The Ref Stop

Norway Vs England

This wiregate saga...
Surely all cameras are recording at the same time, including the spidercam.
Why dont they just show that image and see if the camera "rocks". Surely any outside knock would make the camera wobble momentarily.
 
The Ref Stop
Spidercam has stabilisers due to the wind, so wouldn't necessarily show as a vibration on the video

We don't even know if VAR checked the video of the balls flight which doesn't help stop a conspiracy narrative.
 
ladbroke8745 said:
I like to compare this Spence incident to what most full backs do when running towards their own corner flag and an attacker chasing them down. They deliberately get in between ball and player and fall over at the slightest of touches to win a cheap free kick. In a lot of cases its just a case of getting something in front and falling down.
How is this different?
Click to expand...

Difference is the punishment is more severe and a defender has every right to shield the ball out of play in that situation. In this situation what is Spence shielding the ball for for one and secondly he exaggerated a movement to towards the right and actually you could argue he fouled the defender by doing that.

I think Micah Richards got the analysis spot on in his demonstration with Shearer, he did not put his body Infront to shield the ball and he was bundled over, the attacker initiated all contact by wrapping his leg around the defender, what is the defender meant to do there?
 
Paul_10 said:
Difference is the punishment is more severe and a defender has every right to shield the ball out of play in that situation. In this situation what is Spence shielding the ball for for one and secondly he exaggerated a movement to towards the right and actually you could argue he fouled the defender by doing that.

I think Micah Richards got the analysis spot on in his demonstration with Shearer, he did not put his body Infront to shield the ball and he was bundled over, the attacker initiated all contact by wrapping his leg around the defender, what is the defender meant to do there?
Click to expand...
Shearer the ex forward v Richards the ex defender identifies/confirms the mixed views shared by many on this forum.
 
"A player may shield the ball by taking a position between an opponent and the ball if the ball is within playing distance and the opponent is not held off with the arms or body. If the ball is within playing distance, the player may be fairly charged by an opponent."

Tbh this is really one where I am comfortable with any decision by the referee. I personally think it's a penalty.
What I'm really not comfortable with is the VAR intervention. It is not a clear and obvious in my opinion, which I appreciate has a bias of being in agreement with the penalty initially awarded.
 
I don't think the movement of Spence's leg across the defender is consistent with the normal movement he would make to shoot, dribble or cross. For that reason I'd lean on no penalty... albeit again I don't necessarily think it's a clear and obvious error... but I don't think FIFA care so much about that.
 
socal lurker said:
Shielding is with the body, not an outstretched leg.
Click to expand...
You can't get your body in the way without moving your legs
RefereeX said:
I don't think the movement of Spence's leg across the defender is consistent with the normal movement he would make to shoot, dribble or cross. For that reason I'd lean on no penalty... albeit again I don't necessarily think it's a clear and obvious error... but I don't think FIFA care so much about that.
Click to expand...
He is in possession of the ball and he is making that movement to remain in front of his opponent and so ensure that he keeps possession.
 
Wilson80 said:
You can't get your body in the way without moving your legs

He is in possession of the ball and he is making that movement to remain in front of his opponent and so ensure that he keeps possession.
Click to expand...
So are we expecting a defender to have to give an unlimited amount of space to an attacker running in front of them with the ball in case that attacker randomly stick a leg out? It just doesn't sit entirely comfortably with me for it to be a penalty.
 
RefereeX said:
So are we expecting a defender to have to give an unlimited amount of space to an attacker running in front of them with the ball in case that attacker randomly stick a leg out? It just doesn't sit entirely comfortably with me for it to be a penalty.
Click to expand...
Not an "unlimited amount of space" no! But this is exactly what happens any number of times a game! If someone is dribbling with the ball, then if you can't get in front of them, you have to hang back and wait your moment. If you try and get in front of them and fail, then you risk giving away a foul.

As for "randomly stick a leg out" - I think that if you slow down every incident where someone use their legs to shield the ball, you will see very similar actions. It's an integral part of football that you're allowed to use your legs, and the rest of your body, to protect the ball when you're in possession.

I understand that there might be a threshold issue for some people, but that's a separate discussion. Most people don't even understand that there is a higher threshold for a penalty than a FK—not least as it's not in the Laws of the Game. Regardless, the decision was given onfield in this instance, and it's seems entirely crazy to me that decision was deemed a "clear and obvious error".
 
Wilson80 said:
Not an "unlimited amount of space" no! But this is exactly what happens any number of times a game! If someone is dribbling with the ball, then if you can't get in front of them, you have to hang back and wait your moment. If you try and get in front of them and fail, then you risk giving away a foul.

As for "randomly stick a leg out" - I think that if you slow down every incident where someone use their legs to shield the ball, you will see very similar actions. It's an integral part of football that you're allowed to use your legs, and the rest of your body, to protect the ball when you're in possession.

I understand that there might be a threshold issue for some people, but that's a separate discussion. Most people don't even understand that there is a higher threshold for a penalty than a FK—not least as it's not in the Laws of the Game. Regardless, the decision was given onfield in this instance, and it's seems entirely crazy to me that decision was deemed a "clear and obvious error".
Click to expand...
The bottom paragraph I can agree on, because elsewhere on the pitch I don't think anyone has any complaints with a foul... I just think for that higher penalty threshold to be met you don't want to see the offended player doing anything that appears unnatural and I just think that leg movement doesn't look entirely natural. Appreciate what you say about shielding the ball but I just don't agree that it's a normal movement for an attacker in his position in the box.
 
RefereeX said:
The bottom paragraph I can agree on, because elsewhere on the pitch I don't think anyone has any complaints with a foul... I just think for that higher penalty threshold to be met you don't want to see the offended player doing anything that appears unnatural and I just think that leg movement doesn't look entirely natural. Appreciate what you say about shielding the ball but I just don't agree that it's a normal movement for an attacker in his position in the box.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. Obviously there's a slight difference in opinion re. the leg movement but I can of course see where you're coming from.

I often wonder whether it should be explicit in the laws that there's a higher bar for PKs...
 
Paul_10 said:
Difference is the punishment is more severe and a defender has every right to shield the ball out of play in that situation. In this situation what is Spence shielding the ball for for one and secondly he exaggerated a movement to towards the right and actually you could argue he fouled the defender by doing that.

I think Micah Richards got the analysis spot on in his demonstration with Shearer, he did not put his body Infront to shield the ball and he was bundled over, the attacker initiated all contact by wrapping his leg around the defender, what is the defender meant to do there?
Click to expand...
As an ex player and a coach I would want my player not to have got himself in a extremely poor defending position in the first place. The defender should have been goal side v wrong side, and once he is behind his opponent he has limited options to do anything as the normal defending D principle's of deny space, dictate what occurs, delay attack had been lost as Spence was protecting the ball and space.
 
I find it strange that when attackers "draw a foul" by bumping into a goalkeeper the majority on here say it's a penalty.

Is there a difference?
 
Kent Ref said:
I find it strange that when attackers "draw a foul" by bumping into a goalkeeper the majority on here say it's a penalty.

Is there a difference?
Click to expand...
When have penalties been given for an attacker drawing a foul by bumping into a keeper? I'd say if anything most people on here think the opposite, in that keepers get too much protection.
 
Pembroke said:
Spence could have passed the ball and had a shot after protecting the football. He could not do either as his opponent knocked him over when challenging for a ball he could not win, and did not.
Click to expand...
He couldn't though, and that is my problem. He had moved his right foot so far unnaturally right he really couldn't do anything with the ball, from the body shape he was left in he just couldn't open himself up to pass the ball or make a shot. Had it just been a subtle move of his right leg to the right I would agree with you, but it was so exaggerated it has all kinds of alarm bells ringing.

I'm with others on this though, if we can't agree as referees whether it was a penalty or not VAR should have been leaving well alone. Perhaps my background as a defender is why I don't think it was a foul is influencing me, perhaps others who do think it was a foul were attackers, as would appear to be the case with Richards and Shearer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top