A&H

WHM v LIV

GraemeS said:
After already assessing from nearby and then waving to play on? He then jogs another 20 yards, turns round and only then blows the whistle for an "injury", coincidentally exactly when Gakpo has started to run for the ball? Yeah I guess that makes it "right in law", but I don't know how you actually justify saying you've stopped it for an injury given the above.
Click to expand...
Same happens with Allison/Kelleher and AT does this, what do you say? I know your answer will be ‘the same’ - but in practice, I severely doubt it.

I know for a fact I am not able to watch Wales’ games impartially, nor Swansea games to any great extent.
 
The Referee Store
GraemeS said:
No. I'm dismissive of opinions that are based on nonsense and are attempting to drag the conversation off topic.

Note that you're not even attempting to discuss the decision to blow the whistle. Or to argue for any possible justification for AT instructing a keeper who isn't claiming to be injured to go down. Or even boring refereeing technicalities like how the justification for stopping doesn't match the restart.

Instead, you're trying to drag the conversation off by over-fixating on irrelevant details. Inventing injuries in a GK who makes no claim to be injured, imagining a premier league striker could somehow be expected to miss an undefended goal with a static ball 12 yards out, and trying to use a lack of MOTD coverage as a reason for why I shouldn't be complaining about this.
Click to expand...
What on Earth have I said that is 'off topic'?

You go and complain as much as you want as a supporter of Liverpool, but as a referee I feel like we're up against the world enough as it is right now that letting hearts rules heads in situations where a referee has used common sense to provide an outcome for which he would have been criticised either way is not necessary.

Should referees be open to criticism when they mess up? Absolutely. Is this a clear case of a referee messing up? Not for me. Am I not entitled to that opinion?

I haven't invented any injury, I said we don't know for sure that he doesn't have a little bit of a knock - he looks uncomfortable to me, but of course he could be feigning that, we just don't know, but you can absolutely not suggest that it is factual to say that Areola has no discomfort or injury at all.

With regards to the justification for stopping matching the restart, if he's stopping for Areola to receive treatment then clearly a dropped ball is the correct restart. Like I say, we have to assume that this is what he's done. Whether that injury is fabrication or not, we don't know for certain, but clearly AT has done what he has done feeling like it is the correct move for the game.

I also can't understand your logic that suggests that in a world where Areola is totally unharmed, he stands and watches Gakpo kick the ball in to an empty net if the whistle doesn't come. If he's not feeling any injury at all then he's going to clock on to what Gakpo is doing and make some attempt to stop him, despite the fact that a goal is probably still the likely outcome.
 
george.g said:
Same happens with Allison/Kelleher and AT does this, what do you say? I know your answer will be ‘the same’ - but in practice, I severely doubt it.

I know for a fact I am not able to watch Wales’ games impartially, nor Swansea games to any great extent.
Click to expand...
In a hypothetical world, you're guessing I will have a different response?

Sure, that's a useful addition to the discussion :rolleyes:
 
RefereeX said:
What on Earth have I said that is 'off topic'?

You go and complain as much as you want as a supporter of Liverpool, but as a referee I feel like we're up against the world enough as it is right now that letting hearts rules heads in situations where a referee has used common sense to provide an outcome for which he would have been criticised either way is not necessary.

Should referees be open to criticism when they mess up? Absolutely. Is this a clear case of a referee messing up? Not for me. Am I not entitled to that opinion?

I haven't invented any injury, I said we don't know for sure that he doesn't have a little bit of a knock - he looks uncomfortable to me, but of course he could be feigning that, we just don't know, but you can absolutely not suggest that it is factual to say that Areola has no discomfort or injury at all.
Click to expand...
We never know for sure any player might not have a little knock. That doesn't mean we randomly stop the game seconds before a player is about to score in an open goal.

As much as we can possibly know AT doesn't think he really has a knock, we do. He's close by and assesses the incident initially, waves play on, moves to the drop zone and then only reacts when the goal is about to be scored. He then tells the player to act injured. None of those are things a referee does if he thinks the GK is incapable of playing on. His entire body language/gestures/actions are all consistent with a ref who is expecting a drop-kick up the field from a perfectly healthy keeper.

RefereeX said:
With regards to the justification for stopping matching the restart, if he's stopping for Areola to receive treatment then clearly a dropped ball is the correct restart. Like I say, we have to assume that this is what he's done. Whether that injury is fabrication or not, we don't know for certain, but clearly AT has done what he has done feeling like it is the correct move for the game.
Click to expand...
OK fine, now you're engaging with the actual discussion. This is a valid restart if he's assessed an injury - but how do you think that can be correct given he's already motioned to play-on, having assessed from much closer?

RefereeX said:
I also can't understand your logic that suggests that in a world where Areola is totally unharmed, he stands and watches Gakpo kick the ball in to an empty net if the whistle doesn't come. If he's not feeling any injury at all then he's going to clock on to what Gakpo is doing and make some attempt to stop him, despite the fact that a goal is probably still the likely outcome.
Click to expand...
This is what I mean by you making up an injury. The most obvious reading of this is that he's assumed he has a FK and has gone to take it. But for some reason, you are choosing to breeze past the obvious and assume there's an injury. Despite zero evidence and the player having to actually be told to go down to make it look like an injury.
 
george.g said:
Same happens with Allison/Kelleher and AT does this, what do you say? I know your answer will be ‘the same’ - but in practice, I severely doubt it.

I know for a fact I am not able to watch Wales’ games impartially, nor Swansea games to any great extent.
Click to expand...

Even though Graeme is a Liverpool fan, I don't think his opinion is being swayed by that. There are some valid points in there and the fact one of our top referees seemingly has made a mistake by playing on then realising a potential problem so blow the whistle to stop potential controversy and then trying to justify it by calling the physios on to sell the decision would annoy any supporter if it was there team.

It probably was not covered by MOTD because the ball didn't go in the net and we had the Klopp/Salah nonsense which overshadowed the fact Liverpool are almost out of the title race.
 
Paul_10 said:
Even though Graeme is a Liverpool fan, I don't think his opinion is being swayed by that. There are some valid points in there and the fact one of our top referees seemingly has made a mistake by playing on then realising a potential problem so blow the whistle to stop potential controversy and then trying to justify it by calling the physios on to sell the decision would annoy any supporter if it was there team.

It probably was not covered by MOTD because the ball didn't go in the net and we had the Klopp/Salah nonsense which overshadowed the fact Liverpool are almost out of the title race.
Click to expand...
I think Liverpool were out of the title race when they drew away against Utd but that's all by the by.

We can all assume the Taylor made a mistake and then realised he would look like he stopped a possible goal so had to invent an injury story that no-one else saw. Anyway, these mistakes happen but it is a shame it's happening to even the best of them at the moment with Oliver also making a high profile mistake in the Spurs Arsenal game yesterday to show that everyone is able to make them.
 
RefereeX said:
What on Earth have I said that is 'off topic'?

You go and complain as much as you want as a supporter of Liverpool, but as a referee I feel like we're up against the world enough as it is right now that letting hearts rules heads in situations where a referee has used common sense to provide an outcome for which he would have been criticised either way is not necessary.

Should referees be open to criticism when they mess up? Absolutely. Is this a clear case of a referee messing up? Not for me. Am I not entitled to that opinion?

I haven't invented any injury, I said we don't know for sure that he doesn't have a little bit of a knock - he looks uncomfortable to me, but of course he could be feigning that, we just don't know, but you can absolutely not suggest that it is factual to say that Areola has no discomfort or injury at all.

With regards to the justification for stopping matching the restart, if he's stopping for Areola to receive treatment then clearly a dropped ball is the correct restart. Like I say, we have to assume that this is what he's done. Whether that injury is fabrication or not, we don't know for certain, but clearly AT has done what he has done feeling like it is the correct move for the game.

I also can't understand your logic that suggests that in a world where Areola is totally unharmed, he stands and watches Gakpo kick the ball in to an empty net if the whistle doesn't come. If he's not feeling any injury at all then he's going to clock on to what Gakpo is doing and make some attempt to stop him, despite the fact that a goal is probably still the likely outcome.
Click to expand...
I think from the eyes of Areola he believes the players are far enough away from him to roll the ball forwards and then waste some time. Sadly for him Gakpo is switched on enough to run back and try and get to the ball before he does. What makes it confusing is that if the keeper thought it was a foul, why did he put the ball almost 20 yards away from where he was potentially fouled? No, he doesn't believe this at all - its just a stupid moment from the keeper and then he gets away with it as the Taylor doesn't want to see a game decided by a daft goal caused by a player having a simpleton moment.
 
GraemeS said:
The GK never takes a single step - not towards the ball and not sideways to makes a save. Unless Gakpo chooses to hit it directly at a static GK who is stood to the side of the goal, that is a open net.
Click to expand...
Have you seen Gakpo's finishing, and Liverpool's as a whole in recent weeks? It was certainly an OGSO, but nowhere near a certain goal.
 
RustyRef said:
Have you seen Gakpo's finishing, and Liverpool's as a whole in recent weeks? It was certainly an OGSO, but nowhere near a certain goal.
Click to expand...
To be fair that is a true statement as I think both Diaz and Nunez are in the bottom 3 across the whole of Europe in their ability to hit the target this season! Gakpo however is quite a reasonable finisher - he just hasn't taken many! 🙃
 
GraemeS said:
We never know for sure any player might not have a little knock. That doesn't mean we randomly stop the game seconds before a player is about to score in an open goal.

As much as we can possibly know AT doesn't think he really has a knock, we do. He's close by and assesses the incident initially, waves play on, moves to the drop zone and then only reacts when the goal is about to be scored. He then tells the player to act injured. None of those are things a referee does if he thinks the GK is incapable of playing on. His entire body language/gestures/actions are all consistent with a ref who is expecting a drop-kick up the field from a perfectly healthy keeper.


OK fine, now you're engaging with the actual discussion. This is a valid restart if he's assessed an injury - but how do you think that can be correct given he's already motioned to play-on, having assessed from much closer?


This is what I mean by you making up an injury. The most obvious reading of this is that he's assumed he has a FK and has gone to take it. But for some reason, you are choosing to breeze past the obvious and assume there's an injury. Despite zero evidence and the player having to actually be told to go down to make it look like an injury.
Click to expand...

I haven't made any assumptions. I haven't made up an injury. Like I said, I'm speaking about actual facts, you're talking about things you're stating as fact that actually aren't categorical facts.

We do not know for sure that Areola doesn't have some sort of injury. Unless you know him personally and he's told you, that is a fact.
We also do not know for sure that the situation, had AT not intervened, would have been a goal. That is a fact.

Why is it that you get to be the decider of what my actual discussion is about? Your suggestion that 'there should be an inquest as to why Liverpool have been denied another goal' was why I got involved in this discussion. It's just an utterly ridiculous thing to say in my opinion. (That's opinion). There is no certain goal denied, and if you're saying that Areola wasn't even slightly injured in your opinion, that's perfectly fair, but then do you not believe he would have reacted if the referee didn't? Or do you think he was just going to stand there and watch Gakpo score? He might have, but we don't know!
 
As others have suggested, it isn't a good look from one of our top referees, he's messed up a bit but not in an incorrect in law way. He's realised that he has accidentally contributed to a nightmare scenario and then does what I think most top level referees would do, find a way out of it that leads to minimal damage, not just on himself but also the game as a whole. As it stands the only people really complaining are Liverpool fans (although I watched it in a West London pub full of Liverpool fans and they generally seemed at accept it would have been an unfair way to score a goal), had it led to a goal most people in football, certainly outside of the refereeing community, would now be bemoaning his lack of common sense.

There's even a valid point to say the advantage didn't accrue. Was that because of an error by the keeper, or was it because he thought, incorrectly, that he had a free kick? Spirit of the game gets talked about, and I don't think the authorities want to see goals scored that way, through a simple misunderstanding.
 
RefereeX said:
I haven't made any assumptions. I haven't made up an injury. Like I said, I'm speaking about actual facts, you're talking about things you're stating as fact that actually aren't categorical facts.

We do not know for sure that Areola doesn't have some sort of injury. Unless you know him personally and he's told you, that is a fact.
Click to expand...
But that's an insane standard of proof? I'm not a doctor - and if I was, and could put Areola into a brilliantly equipped surgery, and carry out days upon days of tests, there's still a possibility that I could be unsure if he's injured or not. To hold that up as the standard required for a referee carrying out a visual assessment for half a second from 20 yards away is ridiculous and not how this works.

We all know what normally happens on a football pitch - referee looks for obvious visual signs of injury and if he decides there is none, the game continues until a player goes down and demands treatment. That didn't happen until AT told the player he was hurt - so by normally footballing expectations, the game should have continued.

RefereeX said:
We also do not know for sure that the situation, had AT not intervened, would have been a goal. That is a fact.

Why is it that you get to be the decider of what my actual discussion is about? Your suggestion that 'there should be an inquest as to why Liverpool have been denied another goal' was why I got involved in this discussion. It's just an utterly ridiculous thing to say in my opinion. (That's opinion). There is no certain goal denied, and if you're saying that Areola wasn't even slightly injured in your opinion, that's perfectly fair, but then do you not believe he would have reacted if the referee didn't? Or do you think he was just going to stand there and watch Gakpo score? He might have, but we don't know!
Click to expand...
OK - but he didn't react. So we have the actual real world, where Areola stood and watched Gakpo run towards the ball and didn't move an inch. And your hypothetical world where he would have somehow made a blinding save from outside the frame of the goal if the whistle hadn't gone. You're making up considerably more than I am here.
 
GraemeS said:
But that's an insane standard of proof? I'm not a doctor - and if I was, and could put Areola into a brilliantly equipped surgery, and carry out days upon days of tests, there's still a possibility that I could be unsure if he's injured or not. To hold that up as the standard required for a referee carrying out a visual assessment for half a second from 20 yards away is ridiculous and not how this works.

We all know what normally happens on a football pitch - referee looks for obvious visual signs of injury and if he decides there is none, the game continues until a player goes down and demands treatment. That didn't happen until AT told the player he was hurt - so by normally footballing expectations, the game should have continued.
Click to expand...
You're responding to a point I'm not discussing regarding the injury. My comment saying that we don't know for definite Areola wasn't even slightly injured was in response to you suggesting AT told him to go to ground to fabricate an injury. AT may have gone over there and Areola say he needed treatment for an injury at which point AT, knowing how it was going to look, could have told him to go to ground to help sell it.
As you say, we aren't doctors, so if the game is stopped and a player asks for treatment, we call for it. That's what I'm saying, not that AT may have stopped the game initially fearing a genuine injury.

GraemeS said:
OK - but he didn't react. So we have the actual real world, where Areola stood and watched Gakpo run towards the ball and didn't move an inch. And your hypothetical world where he would have somehow made a blinding save from outside the frame of the goal if the whistle hadn't gone. You're making up considerably more than I am here.
Click to expand...

I'm not making up a thing, I'm suggesting it's an outrageous statement to say there should be a major inquest in to Liverpool being denied a goal when no goal was denied. I've already agreed there's a very strong possibility of a goal, but we certainly can't go asking for an inquest into a denial of a goal that never happened in the first place. I'm boring the rest of the forum here, so I shall not bother making another reply. I don't expect you to realise how ridiculous your statement was just because I say so, so I will leave you to it.
 
RefereeX said:
You're responding to a point I'm not discussing regarding the injury. My comment saying that we don't know for definite Areola wasn't even slightly injured was in response to you suggesting AT told him to go to ground to fabricate an injury. AT may have gone over there and Areola say he needed treatment for an injury at which point AT, knowing how it was going to look, could have told him to go to ground to help sell it.
As you say, we aren't doctors, so if the game is stopped and a player asks for treatment, we call for it. That's what I'm saying, not that AT may have stopped the game initially fearing a genuine injury.
Click to expand...
Right. If something that didn't happen had instead happened, that might have been an appropriate response. Irrelevant, but yeah, I can't argue with that statement. :rolleyes:

RefereeX said:
I'm not making up a thing, I'm suggesting it's an outrageous statement to say there should me a major inquest in to Liverpool denying a goal when no goal was denied. I've already agreed there's a very strong possibility of a goal, but we certainly can't go asking for an inquest into a denial of a goal that never happened in the first place. I'm boring the rest of the forum here, so I shall not bother making another reply. I don't expect you to realise how ridiculous your statement was just because I say so, so I will leave you to it.
Click to expand...
I'm choosing not to indulge your inflexible thinking. It is very very obvious what is going to happen if the whistle isn't blown, and trying to pretend it isn't obvious is a distraction from the actual question of why it happened in the first place.

But fine, if it really matters to you, I will resolve my statement to "This should result in another major inquest as to why referees have denied Liverpool a legitimate opportunity to score a goal in an essentially unguarded net, and have then encouraged an opponent to invent or exaggerate an injury to hide that fact." A meaningful difference that was worth 3 pages of being stubborn I'm sure everyone will agree.
 
RustyRef said:
As others have suggested, it isn't a good look from one of our top referees, he's messed up a bit but not in an incorrect in law way. He's realised that he has accidentally contributed to a nightmare scenario and then does what I think most top level referees would do, find a way out of it that leads to minimal damage, not just on himself but also the game as a whole. As it stands the only people really complaining are Liverpool fans (although I watched it in a West London pub full of Liverpool fans and they generally seemed at accept it would have been an unfair way to score a goal), had it led to a goal most people in football, certainly outside of the refereeing community, would now be bemoaning his lack of common sense.

There's even a valid point to say the advantage didn't accrue. Was that because of an error by the keeper, or was it because he thought, incorrectly, that he had a free kick? Spirit of the game gets talked about, and I don't think the authorities want to see goals scored that way, through a simple misunderstanding.
Click to expand...
Simple misunderstanding goes along the same lines as being incapable of making the right decision in a particular moment. In this situation the referee has saved a goal keeper from looking like an ass. Why is it his job to do that? We have had plenty of times where this has happened in the past - i.e. a keeper throws the ball out and not knowing that there was a player around had the ball stolen off them and a goal is scored. If this is against the spirit of the game why has the referee in these situations not denied the goal?

I just want the game to be fair - I know its hard as plenty of assumptions can be made and people have different view points on the way the rules are worded but if we are to get away from this the rules need to be clearer as otherwise people will always complain about bias or prejudice or other such nonsense when we already know it's bloody hard to referee a game of football as it is.
 
RustyRef said:
As others have suggested, it isn't a good look from one of our top referees, he's messed up a bit but not in an incorrect in law way. He's realised that he has accidentally contributed to a nightmare scenario and then does what I think most top level referees would do, find a way out of it that leads to minimal damage, not just on himself but also the game as a whole. As it stands the only people really complaining are Liverpool fans (although I watched it in a West London pub full of Liverpool fans and they generally seemed at accept it would have been an unfair way to score a goal), had it led to a goal most people in football, certainly outside of the refereeing community, would now be bemoaning his lack of common sense.

There's even a valid point to say the advantage didn't accrue. Was that because of an error by the keeper, or was it because he thought, incorrectly, that he had a free kick? Spirit of the game gets talked about, and I don't think the authorities want to see goals scored that way, through a simple misunderstanding.
Click to expand...
That’s a great point: “the advantage didn’t accrue.”

I think that is defensible. In retrospect maybe AT could have sold that and a DFK instead. Unusual advantage timing but unusual situation.
 
santa sangria said:
That’s a great point: “the advantage didn’t accrue.”

I think that is defensible. In retrospect maybe AT could have sold that and a DFK instead. Unusual advantage timing but unusual situation.
Click to expand...
If an advantage is played the fouled outfield player decides to pick the ball up for a free kick. Is the free kick given to the fouled player or against the fouled player?
 
Faris said:
If an advantage is played the fouled outfield player decides to pick the ball up for a free kick. Is the free kick given to the fouled player or against the fouled player?
Click to expand...
It’s messy. But you need to take the original free kick. It’s the second worst option;)

I must confess I was a bit advantage happy on Saturday. I had a double advantage at one point and the first was easy but I called it too quick for the second (quick punt) and I pulled it back - even though I’d signalled - as it didn’t accrue. Yes, it didn’t present well but was easy to sell, as we’d had a double foul in quick succession. I’d got a bit over confident after an advantage goal earlier.
 
Kinsleyr said:
Simple misunderstanding goes along the same lines as being incapable of making the right decision in a particular moment. In this situation the referee has saved a goal keeper from looking like an ass. Why is it his job to do that? We have had plenty of times where this has happened in the past - i.e. a keeper throws the ball out and not knowing that there was a player around had the ball stolen off them and a goal is scored. If this is against the spirit of the game why has the referee in these situations not denied the goal?

I just want the game to be fair - I know its hard as plenty of assumptions can be made and people have different view points on the way the rules are worded but if we are to get away from this the rules need to be clearer as otherwise people will always complain about bias or prejudice or other such nonsense when we already know it's bloody hard to referee a game of football as it is.
Click to expand...
Don't think there is any need for "the rules to be clearer" here. Taylor has seen a foul and signalled advantage. Areola hasn't realised that he has given advantage and instead puts the ball down for a free kick. Taylor realised this and hits the whistle to stop what would be a likely goal caused by two mistakes, one his own in not communicating the restart well enough, and the other Areola's for not realising it wasn't a free kick.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top