A&H

Liv v Utd

QuaverRef said:
This isn't difficult. I stated it was correct being a foul but my question was purely asking what VVD could have done differently. I'm only saying that his eyes were on the ball to show that he was going for the ball, not the man. and again, as above, I never suggested this was a consideration for the foul not be given, it's simply a question about what an attacking player should do in this scenario
Click to expand...
Not jump into the opposing goalkeeper, causing them to lose control of the ball.
 
The Referee Store
Not trying to go off topic but I had a game a while back where gk was on his knees scrabbling to try to control the ball after a low shot. His hands were about 2 foot off the ground and he was was effectively bouncing it between his hands and the ground. Attacker came in and toe poked it into the goal.

I awarded the goal as he really had never been in control (Not held at any point) Genuine question - was I wrong?
 
socal lurker said:
I believe the language about touching was added to be clear about the odd cases—there was a afamous case where the GK was holding the ball on top of one hand, and the attacker headed the ball out of his hand with no cal. In typical IFAB fashion, language was added rather than thinking through the totality of the language.
Click to expand...
Robbie Fowler (is the one I remember)
The addition of the second clause (in the sentence) for such purposes, adds support to the argument @one was asserting earlier in the thread
 
I really don't get the debate on this one. I can understand Souness and the other numpties saying it isn't a foul, but not how referees can look at this with the benefit of slow motion replays and say no foul. Law is crystal clear that a keeper cannot be challenged if he is control of the ball, and clearly defines one aspect of control as the ball touching his arms or hands. There's no doubt that he was touching the ball when Van Dyke jumped into him, and even an argument to say he had two hands on it, so it can only be a foul.

I can understand not seeing it real time, but not after seeing replays and VAR was always going to overrule that, the fact they did it so quickly shows how obviously wrong the initial decision was.
 
How many players, managers, pundits & fans would expect a goal to be given if after making a save, the GK has the ball between the ground and say... a couple of fingers tips... and an attacker pokes the ball into the net?
 
socal lurker said:
I believe the language about touching was added to be clear about the odd cases
Click to expand...

Covers sensible cases as well though;

When a keeper is kicking to release the ball, or throwing the ball, he is controlling it with one hand.

Sometimes it is better for a keeper to jump to reach for a ball with one hand than it is with two, for more distance.

I also expect, it was put in because we had referees trying to rules lawyer it and say "well, it wasn't both hands so it's no foul" or "Oh well he only had a few fingers on it", as usual, so this completely shuts down that type of referee and makes it clear what is expected of them.
 
RobOda said:
Covers sensible cases as well though;

When a keeper is kicking to release the ball, or throwing the ball, he is controlling it with one hand.

Sometimes it is better for a keeper to jump to reach for a ball with one hand than it is with two, for more distance.

I also expect, it was put in because we had referees trying to rules lawyer it and say "well, it wasn't both hands so it's no foul" or "Oh well he only had a few fingers on it", as usual, so this completely shuts down that type of referee and makes it clear what is expected of them.
Click to expand...
Then any intelligent body would remove the clause, "The ball is between the hands or between the hand and any surface (e.g. ground, own body)"
Then this debate wouldn't exist
 
Yeah - he's right. The law is potentially confusing because that line "The ball is between the hands or between the hand and any surface (e.g. ground, own body)" is extraneous. It just muddies things.

Why bother talking about control at all. The law could be much simpler.

>It is an offence to challenge the goalkeeper when she is touching the ball with any part of the hand or arm.

That would be enough, no?
 
Grayson said:
BBC: Manchester United charged by FA for player conduct in Liverpool defeat
Click to expand...

Good but I still wish everyone crowding was given a visible yellow on the day and a red for any OffInAbus.
The team knows that a VAR review can look at offences by the attack in the build up to a goal. All that is required is for Maguire to calmly confirm with the ref that it is being undertaken. No need for any of it. They don't crowd and berate their teammate that messed up the clearance so why do it to a ref
 
I'd like to have seen Henderson cautioned for at least one of the two clear examples of dissent that he showed during that match. One of them clearly showed him saying "that's bullshit" to Pawson after he'd had a free kick awarded against him. The other was him gobbing off at the nearside assistant.
 
afronaut81 said:
Not trying to go off topic but I had a game a while back where gk was on his knees scrabbling to try to control the ball after a low shot. His hands were about 2 foot off the ground and he was was effectively bouncing it between his hands and the ground. Attacker came in and toe poked it into the goal.

I awarded the goal as he really had never been in control (Not held at any point) Genuine question - was I wrong?
Click to expand...

My gut would have said that he was still "in control" If he'd been stood up then perhaps not but personally, I'd have disallowed the goal and given the FK based on the picture you paint. :)
 
Kes said:
. The other was him gobbing off at the nearside assistant.
Click to expand...

Not saying this is what happened as I didn’t watch the game, but players running over to a AR and mouthing off is such a pet peeve. Could be telling the lino a brilliant recipe for cupcakes, it’ll always get a yellow from me.
 
afronaut81 said:
Good but I still wish everyone crowding was given a visible yellow on the day and a red for any OffInAbus.
The team knows that a VAR review can look at offences by the attack in the build up to a goal. All that is required is for Maguire to calmly confirm with the ref that it is being undertaken. No need for any of it. They don't crowd and berate their teammate that messed up the clearance so why do it to a ref
Click to expand...
So if the team know there will be a VAR review - was the 'crowding' aimed at trying to influence VAR?
Does the VAR see the 'crowding' before the review (I would suspect they do)?
 
afronaut81 said:
I think you're crediting them with too much intelligence ;). They were just reacting in a very ugly fashion
Click to expand...

Yes, but . . . I do think the existence of VAR can encourage teams to create delays to be sure there is time for a review (which should not matter--the VAR should be telling the R that there is a review and not to permit a restart). Players are going to think their actions are going to influence the VAR, regardless of whether they do.
 
socal lurker said:
Yes, but . . . I do think the existence of VAR can encourage teams to create delays to be sure there is time for a review (which should not matter--the VAR should be telling the R that there is a review and not to permit a restart). Players are going to think their actions are going to influence the VAR, regardless of whether they do.
Click to expand...
Yes, right now players can "appeal" to the VAR (unlimited times) by crowding the referee. In the same Liverpool vs Man Utd match, Maguire was pulling Van Dijk's shirt in his own penalty area. Van Dijk only appealed for a corner kick. I feel that if the Liverpool players crowded the referee appealing for a penalty kick, a VAR check would've been launched. And, I believe the result would've been a penalty (the shirt pull was blatant).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top