Think you are in the minority here, it looks like a clear penalty to me. Agree that it wouldn't be being discussed had it not been given, apart from it is the red card that has led to the discussion rather than the penalty itself.
Chelsea (W) vs Arsenal (W)
- Thread starter Rayray44x
- Start date
Donate to RefChat
Help keep RefChat running, any donation would be appreciated
Runner Ref
RefChat Addict
In the same way you’re in the minority on the Arsenal incident, yet you still keep pedalling nonsense as to why MO was correct.
I’d describe this another ‘not what football expects’ but that phrase has gone rather quite this weekend.
Sorry "El Referee" (if you know you know)
Runner Ref
RefChat Addict
Eh?
Well if someone else making absolutely identical, word for word, posts on another platform isn't you I apologise. But I'll be claiming the lottery bonus that I haven't won.
one
RefChat Addict
Back to the matter at hand.
@Runner Ref I understand your argument of getting the ball and making contact.
From theory (lotg) point of view, all that matters is that if contact was careless and nothing to do with ball. However most referees do consider ball contact and it is a consideration in most practical guidelines. Where I think you are on the wrong side of is that getting the ball seldom changes a decision from foul to no foul, in opposed to your thinking of it often changes it.
To be clear, the OP is an absolute no doubt foul if there was no touch on the ball for me. The contact on the ball is not sufficient enough to tip the balance from careless to not careless.
@Runner Ref I understand your argument of getting the ball and making contact.
From theory (lotg) point of view, all that matters is that if contact was careless and nothing to do with ball. However most referees do consider ball contact and it is a consideration in most practical guidelines. Where I think you are on the wrong side of is that getting the ball seldom changes a decision from foul to no foul, in opposed to your thinking of it often changes it.
To be clear, the OP is an absolute no doubt foul if there was no touch on the ball for me. The contact on the ball is not sufficient enough to tip the balance from careless to not careless.
Peter Grove
RefChat Addict
No, it doesn't come down to whether contact with the ball is made first. It comes down to whether the referee judges that the trip, which you stipulate to, was careless (I think we can discount reckless or excessive force).
Getting the ball first but carelessly tripping the player as well, is still a foul.
Peter Grove
RefChat Addict
Again, totally disagree. Getting the ball first will never negate an offence. If there's an offence, it's an offence no matter whether the ball is played first or not.
What getting the ball first can do (although I'm not sure to what extent it really should) is tip the judgment of whether a borderline careless challenge actually was careless (and therefore an offence) or not.
Runner Ref
RefChat Addict
I'm fully aware of that. But if someone doesn't gets the ball and gets the player, its fairly likely to be a foul. If someone gets the ball and then the player, it is less likely to be a foul as a general rule. Football is a contact sport.
But its a lot of the usual suspects defending the referee to the hilt, as it was on many other threads. To some, referees can do no wrong. And the irony is, you're doing refereeing a major disservice by doing this. Many people in this thread are saying it was a penalty, despite the ball being won fairly cleanly, are the same people who were adamant than the Doku challenge against Mac Allister wasn't a foul, as winning the ball is at least a consideration. (which is basically what I said here, but then these same people have jumped on it). It was even referenced by the onfield referee and VAR
But I'll await the next slide challenge in which a player wins the ball and the referee doesn't give a free kick. Then we can discuss how the referee was right then as well.
Last edited:
one
RefChat Addict
I strongly dispute this on three fronts
The ball was not won. The attacking player was and would have continued to be in control of the ball had she not been brought down, despite the defending touch.
The challenge on the ball can only ben clean if the attacking player is not 'brought down' (or in other words there is no material contact with oppoenet) Once the attacking player is brought down, it's not a clean tackle anymore.
I also dispute it being fair due to already explained reasons. But I agree that what's fair is a matter of opinion.
Edit; I may have missread your post "fairly cleanly"
Runner Ref
RefChat Addict
So you’re saying any challenge in which the ball is played first but the attacking player is brought down as a result is a foul?I strongly dispute this on three fronts
The ball was not won. The attacking player was and would have continued to be in control of the ball had she not been brought down, despite the defending touch.
The challenge on the ball can only ben clean if the attacking player is not 'brought down' (or in other words there is no material contact with oppoenet) Once the attacking player is brought down, it's not a clean tackle anymore.
I also dispute it being fair due to already explained reasons. But I agree that what's fair is a matter of opinion.
Edit; I may have missread your post "fairly cleanly"
A challenge doesn’t need to be 100% clean for it to not be a foul. I’ll say it again, football is a contact sport.
one
RefChat Addict
Runner Ref
RefChat Addict
ladbroke8745
Censorship
Just came across this on Facebook through the MOTD page.
I must admit, its pages like MOTD, a worldwide known page, run by the BBC is it not (as its a BBC product)?, that hurt refs more.
Whether we make mistakes on the field of play or not is irrelevant in this case.
It's the micro analysing of it..
The fact they're showed it, then showed it slowed down, and even circled it to "zoom in" and highlight the "getting the ball".
Then all you have in the comments section is ref bashing.
I must admit, its pages like MOTD, a worldwide known page, run by the BBC is it not (as its a BBC product)?, that hurt refs more.
Whether we make mistakes on the field of play or not is irrelevant in this case.
It's the micro analysing of it..
The fact they're showed it, then showed it slowed down, and even circled it to "zoom in" and highlight the "getting the ball".
Then all you have in the comments section is ref bashing.
A good clean challenge?!
you're either drunk, high, and/or an Arsenal fan. A miniscule touch of the ball here does not change the fact that it's a very obvious foul.Runner Ref
RefChat Addict
As I said later in the post, I look forward to many free kicks & penalties been awarded for standard run of the mill sliding challenges in which the ball is played.A good clean challenge?!
Also, I’d be very very careful accusing people of being ‘drunk or high’ on the internet. You have no idea on their situation.
Go and look at the Burnley vs Leeds thread for earlier this season. A very similar challenges happens in which the referee doesn’t award a penalty. Plenty of people there agreed with it, due to the ball being played. So no, it’s not just me.
Last edited:
Surely any Referee has to be supported unless it is difficult/impossible to defend and in this penalty incident and without the benefit of close ups & slow motion replays, there is nothing incorrect with the decision Emily makes from the naked eye & from the credible position she is in. In any event, although I can see where you are coming from, the replays show there is some contact with the ball from the defender, but minimal (clear contact would be all or most of the ball, which it isn’t). Most contact is made upon the attackers ankle.
Runner Ref
RefChat Addict
Where is the ankle contact? I am seeing foot to foot contact after foot to ball
Ok fair enough - foot to foot, but my points remain the same.