Does look like there is more of a push from those views, especially the first one. No way the referee is seeing that though.
Few more angles
Does look like there is more of a push from those views, especially the first one. No way the referee is seeing that though.
Few more angles
I’m going to quibble slightly with your language. I don’t think there is any error of law—the only question is potential error of judgment as to whether there was enough From the attacker to be an offense. I agree that the side view looks like more than the original angle. But it sure wasn’t close to enough to cause the GK to go sprawling to the ground—he did that to himself. If the ball had come loose from the original contact, I think it is an easy foul on the attacker. But even with this view, I don’t think the R is clearly wrong in thinking any contact is trifling and not calling a foul.for me the award of a goal is justice. correct in law probably not.
Is the correct answer.Keeper made a meal out of it but:
A goalkeeper cannot be challenged by an opponent when in control of the ball with the hand(s).
Does nudging him equate to a challenge?
If its a push, number 9 definitely ate his weetabix to send the keeper that far over
I don’t think it’s a foul, even ‘challenging’ is a stretch (although can see the argument for it). He’s very softly bumped into him after closing him down before he picked up the ball. Even the goalkeeper is embarrassed and I don’t think expects the goal to be ruled out. Note how none of the players
I’m glad it’s a goal and sends the right message out. Players use ‘safe refereeing’ to their advantage to time waste within the laws. For example, how we often give a soft free kick to a defending player so it doesn’t lead to a goal. This is plain cheating in my opinion - the only reason he’s thrown himself to the floor is to try to con the ref by going down for a free kick to waste a minute.
I’ve also just read that the stoppage was after the keeper ‘feigning an injury’…
That being said - if you're looking at this incident completely separate from context and have to conclude foul or no foul with only the rules at your disposal, where are you landing?
Football isn't really like other sports. The Laws are more of a scaffolding around which expectations are derived. What you need to learn, is when it's expected to apply the Law rigidly as opposed to when to consider the Spirit of the Game and what decision is best for YOU as the referee and how to get the game to a safe conclusion. It's more of an art than a science that takes many years to get to gips withlaw-driven
If I had the side angle, I would definitely have a FK coming out. From just where the R was, I’m not sure. I’d probably still have a foul coming out, but I u detest and the contrary view. If the GK doesn’t fling himself to the ground, this is all a big nothing, and the only reason the GK would even ask for a foul is because he wants to waste time.I'd be curious to know this from everyone who has agreed goal - how much is the context of time-wasting influencing your decision, and is the urge to punish sh#thousery overriding you or merely complimenting a decision you'd already make?
Totally agree, but in the "what does the game expect" court, the only people disagreeing are Wycombe fans and smattering of those with a keen eye on the LoTG.Had the referee given a FK not a single thing would have been mentioned about it.