Utd v villa
- Thread starter es1
- Start date
Donate to RefChat
Help keep RefChat running, any donation would be appreciated
- Status
Taking the law into account, why do you think TB was incorrect:
A goalkeeper is considered to be in control of the ball with the hand(s) when:
• the ball is between the hands or between the hand and any surface (e.g. ground, own body) or by ‘touching it with any part of the hands or arms’, except if the ball rebounds from the goalkeeper or the goalkeeper has made a save
• holding the ball in the outstretched open hand
• bouncing it on the ground or throwing it in the air
A goalkeeper cannot be challenged by an opponent when in control of the ball with the hand(s).
A goalkeeper is considered to be in control of the ball with the hand(s) when:
• the ball is between the hands or between the hand and any surface (e.g. ground, own body) or by ‘touching it with any part of the hands or arms’, except if the ball rebounds from the goalkeeper or the goalkeeper has made a save
• holding the ball in the outstretched open hand
• bouncing it on the ground or throwing it in the air
A goalkeeper cannot be challenged by an opponent when in control of the ball with the hand(s).
LothianRef
Member
The officials should just blow (or flag) immediately if they thinks there’s an offence to stop any potential injuries from happening. Or is that not the case anymore?
(I’m playing devils advocate a bit here. I don’t think this is a foul at all but it is interesting to see the pundits now wanting play to continue.)
(I’m playing devils advocate a bit here. I don’t think this is a foul at all but it is interesting to see the pundits now wanting play to continue.)
I think it is touching his left hand when Rogers plays it. Definitely isn't touching the floor or any other part of his body so comes down to whether you think the keeper is making a save here.
There are a lot of people saying that he didn't have two hands on it, but that is nether here nor there.
There are a lot of people saying that he didn't have two hands on it, but that is nether here nor there.
Exactly & that includes a certain A Shearer, who because he says it, comes across as gospel to all those who listen! I have only seen a brief clip, but why didn’t he just take clear possession?
And irrelevant anyway because the ref blew up. I'd guess the goal probably doesn't get given because you can't conclusively say ref got it wrong, but refs kills it by blowing.
Villa apparently complaining to pgmol that a more experienced official wasn't appointed. It did strike me as a strange appointment for such a big game for such a new ref.
Villa apparently complaining to pgmol that a more experienced official wasn't appointed. It did strike me as a strange appointment for such a big game for such a new ref.
The law says that he is in control of it if it is touching any part of his hand or arms, if it was touching his left hand as I'm pretty sure it was, and it isn't a save (not sure it can be given he could have just picked it up), then he was deemed to be in control of the ball.
Even had he not blown I'm not convinced VAR would be able to recommend a review.
I don't think he is touching it when Rodgers kicks it. Not that you can tell either way
If you can't tell either way, and VAR have the same issue, the on-field decision can't possibly be a clear and obvious error, so him blowing early is really neither here nor there.
I've used super slow motion for the image above, I'm pretty sure he is touching it when Rogers kicks the ball, but I agree that it isn't certain. Unless VAR had absolute clear evidence that the ball wasn't touching his hand when Rogers touched it they would be powerless to do anything.
Of course he shouldn't be blowing, he's no clue its not a clear and obvious error. Simply has to play on then blow once it's gone in
He's pretty much alternated between EFL and EPL throughout the season, and that can't help matters. Can't be easy for referees or ARs when they have to delay decisions one week then give them immediately the week after.
I'm sure this is an incident that highlights just how badly the book is written. The words 'between hand and ground' appear before the any contact with hand statement. I think that's right from memory. The first statement is negated and totally unnecessary if the second statement is intended as written. Therefore, i doubt strongly that IFAB meabt the any contact statement literally, but it's understandable that we've interpreted as such. We end up with an outcome which is correct in law but totally wrong in every other respect. A prominant causitive and recurring factor when in comes to what is perceived as sub-standard refereeing by everyone else in the game
Generally speaking, we have a cowardly culture of finding any reason to give soft defensive fouls (inc. the GK) and a determination to rule out goals for any forensic reason because it's safe. It's not safe, it's weak and wrong
Generally speaking, we have a cowardly culture of finding any reason to give soft defensive fouls (inc. the GK) and a determination to rule out goals for any forensic reason because it's safe. It's not safe, it's weak and wrong
Last edited:
That’s a fair reflection.
"Delaying the flag/whistle for an offence is only permissible in a very clear attacking situation when a player is about to score a goal or has a clear run into/towards the opponents’ penalty area"
It doesn't matter how convinced, if this situation arises, then it's a case of delaying the whistle until play stops or moves into a neutral zone.
Russell Jones
RefChat Addict
Spot on, he should have delayed the whistle in this instance. However, given that his on field decision would still have been no goal, the lack of evidence proving this to be an error would still have ended up with the same outcome in any case
Agree that the outcome of the decision would have been unchanged, however, the controversy surrounding it would, almost certainly, have been minimised.
- Status