Surely the first goal is offside, clearly plays the ball.
Penalty, great decision!!
Penalty, great decision!!
Citee V Foxes
- Thread starter Sheffields Finest
- Start date
Agreed; it's a good spot by Madley. He must have been hyper-aware after the Griezmann incident earlier in the week.
I do have a problem with the current law, though. I was criticised for trying to make a comparison with tennis, and I understand sports are different in countless ways, but for me the double touch law should specify deliberate touches.
The difficulty at the moment is that referees are probably missing minuscule offences of this type every week. I am trying to find a difference in kind, rather than degree, between the Griezmann and Mahrez penalties, but I'm not so certain now. Accidentally kicking it against your other foot should not be sanctioned in my view, and (while I am always happy to be educated) I'm not sure it's even what the laws mean by playing the ball twice anyway.
I do have a problem with the current law, though. I was criticised for trying to make a comparison with tennis, and I understand sports are different in countless ways, but for me the double touch law should specify deliberate touches.
The difficulty at the moment is that referees are probably missing minuscule offences of this type every week. I am trying to find a difference in kind, rather than degree, between the Griezmann and Mahrez penalties, but I'm not so certain now. Accidentally kicking it against your other foot should not be sanctioned in my view, and (while I am always happy to be educated) I'm not sure it's even what the laws mean by playing the ball twice anyway.
Even as a City fan I agree on the goal - Sterling makes a deliberate play for the ball, could also make the case he was interfering with an opponent (either the defender or obscuring Schmeichel's view).
As for the penalty, amazing spot. Not sure how I feel about the law as a whole though, my gut says it should be changed but equally if we're opening up a can of worms if we're then trying to ascertain intent.
As for the penalty, amazing spot. Not sure how I feel about the law as a whole though, my gut says it should be changed but equally if we're opening up a can of worms if we're then trying to ascertain intent.
deusex
RefChat Addict
City getting a decison their way?
You must be wrong, referees all hate Man City remember, Sterling must have been onside
Then players would practice making the second touch look accidental as they do with finding a foot to fall over to win a penalty
Yampy
RefChat Addict
Should go to Specsavers if you believe that's outside the penalty area. They can help remove the blue tint from your glasses.
Padfoot
The Persecuted One
Sterling......obviously offside....but this is Bobby Madley so nothing is obvious.
Mahrez penalty......very definition of "Spirit of the game".......goal should have stood, although to the technical letter of the law Madley was correct......
Albrighton elbow.....yellow at the very least.........but again, this was the Bobby Madley show.
Mahrez penalty......very definition of "Spirit of the game".......goal should have stood, although to the technical letter of the law Madley was correct......
Albrighton elbow.....yellow at the very least.........but again, this was the Bobby Madley show.
@Yampy my eyes are perfectly fine, thank you for your concern.
Look back into the live blog here for the still image, I can't attach it on its own:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2017/05/13/manchester-city-vs-leicester-city-live-score-updates/
Look back into the live blog here for the still image, I can't attach it on its own:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2017/05/13/manchester-city-vs-leicester-city-live-score-updates/
Yampy
RefChat Addict
I'm not questioning your eyesight just the blue tinted glasses you use. Believe me the foul was inside the penalty area.
I have yet to see a single angle that shows that to be inside the area. Happy to proved wrong, as always, but it was not in the area.
Yampy
RefChat Addict
Okay. Good luck with your refereeing..
I'm sure we've both got better things to be doing than this. Enjoy your evening.
Padfoot
The Persecuted One
You're almost correct.....it was on the penalty area line......therefore because the line is judged to be part of the area that it boundaries then the correct decision was given, a PK.
Seriously? At least he hasn't claimed Albrighton headed his elbow (copyright Ibrahimovic). The only deliberate elbow in the game was to stop Sterling on a run, not penalised as Sterling kept running.
In any case, in terms of applying the interpretation on interfering, does Sterling being there "clearly impact on the ability of an opponent to play the ball”? Neither Schmeichel nor the defender nearest Sterling moved a muscle before the ball was in the net.
Last edited by a moderator:
zarathustra
RefChat Addict
You'd give an aspirin a headache mate.
As a neutral watching on MotD, it would have been better if the penalty had been retaken. The double-touch is unfair on the GK, as it changes the direction of the ball, whilst the free kick to Man City as a result of the double-touch was unfair to Leicester - rightly awarded a penalty, and the player slips as he takes the penalty. The spirit of the game would have been a retake, and the laws could be updated to include an ITOOTR.
Mahrez touched the ball twice, ergo its a free-kick.
Similar comments on here to those on MoTD and other fora, that it wasn't intentional so it should've been play on.
Right now its black and white, unlike another part of law where the whole "judgement" thing comes in...*cough* handball *cough* So many debates and discussions over that - at least the uncertainty is avoided here.
Similar comments on here to those on MoTD and other fora, that it wasn't intentional so it should've been play on.
Right now its black and white, unlike another part of law where the whole "judgement" thing comes in...*cough* handball *cough* So many debates and discussions over that - at least the uncertainty is avoided here.