A&H

Marriner moments Liv-Palace

santa sangria

santa sangria

RefChat Addict
I watched the second half. It was a terrible game. Liverpool awful in possession with Lucas and Clyne demonstrating why they've no business being in a CL-chasing team.

The second half had two incidents and I think Marriner got them both horribly wrong and put a massive dent in LFC's top four hopes. First, Countinho is tripped on the edge of the goal area (6 yd box) as he is about to shoot. He stumbles and gets a tame shot off. Easy penalty. Marriner gives nothing.

The in the run up to the winning goal there is a boot to head in midfield. Milner (IIRC) down clutching head, nothing from Marriner. No stopping play for potential head injury, no DFK for dangerous play with contact. It was low but stopping play for the potential head injury would have been appropriate. A few seconds later, corner. From the resulting corner, Palace winning goal.

Marriner looked sluggish and the near side AR also looked unable to stay level (missed at least one crossing offside decision). I just felt the officials changed the result here. Is that harsh?
 
The Referee Store
I absolutely agree with you on the Coutinho penalty - he's tripped, regains his balance and scuffs a weak shot that's a second or two later that he would have liked. If he'd gone down, the penalty probably would have been given. Unfortunately, if referees are going to consider that an acceptable advantage, we've only got ourself to blame for players going down easily.

I though he was wrong to book Benteke for a dive as well - for me, two players come together and it's a clean tackle that happens to knock Benteke over. As far as I recall, he's not appealed for anything, so it seems incredibly harsh to caution him for that.
 
I called a pen like that a few weeks ago and felt bloody fantastic about it. Defending team and manager went nuts with "but he didn't even fall down" :)

This was such a clear pen today and Mr M got it so wrong. This is the other side of the "diving" coin and a valid argument for why players go down so easily. Bad day for Mr M.
 
GraemeS said:
Coutinho penalty - he's tripped, regains his balance and scuffs a weak shot that's a second or two later that he would have liked. If he'd gone down, the penalty probably would have been given. Unfortunately, if referees are going to consider that an acceptable advantage, we've only got yourself to blame for players going down easily.
Click to expand...
OK - I am a bit confused.
Firstly I would have waited to see how the shot went and just given the penalty and not played advantage.

My take is that if it was an advantage that was played (don't think Mariner signaled it as such - but let's take it as an advantage) and Coutinho went on to miss (as he did) then the ref cannot call it back for a penalty.
I have always been told that if you play advantage and the team mess up the chance then that is tough luck and the play continues.

On MOTD (and I know they don't always know the LOTG) one guy said "the ref could have called it back after he missed".

So could he have done so? Seems to contradict what I have been told when learning.

At what point is the advantage lost where you can or cannot bring it back?
 
Well the laws of the game say that you should wait a couple of seconds to see if any advantage occurs and if not you can pull it back.

So if Marriner hadnt signalled advantage (i only saw it on MOTD2) then he could have pulled it back as he was just waiting to see.

However, i dont know where Marriner was when this foul occurred so maybe he didnt see it properly and thought it was a good challenge?
 
Stop. He missed it or bottled it. He wasn't playing advantage - there is no better advantage than a pen. Only exception I can think of could be where someone is fouled dribbling around a keeper and on his way to walking it into goal.
 
jertzee said:
OK - I am a bit confused.
Firstly I would have waited to see how the shot went and just given the penalty and not played advantage.

My take is that if it was an advantage that was played (don't think Mariner signaled it as such - but let's take it as an advantage) and Coutinho went on to miss (as he did) then the ref cannot call it back for a penalty.
I have always been told that if you play advantage and the team mess up the chance then that is tough luck and the play continues.

On MOTD (and I know they don't always know the LOTG) one guy said "the ref could have called it back after he missed".

So could he have done so? Seems to contradict what I have been told when learning.

At what point is the advantage lost where you can or cannot bring it back?
Click to expand...
My understanding is that the only thing that is considered to be a greater advantage than a penalty is a goal. If you were going to give a penalty, attempt to play advantage and a goal doesn't occur, you should be bringing it back.

On this incident though, I do agree with you in that Marriner doesn't appear to be giving an advantage - suggesting that he simply either missed the contact or (wrongly IMO) decided it wasn't worth a penalty because it didn't knock the attacker over.
 
GraemeS said:
My understanding is that the only thing that is considered to be a greater advantage than a penalty is a goal. If you were going to give a penalty, attempt to play advantage and a goal doesn't occur, you should be bringing it back.

On this incident though, I do agree with you in that Marriner doesn't appear to be giving an advantage - suggesting that he simply either missed the contact or (wrongly IMO) decided it wasn't worth a penalty because it didn't knock the attacker over.
Click to expand...

OK. So a penalty would have been correct as assumed.

Now let's assume the same element of play was in the middle of the park AND an advantage was clearly shown for each.
Are my decisions below correct?

Scenario 1) Coutinho is tripped, but he stays on his feet and makes a forward pass that doesn't find his teammate.
Scenario 2) Coutinho is tripped, but he stays on his feet and makes a forward pass that DOES find his teammate who has a shot which goes out for a goal kick.

Decision Scenario 1) Bring it back for a free kick
Decision Scenario 2) Play on and restart play with a goal kick. Advantage was wasted.

Am I right for each?
 
jertzee said:
OK. So a penalty would have been correct as assumed.

Now let's assume the same element of play was in the middle of the park AND an advantage was clearly shown for each.
Are my decisions below correct?

Scenario 1) Coutinho is tripped, but he stays on his feet and makes a forward pass that doesn't find his teammate.
Scenario 2) Coutinho is tripped, but he stays on his feet and makes a forward pass that DOES find his teammate who has a shot which goes out for a goal kick.

Decision Scenario 1) Bring it back for a free kick
Decision Scenario 2) Play on and restart play with a goal kick. Advantage was wasted.

Am I right for each?
Click to expand...

For me yes
 
Yes both decisions are correct in my view. Though there are a few things that could happen in scenario 1 where you might decided the advantage was there but they screwed it up.

Key point is you have a few seconds after a foul to decide to play advantage or pull it back. If 5/6 seconds has passed it's over you have played advantage no matter what the result - and trust us it often goes wrong but when it does go right you feel like a million bucks -
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top