The Ref Stop

Arsenal vs Chelsea - Community Shield

Status
Not open for further replies.
i think everyone needs to watch the clip again.....from the instant he played the ball he had only one intention.....to head it back to the GK......

Love the way people are trying to weasel out of the tough decision.......must be really fun running round the pitch trying to avoid any big decisions.......
 
The Ref Stop
Padfoot said:
i think everyone needs to watch the clip again.....from the instant he played the ball he had only one intention.....to head it back to the GK......

Love the way people are trying to weasel out of the tough decision.......must be really fun running round the pitch trying to avoid any big decisions.......
Click to expand...
I'm genuinely baffled how you feel the need to back up every opinion you have with a personal attack on other posters. People have disagree with each other through this thread and have done so perfectly civilly. Yet for some reason, you're the only one that feels the need to call those with a different opinion cowardly?
 
Padfoot said:
From the moment the ball left his boot, he was clearly intending to head back to the GK
Click to expand...

Padfoot said:
i think everyone needs to watch the clip again.....from the instant he played the ball he had only one intention.....to head it back to the GK......
Click to expand...

... and in those two quotes your case falls apart.

Once he has played the ball he decides/intends to head it back to the keeper - that's because he realises he has c@cked up his intended "dink" and so the "head back to keeper" is his best option.

The critical point is is that this (thought process, his intention) happens after he has played the ball (as you state) so his kick was neither deliberately back to the keeper, nor intended to circumvent this law. Play on.
 
Padfoot said:
i think everyone needs to watch the clip again.....from the instant he played the ball he had only one intention.....to head it back to the GK......

Love the way people are trying to weasel out of the tough decision.......must be really fun running round the pitch trying to avoid any big decisions.......
Click to expand...

Don't disagree he know what he was doing - AFTER - he tried to kick it away from his goalkeeper ... this isn't a foul

I think plenty of us on here have had / are having very successful refereeing careers, continually making big decisions where and when necessary - disagree with people if you want - point out where we (including me) are wrong in Law - suggest you just don't do it with the personal attacks
 
RefJef said:
... and in those two quotes your case falls apart.

Once he has played the ball he decides/intends to head it back to the keeper - that's because he realises he has c@cked up his intended "dink" and so the "head back to keeper" is his best option.

The critical point is is that this (thought process, his intention) happens after he has played the ball (as you state) so his kick was neither deliberately back to the keeper, nor intended to circumvent this law. Play on.
Click to expand...

Totally the opposite......

It is obvious from the way in which he looks and moves the instant the ball has left his foot, that he absolutely intended to lift the ball into the air and head it back to the GK......
 
Padfoot said:
Totally the opposite......

It is obvious from the way in which he looks and moves the instant the ball has left his foot, that he absolutely intended to lift the ball into the air and head it back to the GK......
Click to expand...

That's your view, which you are entitled to, but .....

.... as difficult as I know it will be for you to believe, you aren't always right. For me he is definitely trying to lift the ball over Welbeck's head and then run onto it, something that I have seen him do many times before. He just made a mess of it.

And before you suggest otherwise, I'm neither of fan of Chelsea or Madley.

Certainly if I saw a referee penalise this in a game I was observing I would be seriously questioning why he had left his common sense at home.
 
RustyRef said:
That's your view, which you are entitled to, but .....

.... as difficult as I know it will be for you to believe, you aren't always right. For me he is definitely trying to lift the ball over Welbeck's head and then run onto it, something that I have seen him do many times before. He just made a mess of it.

And before you suggest otherwise, I'm neither of fan of Chelsea or Madley.

Certainly if I saw a referee penalise this in a game I was observing I would be seriously questioning why he had left his common sense at home.
Click to expand...

And you would be entirely wrong.
 
It's a no from me. From looking at the clip in my opinion he tried to chip the ball over the attacker, messed it up and panicked.
 
zarathustra said:
It's a no from me. From looking at the clip in my opinion he tried to chip the ball over the attacker, messed it up and panicked.
Click to expand...
I don't think the root idea of this law is that we should have to judge the player's intent here. I think that's just clouding things.
If the attacker is not there, do you still give the same decision?
This is a very interesting debate and points to a flaw in the laws that should be fixed.
 
santa sangria said:
I don't think the root idea of this law is that we should have to judge the player's intent here. I think that's just clouding things.
If the attacker is not there, do you still give the same decision?
This is a very interesting debate and points to a flaw in the laws that should be fixed.
Click to expand...
If the attacker is still there, do we think Luiz does the same thing?
 
GraemeS said:
If the attacker is still there, do we think Luiz does the same thing?
Click to expand...
No, because there would be no reason for him to do so. I honestly dont think we should take intent into consideration here. He's mucked up and circumvented the law to bail himself out. He's achieved what, imo, the law sets out to prevent.
 
James Long said:
No, because there would be no reason for him to do so. I honestly dont think we should take intent into consideration here. He's mucked up and circumvented the law to bail himself out. He's achieved what, imo, the law sets out to prevent.
Click to expand...
But as others have pointed out, the illegal part of circumvention isn't the header back, it's the trick used to get the ball into a position to head back. Unless that flick was intended to allow him to head the ball back at the moment he flicks it, it can't be a foul.

And therefore if, as may people on this thread believe, the intent of the flick was to clear it over the defenders head and it simply went wrong, it's not illegal. We can argue over our interpretation of the intent behind that flick, but if that's what we agree it comes down to, then this incident is entirely down to the opinion of the individual referee,
 
santa sangria said:
I don't think the root idea of this law is that we should have to judge the player's intent here. I think that's just clouding things.
If the attacker is not there, do you still give the same decision?
Click to expand...
uses a deliberate trick to pass the ball (including from a free kick) to the
goalkeeper with the head, chest, knee etc. to circumvent the Law, whether or
not the goalkeeper touches the ball with the hands
Click to expand...
If the attacker isn't there, then he lets it run out for a goal kick. Because the attacker is there, and would've stopped the ball going out, he flicks the ball over the attacker to try and play out from the back, except it's not far enough in front of him to run onto it, so he heads it back to the keeper instead.
 
GraemeS said:
But as others have pointed out, the illegal part of circumvention isn't the header back, it's the trick used to get the ball into a position to head back. Unless that flick was intended to allow him to head the ball back at the moment he flicks it, it can't be a foul.

And therefore if, as may people on this thread believe, the intent of the flick was to clear it over the defenders head and it simply went wrong, it's not illegal. We can argue over our interpretation of the intent behind that flick, but if that's what we agree it comes down to, then this incident is entirely down to the opinion of the individual referee,
Click to expand...
Which if you ask David Elleray, his answer would probably open with if in the opinion of the referee on the day and thats fair enough.
We need to lose the ideas of intent as the word has been removed from the laws. As referees we cannot judge intent - this leaves us open to trickery and being fooled as we are judging an unknown factor. You will truly never know what a players intent is. In some cases its obvious, in others it isnt.
So my thought processes are: Did luiz use a deliberate trick, yes, flicking the ball up into the air I would consider a trick. Did that deliberate trick then allow him to circumvent the passback law. Yes.
So did he or did he not use a deliberate trick to circumvent the law? I have to say yes he did.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top