Barnsley vs Wycombe
- Thread starter ChrisBLD
- Start date
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
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.
Kes
I'll Decide ...
Is the correct answer.
Like it or not, if a player gets that close to the GK who has the ball in his hands it can't really be considered anything other than a challenge. The rest is whataboutery (which seems to be quite prevalent on here today).
You can just tell even if he tapped the keeper, the keeper is gonna fall over regardless to try and waste more time.
But what on earth is the keeper doing anyways
But what on earth is the keeper doing anyways
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’…
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’…
RefRyanAus
Member
Keeper is an idiot and deserves what he gets. Nevertheless, for me the attacker does challenge the keeper in possession and the goal should be disallowed. Agree that it is highly debatable though.
Textbook FAFO. If you're playing like this and time-wasting generally, you have to be prepared for the 50/50 to go against you when it has to be made.
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? 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?
This is something I'm trying to learn more about as a new ref who is very much law-driven and probably being too textbook with decision making. I'm glad this decision has sparked such a good debate, so I'm taking the opportunity to further pick brains.
I'm giving a FK to the keeper and if anyone argues I'd being quoting "A goalkeeper cannot be challenged by an opponent when in control of the ball with the hand(s)."
Yes the keeper has made the most of it, but the forward has chosen to push him, and also made contact with the leg/foot. Personally I'd be much more comfortable selling the FK than allowing the goal.
I struggle to arrive at awarding a goal here.
It's a very very soft foul. Or it's challenging whilst in control of the ball.
I absolutely dislike the keeper throwing himself to the floor to get it, but I don't think that gives us the get out of what preceded the playacting/embellishment, whatever you want to call it.
If we, as many have alluded to, suspect this is part of a wider time wasting exercise from the GK, we have tools and opportunity to deal with it.
Give the FK and the slightest hint of it slowing the game down on a restart, get the yellow out. And if it's a 2nd yellow, that's the GKs fault.
What we can't do is take justice into our own hands and cite Karma as a reason not to give it and award the goal. We have the tools to manage this behaviour and, especially at football league is behaviour that is being clamped down on.
It's a very very soft foul. Or it's challenging whilst in control of the ball.
I absolutely dislike the keeper throwing himself to the floor to get it, but I don't think that gives us the get out of what preceded the playacting/embellishment, whatever you want to call it.
If we, as many have alluded to, suspect this is part of a wider time wasting exercise from the GK, we have tools and opportunity to deal with it.
Give the FK and the slightest hint of it slowing the game down on a restart, get the yellow out. And if it's a 2nd yellow, that's the GKs fault.
What we can't do is take justice into our own hands and cite Karma as a reason not to give it and award the goal. We have the tools to manage this behaviour and, especially at football league is behaviour that is being clamped down on.
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 with
The discussion here is interesting because it's a marginal case. Good arguments can be made for allowing and disallowing the goal
It appears this incident also lead to the GK being cautioned and another player receiving a second caution. And to be clear this is ot excusing the reactions that followed that resulted in said cautions.
Another way of looking at it, and it follows what @bigcat says, when it is marginal, what is the better outcome?
Allowing the goal in this circumstance is always going to be a controversial decision.
Had the referee given a FK not a single thing would have been mentioned about it.
Another way of looking at it, and it follows what @bigcat says, when it is marginal, what is the better outcome?
Allowing the goal in this circumstance is always going to be a controversial decision.
Had the referee given a FK not a single thing would have been mentioned about it.
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
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.
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.
From most other sources I think "what the game expects" is what the game got. Comeuppance!