City Vs The Champions then

[es1]

And yet, you quite happily argued against my post by bring up the incident from 2 seasons prior, where Mane did compete for a mid-height ball and Ederson got injured as a result?

You can't have it both ways - either GK's head vs attackers foot is a competition that should be allowed or it's not. And if it's not, the referee needs to be correctly penalising whichever member of that incident has caused it to become dangerous. Sometimes that will be the goalkeeper.

i think the two situations are similar, but different. the ball height determines whether mane challenges safely or not

 

[GraemeS]

i think the two situations are similar, but different. the ball height determines whether mane challenges safely or not

Even accepting your premise, I'm still confused. Mane's boot was high and in the "safe head" zone, so it was correct to penalise him. But Ederson's head is low and in the "safe boot" zone....but you don't think he should be penalised?

 

[es1]

Even accepting your premise, I'm still confused. Mane's boot was high and in the "safe head" zone, so it was correct to penalise him. But Ederson's head is low and in the "safe boot" zone....but you don't think he should be penalised?

i just dont agree with penalising keepers for challenging for the ball legitimately (i'm saying a diving header at speed is legitimate) and winning the ball, or any player for that matter.

when you ref a game you'll often get scenarios where a player will duck to head a ball below waist height and an opposition player will try and use his foot. would you penalise the player using their head? or when two players converge at speed, usually one will come off worse or one will pull out, same sort of thing. if there is a clash, penalise the foul/action if there is one.

i dont think a player pulling out of a challenge is justifiable cause to say that the other way playing in a dangerous manner so therefore he should be penalised

 

[GraemeS]

i just dont agree with penalising keepers for challenging for the ball legitimately (i'm saying a diving header at speed is legitimate) and winning the ball, or any player for that matter.

when you ref a game you'll often get scenarios where a player will duck to head a ball below waist height and an opposition player will try and use his foot. would you penalise the player using their head? or when two players converge at speed, usually one will come off worse or one will pull out, same sort of thing. if there is a clash, penalise the foul/action if there is one.

i dont think a player pulling out of a challenge is justifiable cause to say that the other way playing in a dangerous manner so therefore he should be penalised

With respect then, I think you need to go and brush up on law 12 before we continue. To quote from the app:

Playing in a dangerous manner is any action that,while trying to play the ball, threatens injury to someone (including the player themself) and includes preventing a nearby opponent from playing the ball for fear of injury

 

[es1]

With respect then, I think you need to go and brush up on law 12 before we continue. To quote from the app:

did mane pull out to prevent in injury to himself?

you see that situation in your next game, you're seriously penalising the keeper?

 

[GraemeS]

did mane pull out to prevent in injury to himself?

you see that situation in your next game, you're seriously penalising the keeper?

I'd like to think so. I'm a referee, it's my job to enforce the laws and I don't see why you seem surprised that I would hope to be able to do so. I'd be even happier if the PL could produce a case study to show how it should be dealt with - hence my request at the start of all this for a clarification on what GK's are and aren't allowed to do when sweeping.

 

[es1]

keepers and strikers (or backtracking defenders) will always be converging at speed. they both want to win the ball, they'll both try and challenge fairly. you can argue what constitutes fair of course. i just dont see how you can penalise any player

I'd like to think so. I'm a referee, it's my job to enforce the laws and I don't see why you seem surprised that I would hope to be able to do so. I'd be even happier if the PL could produce a case study to show how it should be dealt with - hence my request at the start of all this for a clarification on what GK's are and aren't allowed to do when sweeping.

if that's what you'd do, then fair enough. given the exact situation as last night in my game, i'd be playing on. i dont see it as playing in a dangerous manner and i dont see it as endangering his own safety. if there's contact player on player then that needs to be considered obviously.

 

[JamesL]

@GraemeS I kind of have to side with @es1 a little here - just because a player pulls out of a challenge doesn't always mean it was because the action of the other player.
Otherwise we would be left in this limbo situation where players could just jump away from any challenge 'through fear of injury' and their opponent would be penalised.
I don't remember the action specifically so I am only basing this on what is written between you the two of you.
What action was it specifically that you felt was playing in a dangerous manner, and why do you think it was. It sounds to me that Ederson won/played the ball fairly and the attacking player chose not to enter into the challenge?

 

[GraemeS]

keepers and strikers (or backtracking defenders) will always be converging at speed. they both want to win the ball, they'll both try and challenge fairly. you can argue what constitutes fair of course. i just dont see how you can penalise any player


if that's what you'd do, then fair enough. given the exact situation as last night in my game, i'd be playing on. i dont see it as playing in a dangerous manner and i dont see it as endangering his own safety. if there's contact player on player then that needs to be considered obviously.

I must be missing something, because you seem to be saying two contradictory things. 1. You don't see it as dangerous and 2. That changes if there is contact.

Well I'm telling you that's not how the laws of the game work. If Ederson has done something dangerous, that remains, irrelevant of contact or consequence. If you're telling me that Mane leaving a boot in there makes his action dangerous play worthy of sanction, then I'm telling you that's dangerous play regardless, he's just gotten lucky that he didn't have to receive a boot to the face to make the point. As a referee, you should be happy that you've had an opportunity to make that point without blood having to be shed in the process.

 

[JamesL]

I must be missing something, because you seem to be saying two contradictory things. 1. You don't see it as dangerous and 2. That changes if there is contact.

Well I'm telling you that's not how the laws of the game work. If Ederson has done something dangerous, that remains, irrelevant of contact or consequence. If you're telling me that Mane leaving a boot in there makes his action dangerous play worthy of sanction, then I'm telling you that's dangerous play regardless, he's just gotten lucky that he didn't have to receive a boot to the face to make the point. As a referee, you should be happy that you've had an opportunity to make that point without blood having to be shed in the process.

It can't be plays in a dangerous manner if contact is made.
If contact is made it has to be a direct free kick so the player has committed one of the DFK offences.
Playing in a dangerous manner is penalised by an indirect free kick.

 

[es1]

I must be missing something, because you seem to be saying two contradictory things. 1. You don't see it as dangerous and 2. That changes if there is contact.

Well I'm telling you that's not how the laws of the game work. If Ederson has done something dangerous, that remains, irrelevant of contact or consequence. If you're telling me that Mane leaving a boot in there makes his action dangerous play worthy of sanction, then I'm telling you that's dangerous play regardless, he's just gotten lucky that he didn't have to receive a boot to the face to make the point. As a referee, you should be happy that you've had an opportunity to make that point without blood having to be shed in the process.

i'm only saying it would need to be considered.

i dont see the way ederson played the ball in the incident last night as dangerous. i dont see the way ederson played the ball in the game two years ago as dangerous.

 

[GraemeS]

@GraemeS I kind of have to side with @es1 a little here - just because a player pulls out of a challenge doesn't always mean it was because the action of the other player.
Otherwise we would be left in this limbo situation where players could just jump away from any challenge 'through fear of injury' and their opponent would be penalised.
I don't remember the action specifically so I am only basing this on what is written between you the two of you.
What action was it specifically that you felt was playing in a dangerous manner, and why do you think it was. It sounds to me that Ederson won/played the ball fairly and the attacking player chose not to enter into the challenge?

My recollection of it (and I have to admit to not having seen it again today) is that Ederson comes charging out of his box and challenges for a "50:50" by diving head first at the ball at around waist height. Had he stayed on his feet and attempted to use his feet to clear the ball, Mane would probably have continued to challenge for it, but seeing the keeper off his feet and going head-first, he pulls out. Perhaps also influenced by the previous incident that's been brought up?

I also don't think it's a "necessary" action for the sake of his team. He doesn't have to get involved in that incident and if he does, he doesn't have to do so in a risky, head-first manner. He's made specifically dangerous choices and has a history of doing so - including a few weeks ago where he injured a teammate with a similar charge. And that's why I think it needs clarification - at the moment he's seemingly allowed to do what he wants because he's a GK and can expect everyone else to get out of his way, but I'm not convinced that's in line with the laws. And I'm worried that in a few years time, these 3 incidents will be part of a longer list of serious injuries, both to him, his opponents and his teammates.

 

[es1]

My recollection of it (and I have to admit to not having seen it again today) is that Ederson comes charging out of his box and challenges for a "50:50" by diving head first at the ball at around waist height. Had he stayed on his feet and attempted to use his feet to clear the ball, Mane would probably have continued to challenge for it, but seeing the keeper off his feet and going head-first, he pulls out. Perhaps also influenced by the previous incident that's been brought up?

I also don't think it's a "necessary" action for the sake of his team. He doesn't have to get involved in that incident and if he does, he doesn't have to do so in a risky, head-first manner. He's made specifically dangerous choices and has a history of doing so - including a few weeks ago where he injured a teammate with a similar charge. And that's why I think it needs clarification - at the moment he's seemingly allowed to do what he wants because he's a GK and can expect everyone else to get out of his way, but I'm not convinced that's in line with the laws.

your description of the incident is fine. i agree a keeper cant have carte blanche to charge out of goal and do whatever he wants but to say that his action isnt necessary is irrelevant. his action stopped an attack and cleared the ball. it's simply his choice to challenge for the ball however he wants.

 

[RustyRef]

With respect then, I think you need to go and brush up on law 12 before we continue. To quote from the app:

Regardless of what law says, any referee, and certainly top level ones, is going to be absolutely castigated for penalising a player by putting himself in danger, especially when there is no contact. A very clear case of "what the game expects", and no one expects a free kick and / or caution here.

 

[JamesL]

My recollection of it (and I have to admit to not having seen it again today) is that Ederson comes charging out of his box and challenges for a "50:50" by diving head first at the ball at around waist height. Had he stayed on his feet and attempted to use his feet to clear the ball, Mane would probably have continued to challenge for it, but seeing the keeper off his feet and going head-first, he pulls out. Perhaps also influenced by the previous incident that's been brought up?

I also don't think it's a "necessary" action for the sake of his team. He doesn't have to get involved in that incident and if he does, he doesn't have to do so in a risky, head-first manner. He's made specifically dangerous choices and has a history of doing so - including a few weeks ago where he injured a teammate with a similar charge. And that's why I think it needs clarification - at the moment he's seemingly allowed to do what he wants because he's a GK and can expect everyone else to get out of his way, but I'm not convinced that's in line with the laws.

OK, but what was dangerous about his action? Did it threaten injury to his opponent or himself?
Running around like a bull in a China shop is not necessarily PIaDM.. As referees I don't think we are in a position to say how someone challenges for a ball, or their method of playing the ball.. We simply judge, did the action threaten anybody, or prevent them from playing the ball through fear of injury.
I suppose it depends on how 5050 it was, if the ball was literally 5050 slap bang between two players and they are close then perhaps there is a case. In my mind the ball is travelling away from mane, towards ederson so I dont think that sounds like a pure 5050. Again don't recall it so I may be wide of the mark.. It's entirely possible mane gave up on challenging for the ball as any involvement from him he could have caused an injury, with past misdemeanours in mind

 

[GraemeS]

Regardless of what law says, any referee, and certainly top level ones, is going to be absolutely castigated for penalising a player by putting himself in danger, especially when there is no contact. A very clear case of "what the game expects", and no one expects a free kick and / or caution here.

Remember that I started this whole debate simply by suggesting that this is something that I'd like to see clarification on. I agree that we'd all be surprised if AT had pulled out a card last night, despite the laws giving him room to do so IMO. But I still think it's something worth highlighting and something it would be worth introducing a bit more clarity about.

 

[GraemeS]

OK, but what was dangerous about his action? Did it threaten injury to his opponent or himself?
Running around like a bull in a China shop is not necessarily PIaDM.. As referees I don't think we are in a position to say how someone challenges for a ball, or their method of playing the ball.. We simply judge, did the action threaten anybody, or prevent them from playing the ball through fear of injury.
I suppose it depends on how 5050 it was, if the ball was literally 5050 slap bang between two players and they are close then perhaps there is a case. In my mind the ball is travelling away from mane, towards ederson so I dont think that sounds like a pure 5050. Again don't recall it so I may be wide of the mark.. It's entirely possible mane gave up on challenging for the ball as any involvement from him he could have caused an injury, with past misdemeanours in mind

Going with his head when the ball is at waist height and it would have been perfectly possible to use his feet? I'd argue that puts him at more risk that was necessary for a start.

 

[es1]

Going with his head when the ball is at waist height and it would have been perfectly possible to use his feet? I'd argue that puts him at more risk that was necessary for a start.

if he'd gone with his feet i bet he wouldn't have won the ball though

 

[GraemeS]

if he'd gone with his feet i bet he wouldn't have won the ball though

Again, I'd point at player safety being our top priority, even over fair play.

 

[es1]

Again, I'd point at player safety being our top priority, even over fair play.

fair enough. certainly been round the houses on this one...

i doubt it is something you'd ever see formal clarification on though, i just dont think there's the demand for it