Does he not have a feed to the commentary box?
I think it's been clarified this season that 'immediately' means either the person who puts the ball into the net or the person who assists as long as there's no new phase of play (ie. if it's accidental handball on the halfway line and then someone takes it down the line and crosses to score that's fine - if it's accidental handball in controlling a diagonal pass and then crossed in, it would be ruled out).Well I raised months ago what "immediately" meant. If it means only from scoring or an assist, why use an imprecise word like "immediately"? (That's not a question needing any answer other than "IFAB".)
But it seems fairly obvious from the "clarification" to the change that if it was handball, even accidental, it should have been ruled out - unless the clarification is already null and void.
“If an attacking player accidentally touches the ball with their hand/arm and the ball then goes to another attacking player and the attacking team immediately scores, this is a handball offence; it is not an offence if, after an accidental handball, the ball travels some distance (pass or dribble) and/or there are several passes before the goal or goal-scoring opportunity”.
I said three months ago that this clarification needs clarification:
What exactly is a dribble? Can you dribble without an opponent? How close to the ball does the player need to be?
“Immediately”? How long is that?
How far is “some distance”?
How many is “several”? Three passes good, four passes bad?
“and/or”? Seriously? It can't be both.
But that's all irrelevant. Taylor would be wrong in law to caution. It's a stupid law and I despise it but that cannot be a caution. And I disagree, it's a good advantage - none of the WHU players wanted him to go back after the attack was fizzled out.
Sorry, but that just isn't right. The change in law says that if is a foul worthy of a caution (an offence for which you would have issued a caution) and you play advantage, or allow a quick FK, you don't caution (if the cautionable offence was SPA). Cynical and designed to stop an attack does not "reckless" make, it makes SPA.If the foul by itself would be deemed worthy of a caution, you are still well within rights to caution even if an advantage is played. This was a reckless foul - clearly cynical and designed to stop an attack. It's worthy of a caution in and of itself, and Taylor was wrong (IMHO) to not sanction it.
It was to make it consistent with DOGSO downgrades.Sorry, but that just isn't right. The change in law says that if is a foul worthy of a caution (an offence for which you would have issued a caution) and you play advantage, or allow a quick FK, you don't caution (if the cautionable offence was SPA). Cynical and designed to stop an attack does not "reckless" make, it makes SPA.
It seems only IFAB thought this was a good idea - who complained about the law as it was? - but not liking the law does not mean coming up with reasons to avoid it.
What if the cautionable offence which you were going to caution for but played advantage was not SPA?you don't caution (if the cautionable offence was SPA).
Yeah, this is contradictory. If it's reckless then great, go back and book him. But if your "justification" for calling it reckless is that it's cynical and stops an attack, then it actually doesn't qualify as such.If the foul by itself would be deemed worthy of a caution, you are still well within rights to caution even if an advantage is played. This was a reckless foul - clearly cynical and designed to stop an attack. It's worthy of a caution in and of itself, and Taylor was wrong (IMHO) to not sanction it.
This really isn't all that complicated. If you play advantage you cannot go back and caution for SPA unless you are willing to say that the challenge was reckless. That might work if the was, for example, a trip or a lunge, but there's no way you'd get away with that if it was something like a shirt pull.
I had it in a game recently where a long ball was played forward and, knowing he couldn't get it, tried to punch it away. He got it wrong though and it went through to an attacker on the left wing who failed to beat the keeper one on one. The attacking team went ballistic saying it should be a red, but there was no way it would have been DOGSO due to lack of control and wide angle, so instead of cautioning for SPA I did nothing, to which they went even more ballistic. Took a bit of explaining it is fair to say but the law is clear there cannot be a caution in that situation.
Yeah, this is contradictory. If it's reckless then great, go back and book him. But if your "justification" for calling it reckless is that it's cynical and stops an attack, then it actually doesn't qualify as such.
It's not contradictory at all. An intentional foul can absolutely be deemed as unsporting behavior if it's blatant enough. And I have no problem at all saying that a shirt pull that is so obvious that someone can see it from the parking lot is unsporting behavior (and it is reckless, as a shirt pull like that is done "with disregard to the danger to, or consequences for, an opponent" as stated in the Laws).
I'm sorry but how is a shirt pull of any kind anywhere on the pitch done either with disregard to the dangers to an opponent or disregard for consequences caused by their actions? You'd only manage to shoehorn a shirt pull into either or those if the shirt ended up around his neck!