The Ref Stop

KUPS-Ilves

The Ref Stop
And either way, imagine its a diff offence? Holding outside the box then followed by a trip in the box! Penalty!
Holding with one arm out the box which leads to a pull back using the other arm in the box? Penalty!
 
Ciley Myrus said:
And either way, imagine its a diff offence? Holding outside the box then followed by a trip in the box! Penalty!
Holding with one arm out the box which leads to a pull back using the other arm in the box? Penalty!
Click to expand...
I agree... just pointing it out as perhaps basing the decision on the continuing foul is not applicable here.
 
Not trying to be obtuse but why would it not be? The lotg are clear. A holding offence outside the box that continues into the box is a pk
 
santa sangria said:
Well, as you know I am a convert to the ”what football expects” school. And a PK is not expected.

The AR cannot signal PK to the ref with the body as the AR is not well placed to decide if whatever the offence in the box is definitely a continuation of the same holding outside,

That said, they’ve got comms. Would love to know if PK was even thought of or said at the time.

This is one of those where the lack of force in the offence and not going to ground make a psychological barrier for the ref to making a stronger decision with heavier sanction even though legitimate in law.

Full respect to you if you could call RC PK in this context. Really though?
Click to expand...

Ok, why are you getting the idea that there's not a PK?

The defender is clearly holding the attacker for some distance, and appears to be continuing the hold thus putting off the balance as the shot is taken.

what about that is NOT a foul?
Unless you're trying to take the argument that it's not a foul unless the player falls over?
 
CapnBloodbeard said:
Ok, why are you getting the idea that there's not a PK?
Click to expand...

Just exploring. And as above, is there doubt over it being the same offence outside/inside? Continued holding is imagined by the same arm(s)/hands holding the same body part from outside to inside... that isn't the case here... so could that be why the ref did not award the PK?
 
There's only doubt because the video is wide and low resolution, I think we all know it looks like a foul but it's not 100%, but we can only go off how it looks. And the changing momentum of the attacker certainly suggests more holding. As to your arguments about the defender letting go of the right arm and grabbing the left - so instead of a continuous foul it's subsequent fouls. Doesn't change anything.
 
Well, I reached out and I got an answer from a colleague who is an AR in the same division as this (the Finnish prem).
I am presuming this incident has been discussed at length but I don't know if this is just his explanation or also what came out from the officials on the day.

Anyway, he highlighted the the original offence that the ref blew for stopped outside the box.

I am happy with that explanation and I think it is understandable why a PK has not been given for a secondary offence.
 
With respect, nonsense. So he pulls him outside, play continues but defender then trips him and we are going bk to the fk?
Or as it shows on vid, holding, whether second holding offence or same one, we are going back to the original one out the box?
Play continued into the pen area, 4 yards. Whatever offence happens in that box is what must be penalised
 
I am trying not to let my Finnish allegiances impact on my erm... objectivity... but I am genuinely surprised at the black and white responses on this one...
 
A pull which continues into the box is a pk?
Whether you deem this as a same pull or a diff pull, play stops 4 yards inside the box
So, pull outside then trip inside....pen
Pull outside, pull inside.....pen
Pull outside but releases player before gets inside....fk

I could understand if he blew too quick, then you have to go to the foul at the same you stopped play?
Same foul, diff foul, from the clip, play stops for a foul nearly four yards inside the box
 
Brave decision, easy to say we would give it on here but the fact it's a pull, he didn't go down and he got the shot off would play with your mind for sure. PK and red would be the correct decision for me. If you play an advantage and the player is taken out further in the opposition half than the first foul, I see no reason why you wouldn't penalise the second and restart from there. Same principle applies, first pull is outside, ref waited to see, second pull inside, PK would've been correct.
 
santa sangria said:
I am trying not to let my Finnish allegiances impact on my erm... objectivity... but I am genuinely surprised at the black and white responses on this one...
Click to expand...
What are you surprised at? There was holding outside. There was holding inside. What's complex about this?

santa sangria said:
I looked at the vid a few more times... the first holding is arm over the right shoulder... inside the box it's holding the left arm... is this the same offence?

(I am a KuPs fan by the way... they are "my team" here... I've got the shirt!)
Click to expand...
does that matter? If it's not the same offence, it's consecutive fouls. So you still give it at the point of whichever foul gives the biggest advantage to the other team. Like if he's tripped, regains his footing then is tripped again.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top