Yes. I find it hard to believe the ball shot off toward the corner flag like that without it being propelled by the hand.
WHU vs Man City
- Thread starter Jtpetherick1
- Start date
Jtpetherick1
Well-Known Member
Which was exactly my point in the OP.
Jtpetherick1
Well-Known Member
I suspect they did have an angle either way (remember that broadcast pictures don't show all that the VAR has) but the time that elapses prior to the goal would discount any offence - like the equaliser Chelsea got v Palace a few weeks back. Not immediately leading to a chance.
deusex
RefChat Addict
I have at no point said Taylor was incorrect for not cautioning.
My statements would certainly be irrelevant if I was using them to do so.... Which I haven't.
It doesn't really matter.
However I stand by: That was not a "great advantage"
Well I raised months ago what "immediately" meant. If it means only from scoring or an assist, why use an imprecise word like "immediately"? (That's not a question needing any answer other than "IFAB".)
But it seems fairly obvious from the "clarification" to the change that if it was handball, even accidental, it should have been ruled out - unless the clarification is already null and void.
“If an attacking player accidentally touches the ball with their hand/arm and the ball then goes to another attacking player and the attacking team immediately scores, this is a handball offence; it is not an offence if, after an accidental handball, the ball travels some distance (pass or dribble) and/or there are several passes before the goal or goal-scoring opportunity”.
I said three months ago that this clarification needs clarification:
What exactly is a dribble? Can you dribble without an opponent? How close to the ball does the player need to be?
“Immediately”? How long is that?
How far is “some distance”?
How many is “several”? Three passes good, four passes bad?
“and/or”? Seriously? It can't be both.
Last edited:
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
I dunno, I think this is where judgment comes in. I think most of IFABs recent troubles have been trying to define every possibility rather than guidance for judgment by refs. If, ITOOTR, it was immediate, the goal comes back. I’m fine with that and the guidance here. Trying to count the number of touches will just led to false illusions of precision.
Walton got to the very top and clearly he's an immensely good referee. Unfortunately, his on screen personality is painful to watch and I think BT avoid using him as opposed to utilising his expertise because of it. Im sure he was wearing a cardigan yesterday!
Probably a top bloke away from TV but man his slots are dull
I think it's been clarified this season that 'immediately' means either the person who puts the ball into the net or the person who assists as long as there's no new phase of play (ie. if it's accidental handball on the halfway line and then someone takes it down the line and crosses to score that's fine - if it's accidental handball in controlling a diagonal pass and then crossed in, it would be ruled out).
The and/or is fine too - it's basically trying to say there will be some time elapsed and/or other phases of play.
Personally I think it's clearer now, albeit there will always need to be some judgement, which is no bad thing. Also personally, I'd like to see it pared back even further so it only can't be a goal if it's handball by the person scoring, but there you go.
Either way, commentators, pundits, players and managers all have a part to play in recognising when incidents are correctly interpreted in law and shouldn't needlessly muddy the waters because they've failed to win. That's what we deal with all the time in the grassroots game - and that is one (though only one) of the reasons.
RefIADad
RefChat Addict
If the foul by itself would be deemed worthy of a caution, you are still well within rights to caution even if an advantage is played. This was a reckless foul - clearly cynical and designed to stop an attack. It's worthy of a caution in and of itself, and Taylor was wrong (IMHO) to not sanction it.
Sorry, but that just isn't right. The change in law says that if is a foul worthy of a caution (an offence for which you would have issued a caution) and you play advantage, or allow a quick FK, you don't caution (if the cautionable offence was SPA). Cynical and designed to stop an attack does not "reckless" make, it makes SPA.
It seems only IFAB thought this was a good idea - who complained about the law as it was? - but not liking the law does not mean coming up with reasons to avoid it.
It was to make it consistent with DOGSO downgrades.
one
RefChat Addict
What if the cautionable offence which you were going to caution for but played advantage was not SPA?
Yeah, this is contradictory. If it's reckless then great, go back and book him. But if your "justification" for calling it reckless is that it's cynical and stops an attack, then it actually doesn't qualify as such.
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
The open question is whether there is a kind of cynical foul against an opponent that is not reckless but can become USB without consideration of SPAA because of the cynical, against the nature of the game type of foul. Such as a blatant hold with no effort at the ball. There have been one or two fouls in professional games that suggest this is possible. I'm reluctant to take that path, but if the foul is bad enough (a hold that is almost a rugby tackle) I might end up there. But this can't be just a way to evade the SPAA/Advantage dictate in the Laws.
This really isn't all that complicated. If you play advantage you cannot go back and caution for SPA unless you are willing to say that the challenge was reckless. That might work if the was, for example, a trip or a lunge, but there's no way you'd get away with that if it was something like a shirt pull.
I had it in a game recently where a long ball was played forward and, knowing he couldn't get it, tried to punch it away. He got it wrong though and it went through to an attacker on the left wing who failed to beat the keeper one on one. The attacking team went ballistic saying it should be a red, but there was no way it would have been DOGSO due to lack of control and wide angle, so instead of cautioning for SPA I did nothing, to which they went even more ballistic. Took a bit of explaining it is fair to say but the law is clear there cannot be a caution in that situation.
I had it in a game recently where a long ball was played forward and, knowing he couldn't get it, tried to punch it away. He got it wrong though and it went through to an attacker on the left wing who failed to beat the keeper one on one. The attacking team went ballistic saying it should be a red, but there was no way it would have been DOGSO due to lack of control and wide angle, so instead of cautioning for SPA I did nothing, to which they went even more ballistic. Took a bit of explaining it is fair to say but the law is clear there cannot be a caution in that situation.
deusex
RefChat Addict
A good example of the problems this is going to cause amateur refs.
Balatant cheating is okay as long as you mess it up. Hey you can even have another go!
I'm just going to be playing advantage a lot less
RefIADad
RefChat Addict
It's not contradictory at all. An intentional foul can absolutely be deemed as unsporting behavior if it's blatant enough. And I have no problem at all saying that a shirt pull that is so obvious that someone can see it from the parking lot is unsporting behavior (and it is reckless, as a shirt pull like that is done "with disregard to the danger to, or consequences for, an opponent" as stated in the Laws).
Last edited:
Jtpetherick1
Well-Known Member
I hate the law but lets be clear - SPA cannot be reckless.
Since many of you seem to have forgotten a reckless tackle is when a player acts with disregard to the danger to, or consequences for, an opponent and must be cautioned. A player attempting to break up an attack is doing the exact opposite - he's considering the dangers/consequences and that is exactly the motivation for the foul.
Since many of you seem to have forgotten a reckless tackle is when a player acts with disregard to the danger to, or consequences for, an opponent and must be cautioned. A player attempting to break up an attack is doing the exact opposite - he's considering the dangers/consequences and that is exactly the motivation for the foul.
Jtpetherick1
Well-Known Member
I'm sorry but how is a shirt pull of any kind anywhere on the pitch done either with disregard to the dangers to an opponent or disregard for consequences caused by their actions? You'd only manage to shoehorn a shirt pull into either or those if the shirt ended up around his neck!
RefIADad
RefChat Addict
You don't think something like that could cause someone to lose their balance running at a high rate of speed if they are suddenly and unexpectedly pulled backward?
Some of you are making this too difficult using the excuse of not wanting to card people. Unsporting behavior is in the laws to catch things like this. Use it and make your match control easier.