Graham Poll
- Thread starter JH
- Start date
When I coached and managed I always used to say to my players don't turn your back when you go for a header, as referees will almost always penalise it. Thinking back to this has me thinking about what Austin's intentions where her, why has he turned his back and then jumped backward, why hasn't he gone forward so that he can still see the ball?
That's a clear foul for me, he's jumped into the keeper and any contact once he has done that has to be penalised.
That's a clear foul for me, he's jumped into the keeper and any contact once he has done that has to be penalised.
NorthLondonRef
Active Member
This is where players (such as Lampard and Gerrard in this case) get confused because I don't know about the posters in this thread because I've never seen you referee but when we referee we all allow a certain amount of contact if it's legal and not beyond the limit. For example, a centre forward can back into (within reason), hold off a defender, or have an arm/palm on the defender preventing the defender from having a clean run at the ball, and the forward heads/flicks the ball on and that's deemed as legal. In those scenarios where there is contact, the defenders aren't expecting a freekick and it's typical contact they have day in day out in training. But if the same amount of contact is made on the GK, it's always a free-kick in the GK's favour.
I take James's point earlier that the GK is challenging for the ball with his arms so if he goes to catch the ball, a slight amount of contact can prevent this happening, but I guess this does come down to contact with the GK being looked at differently.
I find it hard to believe anyone will say they allow the same amount of contact on the GK as they do with outfield players. You'll either be allowing goals like the Southampton goal to stand or you'll be blowing up for everything everytime the ball goes in the air. So despite the comments against Poll, I feel like there is a different way referees judge contact on GK's. I reckon you'll get five or six of those at least during a typical non league game/pro game between a defender and forward and at no point would a referee give a freekick or a defender expect a freekick because typically the forward is backing in but the defender is also giving some back trying to get above him and win the header. I guess defenders aren't as fragile as GK's so what looks like more contact when a GK is challenging for the ball, the interpretation is different with a defender because he isn't expecting the FK.
I think there is a fine line though between a GK playing for a foul when there isn't enough contact and an actual foul being made, and the referee I am, I'm the type to fight and say "there wasn't enough contact" if that's what I truly believe rather than trying to sell a decision because it's easy.
Excuse my ramblings and thinking out loud. I often get into discussions in my own head!
I take James's point earlier that the GK is challenging for the ball with his arms so if he goes to catch the ball, a slight amount of contact can prevent this happening, but I guess this does come down to contact with the GK being looked at differently.
I find it hard to believe anyone will say they allow the same amount of contact on the GK as they do with outfield players. You'll either be allowing goals like the Southampton goal to stand or you'll be blowing up for everything everytime the ball goes in the air. So despite the comments against Poll, I feel like there is a different way referees judge contact on GK's. I reckon you'll get five or six of those at least during a typical non league game/pro game between a defender and forward and at no point would a referee give a freekick or a defender expect a freekick because typically the forward is backing in but the defender is also giving some back trying to get above him and win the header. I guess defenders aren't as fragile as GK's so what looks like more contact when a GK is challenging for the ball, the interpretation is different with a defender because he isn't expecting the FK.
I think there is a fine line though between a GK playing for a foul when there isn't enough contact and an actual foul being made, and the referee I am, I'm the type to fight and say "there wasn't enough contact" if that's what I truly believe rather than trying to sell a decision because it's easy.
Excuse my ramblings and thinking out loud. I often get into discussions in my own head!
NLR, you’re rambling, get your whistle in your mouth and blow for this, it’s a soft foul, simple, next!
Last edited:
PinnerPaul
RefChat Addict
But Mark Hughes said it was a goal so it must have been - also laughably claimed they missed an obvious handball, bemoaning the fact that VAR did not get involved.
Maybe, just maybe Mark, VAR agreed with ref and they were both right!
Ciley Myrus
RefChat Addict
Mark Hughes could kick a ball and opponent harder and further than most the posters on here
Hanging offence? No
Free kick now by lotg? Yes
Hanging offence? No
Free kick now by lotg? Yes
Bullsh1tter as a manager, hope he gets relegated!!!
Ciley Myrus
RefChat Addict
One of the best players I have seen
Hit the hardest shot I have ever seen..... utd v sheff w 1997?
Hit the hardest shot I have ever seen..... utd v sheff w 1997?
Not for me, saw him play a few times and he never stood out in a decent Utd team around his prime. Eric, Scholes, Beckham even Chocy McClair were always more of a threat in the games i saw... Mardy player and now mardy manager from what I see, couldn't run a bath!!
Last edited:
Peter Grove
RefChat Addict
In the case of many, if not most such challenges, the law says it here:
Usually the keeper is in the process of catching the ball when these challenges occur. Once the keeper makes contact with the ball with the hands or arms, they cannot then be challenged without it being an offence. Don't forget why this law was introduced - it used to be considered acceptable for players to 'bundle' goalkeepers over the line if they had the ball in their hands, which posed an injury risk. With apologies to any Bolton Wanderers fans, a classic example of this practice was Nat Lofthouse's second goal in the 1958 FA Cup final, as shown in the video below (at 1m34s into the clip).
PinnerPaul
RefChat Addict
To follow up that nonsense, he then actually said 'I don't know what the process is'!!!!!! Amazing then that he actually criticises 'the man in a darkened room' - another little dig at the officials as you would expect - and then admits he doesn't actually know if VAR checked or not!
As an "old git", I remember that there was a part of Law XII (as it was in those days) which refer to challenges on a goal keeper in their own goal area. It effectively barred contact with them, but the side affect was you could "fairly charge a goalkeeper who had control of the ball outside his goal area". I have been trying to find the wording on GOOGLE, without look. The removal of this was when then did a re-write of the LOTG 15-20 years ago.
So Graham Poll was remembering when he quit FIFA refereeing (2006) - and is now out of date.
Where's @Peter Grove when you need him?
Alas, we don't even test referees each year to ensure they are up to date with revisions in the LotG. What chance do we have with pundits - even when that pundit is an ex-referee?
I thought current PL referees go to PL clubs in pre-season to go over the new law changes. That was mentioned in Poll's autobiography funny enough, Chelsea under Jose Mourinho specifically invited him for that purpose apparently.
Not that it detracts from your point though.
I still find this aspect of law difficult. I agree that the Austin challenge is a foul for reasons already mentioned. However, with respect to an alternative scenario, I awarded a goal earlier this season, which on reflection I should have disallowed according to the latest wording. A keeper came to catch the ball, fumbled it twice (not because of any pressure applied by an opponent), and on the second occasion an attacker made enough contact to poke the ball into the net. It is hard to reconcile the laws' definition of control for goalkeepers (merely touching the ball with the hand/arm) with that of any logical person's understanding. Don't get me wrong, I concur that you shouldn't be allowed to barge a keeper over the line, kick it from the hand when he/she is unequivocally in possession of it, or disrupt the release of the ball.
Another thought experiment about keepers that occurred to me the other day when watching a match: if a keeper catches the ball and in his hurry to begin a counterattack stumbles and collides with an innocently retreating attacker in the area, is there any reason that a penalty is not the right decision? I fancy 99% of referees would give the defending team a DFK, though.
NorthLondonRef
Active Member
I struggle to see what part of any law suggests you should have disallowed the goal.
If a keeper fumbles or drops a ball, it's fair game for an attacker to poke the ball into the net. Unless I've misunderstood you're post, you don't disallow goals in the above scenario.
Remember Moyes spouting that if it hits a players hand (even brushes) and he gains an advantage from it then it has to be called Handball! 
I used to get that thrown at me in games too!! Who educated these people?
I used to get that thrown at me in games too!! Who educated these people?Remember Moyes spouting that if it hits a players hand (even brushes) and he gains an advantage from it then it has to be called Handball!
Pet hate of mine, not giving handball and someone shouts at you 'but he's gained an advantage from it!'. So?