A&H

Toure "pressing" the keeper vs Villareal

santa sangria

santa sangria

RefChat Addict
Firstly, can I just say, "get in"!
The after match Klopp leading the crowd Freddie Mercury style was brilliant.
Sturridge though seems an odd chap. His post match interview was bizarre. He seems permanently uncomfortable. Super happy he had a good game - and a hug with Jurgen.

Anyway, F365 remarked about Toure pressing the goalkeeper - but I was thinking it was an easy IDFK to give as Toure was stopping the keeper releasing the ball. Of course there is no benefit to the attacking team with that.

But I was also thinking, was it actually a blatant yellow for delaying the game. Thoughts?
 
The Referee Store
I believe that, if he interfered with the keeper as he was playing from his hands, the only punishment is an indirect free kick for the reasons you mention. Delaying the restart of play only applies for players who prevent a FK, CK, GK etc. being taken. Maybe it could fall under unsporting behaviour if done in a certain way/repeatedly?
 
SLI39 said:
I believe that, if he interfered with the keeper as he was playing from his hands, the only punishment is an indirect free kick for the reasons you mention. Delaying the restart of play only applies for players who prevent a FK, CK, GK etc. being taken. Maybe it could fall under unsporting behaviour if done in a certain way/repeatedly?
Click to expand...
what about if he were to raise his foot to actually try and block the kick ?
 
I thought scouse did well last night. To pull a 3-0 win out of the hat against a tricky side like Villareal after going down 1-0 in the first match was quite a result.
It's only fair to say though that (and with the score at 2-0) Villareal should have had a penalty with twelve minutes left after that stupid (and I thought obvious) push by Moreno. What on earth was he thinking?!! Liverpool were extremely lucky that the referee chose to bottle/ignore it on that occasion. :eek:
Glad that Spanish teams aren't contesting both finals in entirety as well. ;) :)
 
Ball is in play, so delaying the restart cannot be an option.

A caution is usually given when the physical release is blocked a la
 
santa sangria said:
Anyway, F365 remarked about Toure pressing the goalkeeper - but I was thinking it was an easy IDFK to give as Toure was stopping the keeper releasing the ball. Of course there is no benefit to the attacking team with that.

But I was also thinking, was it actually a blatant yellow for delaying the game. Thoughts?
Click to expand...

Not for "delaying the game" - because there's no such offence. There's "delaying the restart of play," but this wasn't a restart of play.

richard ramjane said:
what about if he were to raise his foot to actually try and block the kick ?
Click to expand...
If it's done in a way that threatens injury, it should be a caution. And I would say that in most cases, if a player tries to block the keeper's kick, there's a good chance one or both of them could get injured.

LotG p123, 2015-16 edition:
A player must be penalised for playing in a dangerous manner if he kicks or attempts to kick the ball when the goalkeeper is in the process of releasing it
[...]
If a player plays in a dangerous manner in a “normal” challenge, the referee should not take any disciplinary action. If the action is made with obvious risk of injury, the referee should caution the player
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Tealeaf said:
Ball is in play, so delaying the restart cannot be an option.

A caution is usually given when the physical release is blocked a la
Click to expand...
The caution here would be for the danger of the challenge. It's more dangerous than a normal challenge around this height because the keeper is operating under the assumption that he won't be challenged due to the laws of the game.
Preventing the keeper from releasing the ball isn't a mandatory caution. I'd only look at a caution if you can see that the keeper had a chance of launching a fast counterattack and that has been blocked, or if the opponent has stuck their foot in as it's going to be kicked (thus creating danger). Beyond that, it's IFK only. For minor cases, simply being slow to start your count (not that it makes a difference anymore, given no referee enforces 6 seconds) and a loud 'leave the keeper alone' will manage most cases.
While the prevention alone is not worthy of a card, I'd be quick to jump on repeat offences by the team, not just the same player.
 
Kes said:
I thought scouse did well last night. To pull a 3-0 win out of the hat against a tricky side like Villareal after going down 1-0 in the first match was quite a result.
It's only fair to say though that (and with the score at 2-0) Villareal should have had a penalty with twelve minutes left after that stupid (and I thought obvious) push by Moreno. What on earth was he thinking?!! Liverpool were extremely lucky that the referee chose to bottle/ignore it on that occasion. :eek:
Glad that Spanish teams aren't contesting both finals in entirety as well. ;) :)
Click to expand...

Yes, I was bewildered by that decision. It also never impresses me when commentators deny claims, and on the evidence of subsequent replays vacillate constantly until they reach a conclusion that it 'might' have been a penalty, but conveniently forget it because it doesn't fit the narrative of the game. It shows how important it is to stay alert in apparently one-sided matches because, I would claim, jolts like that can pass you by if you're not expecting that team to produce anything of significance--also right at the start and end of matches, depending on the general mood, as you're still establishing your rhythm and winding down respectively; thus more susceptible to missing offences.
 
Tealeaf said:
Ball is in play, so delaying the restart cannot be an option.

A caution is usually given when the physical release is blocked a la
Click to expand...
Am I correct in saying that the laws (or at least, the guidance) has changes since this incident? It doesn't look like Henry was cautioned in that clip, but as other have said, it's been clarified since then that interrupting the keeper in the process of kicking should be considered dangerous play now.
 
The Laws were changed partly BECAUSE of an incident the year before wherein Henry did EXACTLY the same thing. :)
 
AlexF said:
The Laws were changed partly BECAUSE of an incident the year before wherein Henry did EXACTLY the same thing. :)
Click to expand...
Not as far as I can tell. The IFAB meeting minutes and/or amendments to the LotG for several years either side of when this incident took place reflect no changes to the parts of the law relating to either PIADM or preventing the goalkeeper from releasing the ball. Perhaps you could give more details of when this alleged change took place and what exactly it entailed?
 
Peter Grove said:
Not for "delaying the game" - because there's no such offence. There's "delaying the restart of play," but this wasn't a restart of play.


If it's done in a way that threatens injury, it should be a caution. And I would say that in most cases, if a player tries to block the keeper's kick, there's a good chance one or both of them could get injured.

LotG p123, 2015-16 edition:
Click to expand...
I'm fairly sure it was (either in Q&A or elsewhere) a mandatory caution.

If a player plays in a dangerous manner in a “normal” challenge, the referee should not take any disciplinary action. If the action is made with obvious risk of injury, the referee should caution the player.

This is never a "normal" challenge, because it's an offence, so the first sentence doesn't apply. The only distinction could be between a player obstructing the GK or actually doing something "dangerous" - but it was introduced because it was inherently dangerous.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top