A&H

Bolton vs Bristol City penalty call

Nalbi

Nalbi

Well-Known Member
Level 4 Referee
I'm trying to find a better clip that has multiple replays of the penalty decision. For now this is all what I was able to find. The non-penalty call is on at 0:18

Edit note: now I've attached the right clip and explained it was a non penalty call.
 
Last edited:
The Referee Store
I can't understand what did the ref see in that to give a defensive free kick rather than a penalty!
 
The 0.18 on the clip.
At first it looked like a penalty. After a number of replays it still looked like a penalty. The referee had a poor position and came into the frame after the foul. I can't figure out what he saw. Possibly impeding the progress which is not the case.
 
At 0.18 they're still walking out of the tunnel....oh I see, you changed the video...

From this angle, the keeper has run out, completely missed the ball and cleaned up the attacker. This isn't a case of 'they both ran into each other', it's clearly the keeper's fault.

Referee was also being lazy - we can see at the start that he is inexplicably jogging to the right touch line instead of recognising there's an attack and moving upfield with haste. As such,at the time of the foul he's directly upfield and quite some distance away, when really he should be, I'd say, a bit outside the PA to the left of the arc, giving him a view through the ball to the AR.

I'm guessing, but I can't help but wonder if it's a bit of 'I don't want to give a penalty early in the match' and 'something happened with the keeper. Must have been a foul against the keeper'. Given the laziness evident in this moment, that seems plausible.
of course, with wireless comms, there should be no reason to guess. For all we know the AR could also have had an input.
 
Last edited:
Totally agree that the ref's positioning was poor. And totally agree that the defensive FK was a strange decision. That said, on the basis that the collison occured marginally after they had both missed the ball completely (and wasn't the cause of the striker missing the ball) I'd simply be giving a Goal Kick. Whilst the GK was certainly more vigorous in how he entered the impact, I'm still (just) happy to see that as a coming together
 
1st minutes or the last, keeper has done a "Harold Schumacher" on the attacker, one of the most clear cut fouls you will ever see! :eek:
 
I can only assume that the ref thought the GK had hands on the ball and the attacker barged him dislodging the ball.........nothing else that happens is even close to being a defensive FK.
 
Russell Jones said:
Totally agree that the ref's positioning was poor. And totally agree that the defensive FK was a strange decision. That said, on the basis that the collison occured marginally after they had both missed the ball completely (and wasn't the cause of the striker missing the ball) I'd simply be giving a Goal Kick. Whilst the GK was certainly more vigorous in how he entered the impact, I'm still (just) happy to see that as a coming together
Click to expand...

Come on, he's hit the attacker hard and was never getting the ball. He's completely cleaned him up.
 
The attacker did not miss the ball. He was taken out of the contest before having a chance to get the ball.
 
one said:
The attacker did not miss the ball. He was taken out of the contest before having a chance to get the ball.
Click to expand...
Agreed.
Although missing the ball shouldn't mean a defender gets to smash into him. We make some allowances for the slightly mistimed desperation things in the box that we probably wouldn't on the field and I think the game expects that and that's fine (yeah yeah I know, we 'shouldn't, but at every level is does happen and we know it), but this hit goes well beyond that one.

Given how slowly the ball was moving, the attacker had every chance of getting the ball before it went out.

I really can't see any possible justification for not awarding the PK here.
 
I agree with all that you've posted, it was mere curiosity to see what could he have seen there! But yes the most logical interpretation is that his poor positioning!
 
Just back in civilisation, no, seen results only! I was with a Leeds fan too.. it was a great day till we kicked off!
 
CapnBloodbeard said:
Come on, he's hit the attacker hard and was never getting the ball. He's completely cleaned him up.
Click to expand...
Ok, I can see I'm in a minority of one here. So I'm probably in the wrong!

I would however still strongly contend that the impact between the two players happened marginally AFTER they had both missed the ball. So neither player was prevented from playing the ball by the collision. I'd absolutely accept that the GK entered the collision with far greater force than the attacker .. on that basis you could deem it to be the more serious offence and penalise it. But it's nonetheless true that the attacker also runs into the GK .. just with a lot less force!

I'll reflect on the clear consensus above however and consider whether I cut GKs too much slack!
 
Having watched this game on TV (which gave better angles on replays), I can see why the referee gave the decision the way he did. Both players miss the ball, however the attacker never actually jumps for it. He arrived marginally late, then turned his back on the keeper and got clattered. As he turned his back it made the contact from the keeper look worse, however it seemed to me like they basically just ran into each other. I probably would have been inclined just to give the goal kick though to make life a bit easier
 
QuaverRef said:
Having watched this game on TV (which gave better angles on replays), I can see why the referee gave the decision the way he did. Both players miss the ball, however the attacker never actually jumps for it. He arrived marginally late, then turned his back on the keeper and got clattered. As he turned his back it made the contact from the keeper look worse, however it seemed to me like they basically just ran into each other. I probably would have been inclined just to give the goal kick though to make life a bit easier
Click to expand...
Hoorah, I am not alone in this world :)
 
Russell Jones said:
Ok, I can see I'm in a minority of one here. So I'm probably in the wrong!

I would however still strongly contend that the impact between the two players happened marginally AFTER they had both missed the ball. So neither player was prevented from playing the ball by the collision. I'd absolutely accept that the GK entered the collision with far greater force than the attacker .. on that basis you could deem it to be the more serious offence and penalise it. But it's nonetheless true that the attacker also runs into the GK .. just with a lot less force!

I'll reflect on the clear consensus above however and consider whether I cut GKs too much slack!
Click to expand...
The attacker was running onto the ball - he hadn't missed it. I have every confidence he would easily have regained possession given the ball was moving quite slowly. Although 'likelihood of possession' isn't a prerequisite for a PK for a late hit.
The attacker is running in a straight line for the ball. He never misses the ball - he's still running for it. GK has run across, missed the ball and gotten the attacker.
So no, I don't think you can argue that the attacker has run into the keeper!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top