The Ref Stop

ENG v ESP

Sheffields Finest said:
Firstly he didn’t challenge, secondly, isn’t a player allowed his own space on the pitch, I can’t remember the actual wording!
Click to expand...
You're absolutely right. The player is allowed their own space. That being the keeper. Precisely why it's a foul!

I hope you're not a lawyer because you can't seem to help arguing against yourself!! If you were a defence attorney, you'd be the prosecution's best friend! :D:D
 
Last edited:
The Ref Stop
The AAR made a gesture with both hands as Welbeck was receiving the congrats from his team mate. Certainly seemed a signal of some kind, and would be in keeping with a push on the defender.

Whatever the reason for the free kick I'm certain it wasnt the referee as he looked happy initially.
 
Oh look, I have four pictures. I really fail to see how any referee (even the English ones :) )can't see this as a foul.

1. Welbeck and De Gea looking at the ball and going for it. Welbeck one foot on the 6 yard line, De Gea about 2 yards away.
2. De Gea jumps up on the spot still looking at the ball, hardly any forward movement. Welbeck still moving forward (starting to jump) and now looking at De Gea. Ball still in the air (out of frame).
3. De Gea has control of the ball and looking at it. Welbeck has his back turned and still moving forward.
4. Welbeck is now under De Gea up ending him on his way down.

1536589560687.png
1536589636512.png
1536589717968.png
1536589770656.png
 
one said:
Oh look, I have four pictures. I really fail to see how any referee (even the English ones :) )can't see this as a foul.

1. Welbeck and De Gea looking at the ball and going for it. Welbeck one foot on the 6 yard line, De Gea about 2 yards away.
2. De Gea jumps up on the spot still looking at the ball, hardly any forward movement. Welbeck still moving forward (starting to jump) and now looking at De Gea. Ball still in the air (out of frame).
3. De Gea has control of the ball and looking at it. Welbeck has his back turned and still moving forward.
4. Welbeck is now under De Gea up ending him on his way down.

View attachment 2436
View attachment 2437
View attachment 2438
View attachment 2439
Click to expand...
No slow motion or captions please....!! Not even VAR can use them for anything other than factual stuff. Why? Because they're misleading
 
CapnBloodbeard said:
You're absolutely right. The player is allowed their own space. That being the keeper. Precisely why it's a foul!

I hope you're not a lawyer because you can't seem to help arguing against yourself!! If you were a defence attorney, you'd be the prosecution's best friend! :D:D
Click to expand...
Ma Lord, the defence lawyer is talking rubbish.....surely if he didn’t challenge for the ball how is he guilty of the second degree offence???
 
I don't think this is a foul, but I could be swayed either way. If we could run the incident 10 times, I reckon we'd see 6 or 7 referees bottle it (in the words of Kane) and the remainder allow the goal. However, I don't get how anyone could have a massive opinion on it, because it's just one of those which 'sometimes you get and sometimes you don't'
 
bloovee said:
A goalkeeper cannot be challenged by an opponent when in control of the ball with the hands.

Isn't that conclusive?
Click to expand...

Yes, but an attacker is than more than entitled to challenge for a ball in the air along with the goalkeeper (I’m aware this isn’t the case in the Welbeck scenario)
 
Big Cat said:
I don't think this is a foul, but I could be swayed either way. If we could run the incident 10 times, I reckon we'd see 6 or 7 referees bottle it (in the words of Kane) and the remainder allow the goal. However, I don't get how anyone could have a massive opinion on it, because it's just one of those which 'sometimes you get and sometimes you don't'
Click to expand...
How can you "bottle it" by denying the home team a late equaliser? Stupid comment.
 
I see this sort of challenge at least once in every game in park football. And its mostly between two field players when going for a header. One player goes up and has eyes only for the ball. The opponent, while originally is looking at the ball, jumps into him no longer looking at the ball and has his back turned. It most times up ends the player who is actually going for the ball. It's at least a careless challenges which could cause serious injury. Best case scenario is they do it so not to hurt themselves in the clash. Worst case, they do it to hurt the opponent. I call it every time.
 
If De Gea decides to punch the ball, I don't think this conversation would be happening because this would have left both hands free to break his fall
I've got a feeling that we're not all singing from the same hymn sheet again. I'm inclined to think that higher level officials are coached to afford special protection for players with both feet off the ground as they could fall awkwardly if challenged whilst in the air. For grass roots referees, this may just be another mystic interpretation that's only communicated on a selective basis
 
Big Cat said:
If De Gea decides to punch the ball, I don't think this conversation would be happening because this would have left both hands free to break his fall
I've got a feeling that we're not all singing from the same hymn sheet again. I'm inclined to think that higher level officials are coached to afford special protection for players with both feet off the ground as they could fall awkwardly if challenged whilst in the air. For grass roots referees, this may just be another mystic interpretation that's only communicated on a selective basis
Click to expand...

Because had he punched the ball, he doesn’t have it under control. Here he’s caught it with two hands - he does. There’s a clear difference between the two scenarios
 
alexgr said:
Because had he punched the ball, he doesn’t have it under control. Here he’s caught it with two hands - he does. There’s a clear difference between the two scenarios
Click to expand...
Yes, i get that. However;
I reiterate not having a strong feeling on this, but playing devil's advocate; I'd say he lost control of the ball because the dominant motion was him falling onto Wellbeck when he should have punched. 'All players have a right to their position on the field of play' and so on...
 
Let's sum up the varied arguments here:

1 The "Just bad luck the keeper dropped it" argument. Absolutely correct if he had hit the ball against the ground, the post, a team mate or the referee and then dropped it. But it was against an opponent.

2 The "but there was no challenge and a player is entitled to his position on the field". Again, true. But the attacker here is clearly moving into another player's space, so not just holding his position. And also remember that Intent is not a necessary ingredient for a foul anymore, so even if he did not intend it, he effectively challenged the keeper. If this challenge is considered at least careless, then it's a foul right here. But if not, we carry on to:

3. "was it just an accidental coming together". This might work as an argument. Often two players crash into each other. They have effectively challenged each other and so long as neither challenge is considered the "more serious offence" then it's often a case of play on.

4 But now the trumping argument: the keeper had control of the ball (by touching it with his hands) and therefore could not be challenged in any
way whatsoever. So the forward's challenge (even without intent) is immediately a free kick.

So however you slice it (and I dearly wanted England to score) it's no goal.

How did football get this soft, who voted for this?? It will become tag football next!!!

Have you ever watched football from the fifties and sixties? Players charging keepers (holding the ball too) over the line and into the net? Scoring a goal and often causing serious injury to the player? I would rather see goalkeepers wrapped in cotton wool than go back to those days. I would be all for a "no player can ever so much as even challenge a keeper holding the ball" rule. Oh wait a minute we already have one!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top