Sutton v Bromley 02.02.2018
- Thread starter OIREF!
- Start date
Also interesting to listen to the discussion of the penalty awarded just before that - clear DOGSO but in the area and challenging for the ball so yellow is the correct decision. Commentator fuming, says it should be a red! Can't stand this lack of knowledge.
Match report from the Sutton United website says that the forward was given offside after the goal when the home team complained, despite the player clearly being several yards onside. Could be a dangerous precedent!
https://www.suttonunited.net/match/sutton-united-v-bromley-2/
https://www.suttonunited.net/match/sutton-united-v-bromley-2/
The Bromley write up suggests that the center decided to call offside and overrule his AR. Pretty shocking if true.
http://www.bromleyfc.tv/site/as-seen-on-tv-sutton-united-0-3-bromley/
http://www.bromleyfc.tv/site/as-seen-on-tv-sutton-united-0-3-bromley/
Don't think that is right. If you look at the assistant he stops as if he is about to put up his flag, then starts again. You then see him holding his ground instead of running back down the touchline, a clear signal that he isn't happy. There will have been discussions on the comms but no idea why they have disallowed it. It was blatantly onside, but the way the assistant stopped means he thought there was a problem, I can only assume he has questioned what he saw and told the referee that he'd got it wrong and it should have been offside.
As for the penalty, I'm a bit torn. Yes the lack of knowledge from the commentator and pundits is bad, but equally I think it is a bit of a shove to say that challenge was a genuine attempt to play the ball. The ball was in a different postcode when he made contact, and I think he has just taken out the forward intentionally. Can't fault the referee's position and he had a very difficult call to make only seeing it once, and I can see why he went yellow.
By nature, a goalkeeper's challenge can look clumsy c/w a challenge from an outfield player. The goalkeeper likely to go to ground, spread body etc. I'd give him the benefit of the doubt and go with yellow.
NorthLondonRef
Active Member
I think goalkeepers in most instances know exactly what they are doing. For me, that should be a sending off. It's a very hard line to figure out, but in those instances you are basically saying to goalkeepers if the attack is running through on goal, you can bring him down if you do the above and you'll get a yellow and a penalty against you. It's a win win situation for the keeper because they stay on the pitch and get a second chance at saving the PK.
Regardless of the exact interpretation of the law, in the above instance, I think it should be a red in my opinion. There are genuine attempts at trying to save the ball, and there's knowing you are in a sticky situation and you are risking bringing down the forward if you go to ground like that with your leg hanging out. Look's like the GK knows exactly what he's doing and what's going to happen.
I just think, in those situations the GK doesn't know what direction the forward is going to go, when the forward is going to knock it past him and is disadvantaged but that's life and the nature of the game and it usually always 9 out of 10 times results in the forward being fouled unless the GK stays on his feet or is more cautious.
I can't distinguish in what scenario you can say the above was a genuine attempt and others aren't genuine attempts. I think GK's can deliberately bring down forwards exactly like the replay above and know exactly what they are doing, so essentially you are giving them a massive benefit of the doubt unless they literally drag down the forward by his waist. I like it as, last man, denying a clear goal scoring opportunity, obvious foul....has to be red for me. The law might have moved on, but for me, giving the above as a yellow is too lenient.
Regardless of the exact interpretation of the law, in the above instance, I think it should be a red in my opinion. There are genuine attempts at trying to save the ball, and there's knowing you are in a sticky situation and you are risking bringing down the forward if you go to ground like that with your leg hanging out. Look's like the GK knows exactly what he's doing and what's going to happen.
I just think, in those situations the GK doesn't know what direction the forward is going to go, when the forward is going to knock it past him and is disadvantaged but that's life and the nature of the game and it usually always 9 out of 10 times results in the forward being fouled unless the GK stays on his feet or is more cautious.
I can't distinguish in what scenario you can say the above was a genuine attempt and others aren't genuine attempts. I think GK's can deliberately bring down forwards exactly like the replay above and know exactly what they are doing, so essentially you are giving them a massive benefit of the doubt unless they literally drag down the forward by his waist. I like it as, last man, denying a clear goal scoring opportunity, obvious foul....has to be red for me. The law might have moved on, but for me, giving the above as a yellow is too lenient.
But as you say, the law has moved on. If you dismiss here, you're wrong in law if it's an attempt to play the ball, however harsh you feel it is.
NorthLondonRef
Active Member
But, what if you think it's not an attempt to play the ball? What if you think he misjudged the timing to touch the ball, and then brought down the forward deliberately? Then it's a red.....or is it?
Edit: In fact, watching it again and pausing it, the ball is well past the keeper when he makes contact with his outstretched leg and hacks down the forward. For me, that's deliberate and a red. There has to be some distinction between an attempt to play the ball, and it being a very poor attempt to play the ball which results in the forward deliberately being brought down. The replay at 1.25 does it for me. He trips him with his leg and then trips him with his arms/body whilst the ball is well beyond him. That's a red for me.
Last edited:
one
RefChat Addict
The flip side is, its a loss loss situation. You get a penalty scored against you and a yellow against your name. The law was changed to avoid the triple punishment and that has exactly what has happened here.
If he was attempting to play the ball (block it) it would have looked exactly the same, not being able to read his mind, he should be given the benefit of the doubt.
NorthLondonRef
Active Member
I don't see it being a loss loss for the GK. Because he's going to concede the goal and stay on the pitch. Or he's going to give away a penalty and get a yellow whilst having a chance of saving the PK. So, he would take the PK and the yellow every time.
I don't think if he was attempting to play the ball it would look the same. He would have to be a hell of a lot closer to getting the ball for me to decide it was a genuine attempt. It just looks like a deliberate obstruction made to look a little accidental and mistimed to stop the forward getting the ball that he's already knocked past him. His timings off imo and brings down the forward.
We can agree to disagree because I've got to get going, but based on the video and replays I think it's a red regardless of the new law because I think it can be both but it's more a deliberate foul to bring the forward down rather it being a genuine attempt to play the ball.
This is an attempt to play the ball with his right leg. In fact, he didn't miss the ball by that much. He was correctly punished with a PK against his team and a yellow card. Of course once he misses the ball, the foul looks incredibly late because he was flat footed and the attacker was running straight at him.
You're going to say that the keeper did not try to get his right leg on the ball and this was nothing but an intentional trip?
Last edited:
NorthLondonRef
Active Member
This is an attempt to play the ball with his right leg. In fact, he didn't miss the ball by that much. He was correctly punished with a PK against his team and a yellow card. Of course once he misses the ball, the foul looks incredibly late because he was flat footed and the attacker was running straight at him.
You're going to say that the keeper did not try to get his right leg on the ball and this was nothing but an intentional trip?
Yes. Because you can't just apply the "attempt" interpretation that easily because a forward could be through on goal and the keeper "attempt" to get the ball but deliberately catch the attackers foot and bring him down. These players know what they are doing, they aren't stupid. I have no qualms with the referee's decision during real life speed however when viewing it given the replays, I would call it as a red.
That clip you just posted actually makes it clearer for me. It's an extremely risky "attempt to play the ball and the GK dives in leg first, and in a manner that virtually always results in the attacker being fouled. The way he challenges is the way you'd want to trip a forward approaching you rather than win the ball. He's wrong footed, he's not got his angles right and he panics and chucks a leg out chopping down the forward.
To compound it and make it clearer, when the GK misses the ball with his right leg, the forward has a chance to skip over the challenge and stick the ball in the net, but the GK's body and arms then obstruct the forward and prevent him from getting to the ball. Red for me.
What's an "extremely risky attempt to play the ball"? That sounds like an attempt to play the ball to me. Let's not invent part of law 12 that isn't there.
NorthLondonRef
Active Member
One of the points that must be considered is.
- likelihood of keeping or gaining control of the ball
The challenge is closer to a deliberate trip than a genuine attempt to play the ball in my opinion. You have to be able to interpret attempting to play the ball and deliberately preventing a goal scoring opportunity in whatever way you decide, but for me, you can't have players bringing down other players and denying goal scoring opportunities and getting away with yellows because they attempted to play the ball by chucking their legs in the general direction of the ball and tripping the player.
There is no rule that you have to give the GK the benefit of the doubt if I'm mistaken, so in that situation I'd say a professional player knows exactly what he's doing and he's tripping the forward preventing him scoring. If it was a genuine attempt to play the ball, it wouldn't look like it did and the fact he further prevents the forward getting to the ball with his arms/body makes it go too far beyond the genuine attempt interpretation.
There is no exact science or guideline to when a genuine attempt to play or challenge for the ball is too risky, too late, unlikely, too cynical or whatever else you want to stay. I strongly feel that in the above situation, it's more of a deliberate trip rather than an attempt to play the ball.
Obviously we're not changing each other's minds. However, you make it sound like the GK put his leg out after the ball was played past him and the slow motion video shows this is not true.
But to each their own.
NorthLondonRef
Active Member
Been thinking about this but forget the above incident for a moment. I've been a player at quite a high level and I know how you go into certain challenges and with what mindset. So, what do you do with the "I'm going to attempt to play the ball, but if I don't get the ball, I'm bringing down the man" challenge. I couldn't find any interpretation or clarification about when a player can be seen to genuinely be attempting to play the ball but also deliberately impeding the opponent after he doesn't get the ball.
Is it just personal opinion/interpretation or whether you deem the defending player just unlucky and slightly mistimed or whether there is anything more sinister or clever about it? I can just picture a load of situations where the defending player who is last man can make it look like he's trying to slide for the ball or something but knows exactly what he's doing and brings down the attacker. It seems to be like a bit of interpretation, mind reading of mind and body language and guess work is needed rather something clear cut. But maybe the new law is saying it doesn't really matter because a yellow and a penalty is enough unless it's a clear shirt pull or rugby tackle?.....
Is it just personal opinion/interpretation or whether you deem the defending player just unlucky and slightly mistimed or whether there is anything more sinister or clever about it? I can just picture a load of situations where the defending player who is last man can make it look like he's trying to slide for the ball or something but knows exactly what he's doing and brings down the attacker. It seems to be like a bit of interpretation, mind reading of mind and body language and guess work is needed rather something clear cut. But maybe the new law is saying it doesn't really matter because a yellow and a penalty is enough unless it's a clear shirt pull or rugby tackle?.....