MCI CRY what was the offence?

[Degnann]

First time I've seen that second angle. Seems like a pretty clear offense to me. He's already attempting to block the ball while it's still in the hand of the goalkeeper.

Im with this

 

[santa sangria]

But is that still apart of the "process of releasing the ball"?

In the end, do we really want attackers to be challenging the GK a few tenths of a second after they release it? Do you want that happening regularly at the grassroots level? No one is really complaining about this. The CP players all accepted the decision as if it was expected.

I don't buy it. It's a very unusual situation. The player does not try to tackle the goalkeeper - I do not see a challenge on the goalkeeper. He intercepts the ball. The referee sold it well by reacting so quick. But it was a very situation to Karius (was it actually Benzema?) and I can it recall similar since.
There is no challenge on the GK. Surely this cannot be a foul.

 

[one]

He doesn't stop him releasing the ball. The ball leaves his hand then the Palace player plays the ball. I do not see the offence here. Did the Palace player start to move his foot when Ederson still had the ball in hand, yes, but that's not an offence, surely.

You are using the poor wording of lotg to get an outcome your way. This type of action was what the laws were for. It has been argued here many times. The action of 'preventing' happened before the ball was released.

On the Halland one, I agree I have seen red for it.

 

[Will_A]

I don't buy it. It's a very unusual situation. The player does not try to tackle the goalkeeper - I do not see a challenge on the goalkeeper. He intercepts the ball. The referee sold it well by reacting so quick. But it was a very situation to Karius (was it actually Benzema?) and I can it recall similar since.
There is no challenge on the GK. Surely this cannot be a foul.

Are you watching the same clip as the rest of us?
How on earth can this not be considered a challenge on the keeper while he’s releasing it?!

 

[Josh the referee]

Are you watching the same clip as the rest of us?
How on earth can this not be considered a challenge on the keeper while he’s releasing it?!

View attachment 5871

If you watch the video on post #11, it looks like he has released the ball before the player attempts to intercept it. Maybe that's just my opinion but interested to see if anyone else sees it the same way?

 

[DAW7]

I think the goal being disallowed is safe refereeing, and judging by the reactions of the players it was what the game expected as well.

Fairplay to the Palace player for chancing it, a couple of steps further out and it probably goes the other way.

Do we really want it going to VAR to rock 3 frames backwards and forwards for 5 minutes to decide whether, on an atomic scale, there was still contact between the keeper and the ball?

 

[Anubis]

Have seen MOTD

fine with goal chalked off

not fine with the missed Haaland red

 

[Will_A]

If you watch the video on post #11, it looks like he has released the ball before the player attempts to intercept it. Maybe that's just my opinion but interested to see if anyone else sees it the same way?

My screenshot is a still from the video on post #11 (that was also my post )
It clear shows the Palace player attempting to block the release before the keeper fully released the ball.

 

[Mooseybaby]

Ayew's forearm into Cancello's face shortly before Palace's 2nd goal wasn't the cleverest, neither was Haaland's high boot!

 

[QuaverRef]

I find it very strange that Haaland got away with any kind of a card for the high foot. No player who’s 6ft should be expecting to be kicked in the side of the head

 

[RustyRef]

The expected decision there is absolutely a disallowed goal. Even if the ball has technically left the keeper's hand by the time it hits the striker's foot, he had already started to dangle his foot in front of him. You have to ask what the striker was trying to do there.

Haaland one is interesting. I don't get the comparison to Nani, that was studs into the chest with force, this had lot less force. I against suspect this would have been red from VAR, if not the referee, last season, but this "high bar" that PGMOL have insisted on has left all of the officials totally confused.

 

[Anubis]

The expected decision there is absolutely a disallowed goal. Even if the ball has technically left the keeper's hand by the time it hits the striker's foot, he had already started to dangle his foot in front of him. You have to ask what the striker was trying to do there.

Haaland one is interesting. I don't get the comparison to Nani, that was studs into the chest with force, this had lot less force. I against suspect this would have been red from VAR, if not the referee, last season, but this "high bar" that PGMOL have insisted on has left all of the officials totally confused.

I would need rewatch so this is not gospel but as I recall, Nanis waa high, but no force.

that aside, PGMOL surely cannot rewrite the fifa law book, VC, SFP, is just that

 

[Josh the referee]

that aside, PGMOL surely cannot rewrite the fifa law book, VC, SFP, is just that

Completely agree, a boot to the back of the head wall always be SFP because of the injury it could cause and consequences for the player.

Anderson hasn't even lowered his head to a place where he is endangering himself, it's at a perfectly normal height to header the ball.

 

[RustyRef]

I wasn't saying it isn't a red card, rather it is different to the Nani challenge.

 

[RustyRef]

This is the Nani one, he was moving at speed, completely off the ground with both feet. Back then eyes were raised at a red, these days it really wouldn't be in the slightest bit surprising. There was also a secondary motion after he first made contact, he knew exactly what he was doing there in my opinion.

Haaland's was no doubt dangerous, but he wasn't lunging and rather just had a raised foot, there really are no comparisons.

 

[Anubis]

I wasn't saying it isn't a red card, rather it is different to the Nani challenge.

Ok I see they are different

both reds! Between ref, ar, 4th and var, someone has to call red card for Haaland. How we get there, not caring.

 

[OIREF!]

Completely agree, a boot to the back of the head wall always be SFP because of the injury it could cause and consequences for the player.

Anderson hasn't even lowered his head to a place where he is endangering himself, it's at a perfectly normal height to header the ball.

I've said before in these forums (maybe more than once) that football is overly tolerant of head high challenges. Were that contact anywhere between the ankle and waist no-one would dispute a red card.