France vs England

[george.g]

Read a couple of pages of this thread. Gave up reading the rest. A lot of fan comments. Disappointed to see accusations on the referee and referee bashing comments on a referee forum.

I’m agreed, understand it’s frustrating as an England fan, but some of the stuff was just what we strive against in every other thread

 

[Peter Grove]

So we agree he did it to stop him scoring a goal, therefore dogso.

This must be a new consideration for DOGSO (and one that cancels and supercedes all the current ones) - "the referee must believe that the player committing a foul thinks he is trying to prevent a goal being scored."

 

[PinnerPaul]

That doesn’t show the first contact though.

Does that matter? Foul starts outside the area, continues inside, its a pen?

 

[PinnerPaul]

It's not a head injury. More incompetence.

Go have a read of the LOTG, when you find the part that says a referee should only stop play for a head injury, come back to us with the page number.

 

[Jorik0907]

Does that matter? Foul starts outside the area, continues inside, its a pen?

Any foul that is not holding or pushing is considered to be made at first contact

 

[PinnerPaul]

So we agree he did it to stop him scoring a goal, therefore dogso.

Without being rude, I'm astounded you reach that conclusion at your level. When the foul was committed the ball was 10 feet above their heads.

It MIGHT have dropped to Mount, who MIGHT have beaten the defender to the ball, he MIGHT have shot, or headed it and it MIGHT have gone in.

Obvious??????!!!!!

 

[PinnerPaul]

Any foul that is not holding or pushing is considered to be made at first contact

OK, if I've missed that in LOTG, fair enough - could you or someone else show me the relevant passage confirming that?

Thanks

 

[one]

OK, if I've missed that in LOTG, fair enough - could you or someone else show me the relevant passage confirming that?

Thanks

Law 12.3 under Advantage "If a defender starts holding an attacker outside the penalty area and continues holding inside the penalty area, the referee must award a penalty kick."

For other fouls it is commonly accepted and practiced convention the location of foul is first point of contact (I even think i have seen it on VAR review but can't remember when). Also by virtue of the laws specifically singling out holding not anything else, one can infer it does not apply to other fouls.

@Jorik0907 , where did yo get pushing from? As far as i know, pushing is also first contact.

 

[PinnerPaul]

Well done Mr Southgate, when asked to comment on Maguire's criticism of the referee and therefore the referee himself, he politely declined saying " We lost and we need to accept that in the right way and congratulate France"

Well done that man and media and fans should take note!

 

[Jorik0907]

OK, if I've missed that in LOTG, fair enough - could you or someone else show me the relevant passage confirming that?

Thanks

"If a defender starts holding an attacker outside the penalty area and continues holding inside the penalty area, the referee must award a penalty kick."

I've always inferred it from this, otherwise they would have specified 'all fouls' or something akin to that. Might be more text in the laws to further clarify, but it's at least what I've received as guidance

 

[PinnerPaul]

Law 12.3 under Advantage "If a defender starts holding an attacker outside the penalty area and continues holding inside the penalty area, the referee must award a penalty kick."

For other fouls it is commonly accepted and practiced convention the location of foul is first point of contact (I even think i have seen it on VAR review but can't remember when). Also by virtue of the laws specifically singling out holding not anything else, one can infer it does not apply to other fouls.

@Jorik0907 , where did yo get pushing from? As far as i know, pushing is also first contact.

Thanks One. I can see where the assumption comes from in that case. Ignoring the emotive subject of this one, is it, in theory/law, permissable to play advantage as it were for a kick/foul outside the area, and award pen based on subsequent foul contact inside?

 

[Jorik0907]

Law 12.3 under Advantage "If a defender starts holding an attacker outside the penalty area and continues holding inside the penalty area, the referee must award a penalty kick."

For other fouls it is commonly accepted and practiced convention the location of foul is first point of contact (I even think i have seen it on VAR review but can't remember when). Also by virtue of the laws specifically singling out holding not anything else, one can infer it does not apply to other fouls.

@Jorik0907 , where did yo get pushing from? As far as i know, pushing is also first contact.

Yeah, appears I'm wrong. Thought pushing was also similar to holding, but that's in the outdated Dutch version of the laws. Not in the English one, so it's probably been wrongly translated or local guidance. Don't think I've ever had to use the law, luckily enough.

 

[PinnerPaul]

"If a defender starts holding an attacker outside the penalty area and continues holding inside the penalty area, the referee must award a penalty kick."

I've always inferred it from this, otherwise they would have specified 'all fouls' or something akin to that. Might be more text in the laws to further clarify, but it's at least what I've received as guidance

Thanks. Do you have a view on my theoretical question posed above?

 

[santa sangria]

OK, if I've missed that in LOTG, fair enough - could you or someone else show me the relevant passage confirming that?

Thanks

It’s hard to find as it’s law 12 > disciplinary > advantage

Here: https://www.theifab.com/laws/latest/fouls-and-misconduct/#indirect-free-kick

“If a defender starts holding an attacker outside the penalty area and continues holding inside the penalty area, the referee must award a penalty kick.”

 

[Peter Grove]

... is it, in theory/law, permissible to play advantage as it were for a kick/foul outside the area, and award pen based on subsequent foul contact inside?

Yes. The referee can "[allow] play to continue when an offence occurs and the non-offending team will benefit from the advantage," no matter what the offence and where it occurs.

The usual caveats notwithstanding, of course.

 

[one]

Without being rude, I'm astounded you reach that conclusion at your level. When the foul was committed the ball was 10 feet above their heads.

It MIGHT have dropped to Mount, who MIGHT have beaten the defender to the ball, he MIGHT have shot, or headed it and it MIGHT have gone in.

Obvious??????!!!!!

TBH I am reasonably certain it WOULD NOT have dropped to Mount and he WOULD NOT have beaten the goal keeper to the ball. With that in mind and with the benefit of replay (which the referee did have) I would not have cautioned the defender. There is no basis for it in law. He did not interfere or stop a promising attack. I think the referee was pressured into a yellow by the players who were asking for red.

 

[one]

Thanks One. I can see where the assumption comes from in that case. Ignoring the emotive subject of this one, is it, in theory/law, permissable to play advantage as it were for a kick/foul outside the area, and award pen based on subsequent foul contact inside?

Yes.

If I understand @PinnerPaul correctly, your "subsequent foul contact inside" is the continuation of the first foul contact. if so , that is not what advantage was made for. It would be a misuse of the advantage concept to do this. The concept of advantage is to allow 'play' to continue to see if the opponents benefit from 'play'. There is no 'play benefit' here. Only turning a free kick to a penalty. There is a reason the accepted convention never turns a FK to a penalty using the advantage clause.

However if the attacker is still on his feet after the first foul, running chasing with/after the ball with a chance of gaining control then yes advantage can be played.

 

[PinnerPaul]

If I understand @PinnerPaul correctly, your "subsequent foul contact inside" is the continuation of the first foul contact. if so , that is not what advantage was made for. It would be a misuse of the advantage concept to do this. The concept of advantage is to allow 'play' to continue to see if the opponents benefit from 'play'. There is no 'play benefit' here. Only turning a free kick to a penalty. There is a reason the accepted convention never turns a FK to a penalty using the advantage clause.

However if the attacker is still on his feet after the first foul, running chasing with/after the ball with a chance of gaining control then yes advantage can be played.

OK Thanks

 

[Mr Dean]

Wow, what an entertaining match in terms of refereeing decisions. I think the referee fell into the trap of not wanting to give any fouls in or near to the penalty area except for obvious ones - so-called 'safe refereeing'. But this match is proof that this tactic isn't always 'safe'.

The foul on Saka before the first French goal: the referee should be seeing this live like everybody else did. But, since he missed the foul, I see no reason for VAR not to intervene. As per VAR protocol, offences committed by the goalscoring team in the "build-up" to the goal can be reviewed. However, build-up to a goal is not defined which unfortunately leads to inconsistencies. I've come up with my own definition of build-up to a goal:

The period between and including the goal being scored and the last time one of the following occurred:​

• play restarted;
•  the goalscoring team gained possession; or
• the ball ceased to be in a neutral situation (neither team is in an attacking move).

Regarding the Harry Kane possible penalty: again, the referee should be spotting this live. It's obviously a foul; the only question is whether it occurred inside or outside of the penalty area. Unfortunately, there appears to be no camera angle which can conclusively tell us. If this is the reason why VAR did not intervene, they followed the VAR protocol correctly and they also proved that the VAR protocol can be followed for factual decisions. One thing we need is better communication from the VAR room to understand how and why they made the decision.

The Mason Mount possible DOGSO: Again, this should be given live. When I viewed it live, I must confess that I immediately thought red card. However, after reading through this thread, I'm a little less convinced. All DOGSO considerations are satisfied except for:

"likelihood of keeping or gaining control of the ball"​

But surely this consideration doesn't need to be met? Mount didn't want to gain control of the ball. All he wanted to do was head the ball towards the goal and if he did, he would have very good opportunity to score. If the referee thought that Mount wouldn't get to the ball, the yellow card he gave to the defender is unjustifiable.

 

[Big Cat]

As stated, I wasn't that bothered about the game or competition before KO, but events did get my goat a bit. My kids were really upset, so that was hard to take

Another bad night for football officiating and VAR is what it is

England are cursed. So many heroic defeats to recall