A&H

Benteke Goal Yesterday

HoofItYouDonkey

HoofItYouDonkey

RefChat Addict
Level 6 Referee
Brilliant strike, but dangerous play surely, defender pulls out otherwise he would get his head taken off.
Thoughts?
 
The Referee Store
Looked fine to me. Hererer needs to Be braver. He was looking for a soft decision well before the shot.
 
Clearly dangerous play to me. there was no way that defender could head it without serious risk of a boot to the face. very similar to the one disallowed earlier this season.

I do understand the frustration with chalking off 'wonder goals' but a whack in the teeth is a nightmare however it comes about .....
 
We don't half look to deep at things us referee's. Half of a city celebrating a great goal and one man with a whistle is intent on spoiling the party and bringing the attention to himself when the other team can see how great it is.
 
I'm in 2 minds about this. Before seeing the video, I was thinking 'you'd really err on the side of not intervening for this sort of scenario, so it would have to be really, really dangerous or clearly stop an opponent challenging the ball to consider disallowing the goal'

Upon first viewing, I thought that the defender, while he stopped and protected his head, was still far enough away that he was never in danger, that his reaction was a bit too preemptive to say it was dangerous.

Upon rewatching....the defender was going to challenge, could see that the boot was going to come up high as he spun around to the side. I think it's pretty clear that the defender never had a chance of challenging safely - we shouldn't expect defenders to deliberately put themselves at risk of concussion before we blow the whistle for PIADM. He knew he wouldn't have a chance, so he stopped even before the boot was that high.

So was him stopping a reasonable reaction or a bit over the top? IMO, that's the key question here. I can see why some people think the attacker shouldn't be punished for the defender's over-the-top reaction, and I can see why some people think there was never a chance for the defender to play the ball, he knew it and reacted appropriately. Watching the video, I'm inclined to think the latter. Speaking honestly, I don't know if I'd handle it that way in the heat of the moment. It may well depend how brave I'm feeling that day :p

Jacko said:
We don't half look to deep at things us referee's. Half of a city celebrating a great goal and one man with a whistle is intent on spoiling the party and bringing the attention to himself when the other team can see how great it is.
Click to expand...
You're absolutely right Jacko. We should never disallow any goal for any reason :rolleyes:
What a bizarre statement.
 
No I think MO applied law correctly.

The premier league is a global entertainment product where people are being entertained. The decision is an opinon so fine to allow.
 
This is why I love football. We know the LOTG and still cannot agree on most things :D
 
Jacko said:
No I think MO applied law correctly.

The premier league is a global entertainment product where people are being entertained. The decision is an opinon so fine to allow.
Click to expand...

That's why players scream abuse at PGMOL officials and nothing happens.....because it's an entertainment product where the entertainment has overtaken the LOTG.
 
Padfoot said:
That's why players scream abuse at PGMOL officials and nothing happens.....because it's an entertainment product where the entertainment has overtaken the LOTG.
Click to expand...

They don't scream abuse at them. It's emotive, but managed fine.

If it was refereed by robotic referee's it would be boring.
 
Jacko said:
They don't scream abuse at them. It's emotive, but managed fine.

If it was refereed by robotic referee's it would be boring.
Click to expand...

You mean referees that are able to apply the LOTG correctly without having to worry about whether doing so will mean they are unemployed?

Some might see that as a corruption.....the idea that a referee is not free to officiate according to the LOTG because they are paid to ignore certain offences?
 
Jacko said:
They don't scream abuse at them. It's emotive, but managed fine.

.
Click to expand...
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?
 
And if the defender put his arm up to protect his head and the ball hit his arm? No wonder goal "entertainment" to chalk off, so PIADM or penalty?
 
Lol someone kicked the emotive hornets nest!

Guys a reminder; we are a supportive community of referees. The last bastion of hope between the beautiful game and the harsh wilds of ignorance and chaos.

We can discuss issues and situations, but let us keep our responses constructive and friendly. Not just attacking each other.
 
Sad to say, the premier league is refereed as much as an entertainment now as a sport in some areas at times. Sadly you cannot/should not apply all that you see on TV to our level of football. Our top level referees have their instructions from their TV paymasters and they do appear to be differing to ours.

Just my tuppence.
 
Whether or not a player plays in a dangerous manner is in the opinion of the referee. If Michael Oliver saw no foul in it, we can of course second-guess him, but that makes it our opinion, not his. And his is the one that counts on the field of play.

Hope that makes sense...
 
A reminder that the offence is "plays in a dangerous manner" if we're going to take that literally, you could argue any challenge at speed wearing studs is "dangerous"!

I'm with those who say allow the goal, IMHO its looking for an offence to disallow it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top