A&H

PSG v Manchester City

M

Matthew

RefChat Addict
Just wanted to get some thoughts on a few incidents in the game tonight!

Potential DOGSO (Mangala): A really tricky one. Mangala didn't make contact with the ball, but at the same time I think it'd be difficult to give the penalty and red card. Not convinced the ref could be 100% sure!

PSG penalty: Sagna planted his foot, but Sideshow Bob moved his left leg to make sure there was contact before throwing himself on the floor. Never a penalty.

PSG second goal: Ibrahimovich had to be interfering with play? He was stood in an offside position and undoubtedly went for the ball. Offside under the new laws if I understand correctly?

For what it's worth, Howard Webb said no DOGSO, no penalty and offside.

DISCLAIMER - I MIGHT BE BIASED. OTHER VIEWS ARE AVAILABLE!! :D
 
The Referee Store
Pens arguable either way, but offside? Not close to the ball and not sure it had an impact on an opponent's ability to play the ball (you'd have to say Hart might have beaten it down rather than to the side).
 
bloovee said:
Pens arguable either way, but offside? Not close to the ball and not sure it had an impact on an opponent's ability to play the ball (you'd have to say Hart might have beaten it down rather than to the side).
Click to expand...

Personally, I think it's difficult to argue that a striker prodding at the ball as it comes across the face of the goal doesn't have some kind of impact on the keeper. Would he have caught instead of parrying? I do agree that Hart could have done better!
 
bloovee said:
Pens arguable either way, but offside? Not close to the ball and not sure it had an impact on an opponent's ability to play the ball (you'd have to say Hart might have beaten it down rather than to the side).
Click to expand...
Here's what the new guidelines say about interfering with an opponent:
In addition to the situations already outlined in the Laws of the Game, a player in an offside position shall also be penalised if he:

• clearly attempts to play a ball which is close to him when this action impacts on an opponent
or
• makes an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball
Click to expand...
I wonder if you're looking at the wrong part of these guidelines - for me, it's not the second clause that talks about impacting on the ability of an opponent to play the ball that's applicable - it's the first one, which merely says it has to have an impact on an opponent.

Ibrahimovic clearly did attempt to play the ball when it was close to him and as Matthew says, it's hard to imagine that didn't have an impact on Joe Hart.
 
Last edited:
Impact on an opponent is arguable, but was the ball close to him? That's the problem - there's no definition of "close" in the new definition ....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top