Man City vs Everton (CO Cup)

[frank_ref]

I'm totally with everyone - even though a Toffee - who says there's no way the AR can give it, and in the grand scheme of things - the way the two teams played, the decisions that went against City - it's all fine 'n' dandy. City deserved it. It's not that big a deal. And the Everton defenders shouldn't have switched off (though I don't think that would have made a difference).

The things I don't like: 1. Martinez's moaning. It's a bitter pill to swallow, I'm sure, but being a bit more philosophical about it would have gone down better with me. 2. The ref's apparent arrogance. That's a real dickish thing to say to a defender after his team has just conceded a dubious goal. I'd want to be showing a bit more humanity in that situation.

The only possible thing I can think that could have been different would be for the ref to have seen how much grass was on show between the ball and the line and use his judgment to call it. Obviously we can't tell for sure whether the ball's in or out unless we're in line - but when the ball's on the ground there's always the same amount of green to see. If I see that much, I generally take a punt and call it out. Though, fortunately, it's rarely in a case where a goal is scored.

All the above, of course, is immaterial if the ref wasn't in a good position to see it.

Imagine if refs could talk to the press after the game... "Wayne called me a f** C***, then after the second goal he said f*** o** to my assistant.

I would hope refs would be red carding for a c-word directed straight at them. I can't imagine not giving one for that.

 

[McTavish]

The things I don't like. 2. The ref's apparent arrogance. That's a real dickish thing to say to a defender after his team has just conceded a dubious goal. I'd want to be showing a bit more humanity in that situation..

So to sum up, player says " you're a useless referee,"and ref says, "and you're a useless defender", and it is the ref who is "arrogant" and "dickish"?

 

[deusex]

What does Jagielka expect the referee to do? If the flag doesn't go up it doesn't go up.
There literally is no logical thing you can argue with the referee over in this incident.

 

[jofusref]

What does Jagielka expect the referee to do? If the flag doesn't go up it doesn't go up.
There literally is no logical thing you can argue with the referee over in this incident.

logical and players dont match

 

[bloovee]

Applying that to corner kicks and the Noise is ever more vociferous!

Most think ball has to be at least half in the quadrant!

That's because until a few years ago "in the area" meant that the base of the ball had to be on the line (or even that the whole of the ball had to be within the line). It's a modern idea (and probably wrong) that the "ball out of play" definition has any relevance to corners and goal kicks. Why "The ball must be placed inside the corner arc" should suddenly not be taken at face value is one of those things that means the Noise may be right. (If anyone wants to revive the argument that the keeper can touch the ball outside his area if the ball is overhanging the penalty area line, see me - or better see diagram 4 on page 82 of the LOTG.) Actually, if you look at the less than helpful diagram on page 31 you could argue that Sterling's cross was well in!

 

[PinnerPaul]

That's because until a few years ago "in the area" meant that the base of the ball had to be on the line (or even that the whole of the ball had to be within the line). It's a modern idea (and probably wrong) that the "ball out of play" definition has any relevance to corners and goal kicks. Why "The ball must be placed inside the corner arc" should suddenly not be taken at face value is one of those things that means the Noise may be right. (If anyone wants to revive the argument that the keeper can touch the ball outside his area if the ball is overhanging the penalty area line, see me - or better see diagram 4 on page 82 of the LOTG.) Actually, if you look at the less than helpful diagram on page 31 you could argue that Sterling's cross was well in!

Except that there are diagrams in LOTG that specifically show ball just touching quadrant and stating that is deemed to be "inside"

To me touching the line is far easier to define than "inside", so I'm happy with law here!

 

[Grug]

All markings are part of the area in which they enclose. If they ball is overhanging the arc, its inside the arc. If the ball is overhanging the penalty area, it is in the penalty area.

 

[Peter Grove]

That's because until a few years ago "in the area" meant that the base of the ball had to be on the line (or even that the whole of the ball had to be within the line). It's a modern idea (and probably wrong) that the "ball out of play" definition has any relevance to corners and goal kicks. Why "The ball must be placed inside the corner arc" should suddenly not be taken at face value is one of those things that means the Noise may be right. (If anyone wants to revive the argument that the keeper can touch the ball outside his area if the ball is overhanging the penalty area line, see me - or better see diagram 4 on page 82 of the LOTG.) Actually, if you look at the less than helpful diagram on page 31 you could argue that Sterling's cross was well in!

I'm not sure what your definition of "a modern idea" is, but the idea that the same principles apply to the inside areas of the field as to the outer lines dates back to 1950. In the minutes of the IFAB Annual Meeting held at the Bulkeley Arms Hotel, Beaumaris, Wales on Saturday 10th June of that year, you can find the following:

The following enquiry was submitted by the Fédération Internationale de Football Association :

"Does the width of the lines limiting the inside areas of the field of play form part of these areas, or on the contrary, is the width of the lines to be excluded therefrom?"

The Board decided:

"The space within the inside areas of the field of play include [sic] the width of the lines making these areas. "

 

[bloovee]

(edited for page refs to 2015 LOTG)

Here we go.... this should really be in the laws section but...

The diagram on p.138 is ridiculous, as we're discussing the point at which correct becomes incorrect, and that diagram is no help at all (except to say that it's definitely ok for the base of the ball to be on the line and that the edge of the ball can be over the line).

The quote from 1950 doesn't address this issue at all. The issue is whether the "out of the field of play" (whole of the ball) rule applies to every mark on the pitch. E.g. if the diagram is suggesting that the base of the ball has to be within the corner arc, then it's against the rules to have the base of the ball outside the arc even if part of the ball is overhanging. Would you allow a penalty if the ball was not "on" the spot?

Grug's comment about the penalty area has I think only one instance where it's relevant - where can the keeper touch the ball? After some in the old RA forum said they were being instructed on courses that so long as the ball was overhanging the penalty area line the GK could touch it (and top EPL refs were saying different things) I raised the issue with FIFA ten years ago, and IFAB then issued the diagram on p.90. "Check that the goalkeeper does not touch the ball with his hands outside the penalty area" has always seemed clear to me - it's the position of the hand that counts but even that diagram and wording didn't convince everyone. Even Keith Hackett couldn't make his mind up in "You are the ref"! (If this needs elaboration, someone start a thread in the laws section!) Four years ago I did suggest to FIFA that the wording should be clarified, viz. "The assistant referees must take a position in line with the edge of the penalty area and check that the goalkeeper does not use his hands outside the penalty area to touch the ball." Maybe that could be in the new revision.

 

[AlexF]

One small request... when you're mentioning pages in the Laws... can you list what revision you refer to?

I mostly ask because none of the page numbers list seem to match up with the two editions I've looked at this morning...

 

[bloovee]

One small request... when you're mentioning pages in the Laws... can you list what revision you refer to?

I mostly ask because none of the page numbers list seem to match up with the two editions I've looked at this morning...

I've changed the post above to 2015/16 LOTG page numbers.