I would be giving that all day long no advantage gained it is a penalty ....cannot believe that wasn't given also costa should have been booked for diving !!!
Stoke v Chelsea
- Thread starter HoofItYouDonkey
- Start date
I have written to my RDO for his view, imo that's a penalty
As already stated, I would have given the penalty.
For me, this is exactly what "attempts to trip" is supposed to deal with. A player makes a heroic effort to evade a challenge that , if the evasion hadn't happened, would have been a trip and in doing so is sufficiently dis-advantaged that he fails to do whatever he intended.
If Remy hadn't jumped it would have been a penalty; if he had jumped a little less high then it would have been a penalty and so the result of Remy's action - what many would call his honest, sporting action - is that his team hasn't scored. His manager will (rightly) be furious that he, as a professional player, hasn't taken the contact, gained a penalty and possibly seen the GK sent off.
If players were confident that they would not effectively be penalised for attempting to stay upright, perhaps there would be less diving.
For me, this is exactly what "attempts to trip" is supposed to deal with. A player makes a heroic effort to evade a challenge that , if the evasion hadn't happened, would have been a trip and in doing so is sufficiently dis-advantaged that he fails to do whatever he intended.
If Remy hadn't jumped it would have been a penalty; if he had jumped a little less high then it would have been a penalty and so the result of Remy's action - what many would call his honest, sporting action - is that his team hasn't scored. His manager will (rightly) be furious that he, as a professional player, hasn't taken the contact, gained a penalty and possibly seen the GK sent off.
If players were confident that they would not effectively be penalised for attempting to stay upright, perhaps there would be less diving.
RefereeingBooks
Active Member
I'm terribly sorry, but there are too many "ifs" and "buts" there for me to accept this. The referee can only call what he sees and not for something that might have been. By this logic I will henceforth have to blow my whistle for any legitimate challenge that does not end in a tumble because it was "an attempt to trip". The bare fact is that no foul occurred, so no advantage was awarded and a new situation arose. Projecting possible scenarios onto this situation, as inherently human as it is, does not alter the outcome.
Let's turn it around. What if Butland had managed to secure possession of the ball and Remy had trailed his foot against his body, looking for a penalty (and possibly a red card)? We'd all be screaming blue murder for 'diving', 'cheating', 'cynical professionalism', 'gamesmanship', you name it. Here we have a player who chooses not to do so and he's berated for it. Now who's cynical?
Let's turn it around. What if Butland had managed to secure possession of the ball and Remy had trailed his foot against his body, looking for a penalty (and possibly a red card)? We'd all be screaming blue murder for 'diving', 'cheating', 'cynical professionalism', 'gamesmanship', you name it. Here we have a player who chooses not to do so and he's berated for it. Now who's cynical?
CapnBloodbeard
RefChat Addict
I don't understand how you're drawing that logic. Challenges like this - especially ones that impact upon play - are rare.
This incident sums up everything that's wrong with the gutless approach referees are expected to take.
This is a foul. I can't imagine how you could possible claim otherwise. The keeper has missed the ball and forced the player to take evasive action. That's 'attempts to trip'. It has clearly impacted upon play, therefore it's a foul.
Keeper should have been sent.
The fact that this wasn't a penalty is precisely why players dive - or when they don't, they don't try too hard to stay on their feet. Decisions like this encourage diving.
Your post makes no sense at all. You're correct that the referee can only call what he sees and not something that might have been. The keeper came in late and in doing so affected the player. That's not 'what might have been', that's what happened. As for your second statement - unsure if it's a strawman or if you're overly lenient. Nobody's saying that every challenge is a foul - but a challenge that misses the ball, comes close to getting the player and in doing so (eg making them jump over a stray leg) impacts upon their ability
'Attempt to trip' doesn't mean that it was a conscious though 'I'm going to trip that bloke'. FIFA have the opinion that any foul is somewhat intentional (just read their reasoning for DOGSO being a red card for proof - they basically imply that even a careless foul is deliberate). Therefore a challenge that misses the ball but would get the player if they didn't jump over it IS an attempt to trip the player. I think some people may be misinterpreting what 'attempts' means.
anyway, if trying for advantage this is the perfect case of 'going back' - he's clearly still affected by the foul as he's stumbling when he tries to play, so saying he had the advantage because he took the shot would have been 100% wrong.
Russell Jones
RefChat Addict
We can absolutely only call what we see. But what we see and penalise is often what 'might have been' . A missed punch would be an obvious example of this .. we send the player off for what might have been.
In this case, what I saw was a careless challenge by Butland that necessitated Remy taking evasive action to avoid getting clattered. he tried his best to stay on his feet but didn't manage it, hence advantage didn't accrue and I'm giving the penalty.
As others have said, if we don't penalise this then we're simply incentivising strikers to take the contact which feels really weird.
Your confusing the sense of 'attempts to trip'. If I understand your logic, 'attempts to trip' means that a player goes out with an intention of tripping a player. That is not the sense of what 'attempts to trip' means. Best explained by this example.
Butland is late on the challenge, misses the ball, makes contact with the Remy, brings him down, penalty.
Butland is late on the challenge, misses the ball, Remy attempts to avoid contact by jumping over Butland's arms, looses his stride, stumbles, penalty.
RefereeingBooks
Active Member
Thank you all for your replies, though you haven't convinced me. While you may be right on the 'attempt to trip' theory, I'm simply saying that no foul occurred in this instance. Butland has every right to make an attempt for the ball the way he did, for the simple reason that he is a keeper in his own penalty area, which gives him the right to try to get possession of the ball (or at least get it out of harm's way) in any way he sees fit as long as it does not result in a foul. Keepers do that by making themselves bigger, by trying to force the attacker away from goal, by diving for the ball or by any other means. Any - legitimate - challenge a keeper mounts will cause the attacker to take evasive action, as he cannot go straight through the keeper. In this instance, Remy chose to take evasive action - but really take the closest route to the ball - by jumping over Butland, who was already sprawled out on the grass and basically out of contention.
That is why I said I don't consider Butland's challenge an attempt to trip. I don't think every evasive action is necessarily the result (or side-effect or whatever you call it) of a foul. And, in my opinion, that was the case here. It's all in the opinion of the referee. Some of us are of the opinion that this constituted a foul and that advantage was given that shouldn't have been given, whereas others (including myself) are of the opinion that no foul occurred at all. It's a matter of opinion, and opinions are bound to differ. I'm sticking with mine.
@Russell Jones: a thrown but missed punch is not a good example of what might have been. The LOTG specify that a strike is a red card offence, miss or hit. But I see your point
That is why I said I don't consider Butland's challenge an attempt to trip. I don't think every evasive action is necessarily the result (or side-effect or whatever you call it) of a foul. And, in my opinion, that was the case here. It's all in the opinion of the referee. Some of us are of the opinion that this constituted a foul and that advantage was given that shouldn't have been given, whereas others (including myself) are of the opinion that no foul occurred at all. It's a matter of opinion, and opinions are bound to differ. I'm sticking with mine.
@Russell Jones: a thrown but missed punch is not a good example of what might have been. The LOTG specify that a strike is a red card offence, miss or hit. But I see your point
The LOTG actually specify "strike or attempt to strike" in the same way as they say "trip or attempt to trip" so what's the difference between a trip that makes no contact (which is what I saw in the Remy example) and a strike that makes no contact?The LOTG specify that a strike is a red card offence, miss or hit. But I see your point
CapnBloodbeard
RefChat Addict
The LOTG specify that a strike is a red card offence, miss or hit. But I see your point
Really? Which page?
CapnBloodbeard
RefChat Addict
So, what you're saying is that a player can throw themselves at another player, but as long as the other player manages to avoid contact that it doesn't matter if they lose the ball as a result, it's not a foul?
God, I'd hate to see what happens on your field if that's how you interpret the law! You may be the only referee in the world who believes 'I didn't touch him ref' actually has some relevance!!
RefereeingBooks
Active Member
Page 79 of my Dutch Handleiding voor de scheidsrechter
RefereeingBooks
Active Member
I've maintained a civil tone throughout this debate. The second paragraph of your post quoted above is out of line. I will from now on refrain from replying to your posts.
RefereeingBooks
Active Member
Exactly, it's down to what each of us sees. And although you and I may see the same situation, we may still interpret it differently.
As for the LOTG: the formulation may be the same, but I think it goes without saying that there is a major difference between striking and tripping.
CapnBloodbeard
RefChat Addict
If he didn't jump he would have been cleaned up, true?
Not in the text of the LOTG. Both are considered along grades of Careless, Reckless or Using Excessive Force and neither are mandatory cards. A strike doesn't have to be an intentional punch.
Not in the text of the LOTG. Both are considered along grades of Careless, Reckless or Using Excessive Force and neither are mandatory cards. A strike doesn't have to be an intentional punch.
CapnBloodbeard
RefChat Addict
That's fine. Makes it easier to point out where you've made factually incorrect statements and misinterpretations if you won't try to defend your errors ;-)