A&H

Bournemouth vs West Ham

Mooseybaby

Mooseybaby

Retired big bad baldy in all black!
3-3 draw and no shortage of incident.

Begovic won't want to see MOTD highlights/replays tonight after his slip and gifting West Ham a tap in.

Bournemouth's equaliser in added on time was hotly disputed at the time and after the full time whistle. AR's flag went up after Callum Wilson popped up at the far post. Referee Bobby Madley spoke to his assistant then awarded the goal. Cue West Ham complaints. From the replays I have seen, looked a very close call.

Simon Francis very lucky to only receive a yellow card after planting a high boot into the face of a West Ham player after trying to control a high ball from over his shoulder. Endanging the safety of an opponent? For me, absolutely!
 
Last edited:
The Referee Store
You cannot have you foot that high when challenging an opponent for the ball.....it's clearly endangering their safety. Red card all day long.....except in Madley world.

Wilson clearly touched the ball......AR got it 100% correct.......Madley decides he knows better.

Another abject performance from our worst elite level referee.
 
Padfoot said:
You cannot have you foot that high when challenging an opponent for the ball.....it's clearly endangering their safety. Red card all day long.....except in Madley world.
Click to expand...
I agree with a red card here. There's no way that's not endangering the safety of an opponent.
Padfoot said:
Wilson clearly touched the ball......AR got it 100% correct.......Madley decides he knows better.
Click to expand...
Here though, the AR is clearly indicating that he doesn't know if there's been an offside offence or not. He puts the flag straight up in the air and holds it there, not indicating the position of the (potential) offence and waits for the referee to come over so they can discuss it. As far as I can tell, the debate would have been over whether the OPP touched the ball or not and they decided between them that he didn't. There's no way of knowing, unless they come out and tell us (which they won't or apparently aren't allowed to do) who had the final say. The replays I've seen would seem to show they got it wrong and there was a very slight touch off the Bournemouth player.
 
If the AR suspects there's been an offence, but isn't sure, the protocol, at least at level 3/4, is to hold your position with your flag down and buzz the referee. Putting your flag up draws all the attention on you when a quick chat via coms might have led to the goal being given without so much delay and confusion.

That said Wilson has admitted to touching the ball in his post match interviews dedpure clearly indicating he didn't at the time. Obviously I'd expect every player in the country to do the same, doesn't make it any less unsporting though!
 
Nonsense above sorry, you cannot rely on buzzer or comms, actual communication and seem to be communicating is vital
I agree with Grove, my thoughts were AR was not sure if Wildon touched it, in which case he is quite correct to call the ref over to ask. Madley I guess, is not sure, but cannot confirm that he DID touch it, so cannot disallow the goal
Arguement to say even if did not touch it he interfered with the gk?
I bet he is wishing now he just went with the flag end of.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing
 
Just watched it. Linesman says quite clearly. "Give a goal then. Give a goal." So it seems quite clear from that neither can confirm he has touched the ball. I think Madley preceds this with i didnt see him touch it.
I dont think you can give this as offside in a sense of he nearly touched it as hes so close to goal that he doesnt impact any opponent imo.
Whilst the incorrect decision was given I can see how they have arrived at a goal if neother official can confirm the ball was touched.

The high boot in the face is a red card ofdence for me..
 
JamesL said:
Just watched it. Linesman says quite clearly. "Give a goal then. Give a goal." So it seems quite clear from that neither can confirm he has touched the ball. I think Madley preceds this with i didnt see him touch it.
I dont think you can give this as offside in a sense of he nearly touched it as hes so close to goal that he doesnt impact any opponent imo.
Whilst the incorrect decision was given I can see how they have arrived at a goal if neother official can confirm the ball was touched.

The high boot in the face is a red card ofdence for me..
Click to expand...

They got there because the player blatantly lied.... he cheated in telling them that he didn't touch it!!!! It's a shame that they cant retrospectively ban him for conning a match official!!!
 
Not sure they will have taken what wilson said into consideration.

The AR clearly wants to talk to the referee. This is signalled by the holding of the flag in the air. Note he doesnt bring the flag down to indicate near, far or middle. This means I think there might have been an offence, we need to talk and is fairly common practise.
 
Padfoot said:
'Interfering with an opponent'
Click to expand...
Has he interfered with an opponent though?

Its clear the wrong decision was arrived at as the offence is interfered with play.

But for the purposes of interfering woth an opponent debate Lotg states interfering with an opponent is:
preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by
clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision or
• challenging an opponent for the ball or
clearly attempting to play a ball which is close to him when this action
impacts on an opponent or
• making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an
opponent to play the ball

I have only seen it the once on motd so i may need to look at it again but does he commit any of the above criteria, in full. I.e. yes he has tried to play it (well he did but for the purposes of interfering with an opponent) does this action impact an opponent? I dont think it does... i.e. if he doesnt go for it the outcome is the same isnt it?
 
JamesL said:
Has he interfered with an opponent though?

Its clear the wrong decision was arrived at as the offence is interfered with play.

But for the purposes of interfering woth an opponent debate Lotg states interfering with an opponent is:
preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by
clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision or
• challenging an opponent for the ball or
clearly attempting to play a ball which is close to him when this action
impacts on an opponent or
• making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an
opponent to play the ball

I have only seen it the once on motd so i may need to look at it again but does he commit any of the above criteria, in full. I.e. yes he has tried to play it (well he did but for the purposes of interfering with an opponent) does this action impact an opponent? I dont think it does... i.e. if he doesnt go for it the outcome is the same isnt it?
Click to expand...

Clearly challenging the GK.....
 
For me, regardless of the missed handball, this is attempting to play ball which impacts opponent, def the gk and clutching at straws, the other defender. The striker is basically on top of the gk, meaning the gk cannot do what the gk does due to the strikers effort to head/handle the ball. There legs are touching so the impact to the gk is substantial. Brave but ultimatley incorrect judgment of allowing benefit to attacking team for me. IMG_5403.PNG
 
Yeh I can accept interfering with an opponent here. I had only just caught a glimpse on motd.... I am actually supposed to be working :)
 
Let's be clear here, Madley has NOT overruled Long. The fact that he kept the flag straight up rather than pointed for position of restart means he doesn't know if there was a touch. He's asked for advice, and has been given incorrect advice, but that doesn't mean he has been overruled. Whether Wilson touched it or not, he made a clear movement to touch the ball so it has to be interfering with play.

A mess, and a clear 7.9 for both, but those saying Madley overruled Long are way off the mark in my opinion. If an assistant called me over and said he didn't know if the offside player touched it I would be going goal unless I had clearly seen a touch. Unfortunately this one is doubly wrong, as not just was there a touch but it was with his arm.
 
This is where I despise the current marking system. Leaving aside the offside, if the AR has not seen a touch, I dont think its right it can be classed as a major error.
To see it and call it wrong, yes. But if you havd not seen it, its fundamentally wrong to be critical of it. Should the AR have got the offside for impacting on the gk? More yes than no but its that age old dilema of the differing view of looking along line as to looking head on to the incident. It is possible the AR is unsure as to the distance between striker and gk and is discussing this with the referee. Again, its correct for him to do so but if Madley says, thanks but I dont consider the striker to have impacted on the gk, then you should not be marking the AR down.
The AR cannot force referee to do as advised.
 
es1 said:
If the AR suspects there's been an offence, but isn't sure, the protocol, at least at level 3/4, is to hold your position with your flag down and buzz the referee.
Click to expand...
Reportedly, this is changing, with the direction to be that the AR no longer simply holds position, but raises the flag in order to communicate with the referee.

I've not seen this directive personally as yet, but have been told that it's starting to be taught to the FIFA and national level referees here.
 
AlexF said:
Reportedly, this is changing, with the direction to be that the AR no longer simply holds position, but raises the flag in order to communicate with the referee.

I've not seen this directive personally as yet, but have been told that it's starting to be taught to the FIFA and national level referees here.
Click to expand...



Also remeber buzzers are not compulsary and even when used they are merely an aide, not to be relied on, but as extra help. The only way to signal communication to the referee here is to actually go and have the chat.
 
AlexF said:
Reportedly, this is changing, with the direction to be that the AR no longer simply holds position, but raises the flag in order to communicate with the referee.

I've not seen this directive personally as yet, but have been told that it's starting to be taught to the FIFA and national level referees here.
Click to expand...
As far as I can tell this comes down to referees preference. Some referees ask for a flag and some ask to not give a flag.
Would be interesting tk see if there is a directive given here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top