one
RefChat Addict
You misunderstand me. I am saying it's a foul and should be given regardless of if Salah goes down or not. But it would not have been given if he had not gone down.
Penalty or dive?
- Thread starter Kent Ref
- Start date
PinnerPaul
RefChat Addict
I was just about to post that almost word for word!
Feel sorry for OP. He wanted to talk about Lincoln and Gillingham and he we are debating Salah.
So, pulling as a specific offence only appears in DOGSO and SPA definitions. Most likely an oversight, and poor law writing (we don't need to do this again).
However, in my opinion/interpretation, a pull should be considered as a holding offence.
So just because there is a slight pull on the arm does not make it a foul under the definition of holding offence. The holding must impede the opponents movement. Does that happen to Salah? Is his movement impeded? Not for me.
It isn't prolonged, it's a momentary contact, which barely interfered with Salah movement, if at all.
We've also been down this road before, but as lawmakers, how do ifab combat this embellishment that we are seeing lately...?
So, pulling as a specific offence only appears in DOGSO and SPA definitions. Most likely an oversight, and poor law writing (we don't need to do this again).
However, in my opinion/interpretation, a pull should be considered as a holding offence.
So just because there is a slight pull on the arm does not make it a foul under the definition of holding offence. The holding must impede the opponents movement. Does that happen to Salah? Is his movement impeded? Not for me.
It isn't prolonged, it's a momentary contact, which barely interfered with Salah movement, if at all.
We've also been down this road before, but as lawmakers, how do ifab combat this embellishment that we are seeing lately...?
Retrospective bans, but they evidently won't do anything of the sort
Not a bad shout. But that would only be at national FA level... Of course all nations could get on board but ifab doesn't set the review processes etc.
Jtpetherick1
Well-Known Member
But the referee wouldn't be complicit if he let players pull strikers down in the box?
Do you genuinely not believe that's a foul?
Trivial contact. No foul. Cheating. I'm not being flippant
Until cheating is properly identified and stopped by the Law Makers and Match Officials alike, cheating will remain a blight on the game
This would be such an easy issue to resolve, but FIFA and IFAB don't seem to give a monkeys
Jtpetherick1
Well-Known Member
What was the defender's goal when he did that? To get Salah booked by you?
Jtpetherick1
Well-Known Member
Given half of the group think its a foul and half don't I'm not sure its easy.
Well that's the problem. Referees can't (or choose not to) identify cheating
As has been said, it's not just the players who are to blame, 'we' Match Officials are complicit too
Not much point arguing the toss much more over it... for me the contact is trifling but the dive and theatrics are disgraceful
I wouldn't have posted this, but in the context of you have to go down .... 1 min 08
Rodri vs Tottenham Home 17/08/2019 HD 1080i - YouTube
"Swarbrick, head of VAR at the Premier League’s Stockley Park base, revealed Oliver thought the City man tried to buy a penalty.
He said: “It was a coming-together of two players and it was looked at.
“The arm was around the top of the body, fractionally.
“If you look at that in slow motion, multiple times, it’s exaggerated.
“We look at it in real time. That’s how we referee games, that’s how we look at incidents with VAR.
“The arm was round the top of the body, yet Rodri fell forward. He didn’t fall backwards, as if he was pulled, he fell forward.
“He’s felt some contact. Can he win the header? No he can’t. It was ‘I’ve gone down looking for a penalty’.
“That’s how the referee read the incident.
“What Michael said to the VAR was exactly that. The VAR looked at the incident and it was ‘check complete’. It was left alone for the referee to make the decision.”
Speaking to Radio Five Live Swarbrick, who retired in 2013 after eight seasons as a top flight referee, dismissed moans from City fans about the incident.
He said: “It’s been pretty consistent over the last couple of seasons, we’ve operated with contact in penalty areas between attackers and defenders."
Rodri vs Tottenham Home 17/08/2019 HD 1080i - YouTube
"Swarbrick, head of VAR at the Premier League’s Stockley Park base, revealed Oliver thought the City man tried to buy a penalty.
He said: “It was a coming-together of two players and it was looked at.
“The arm was around the top of the body, fractionally.
“If you look at that in slow motion, multiple times, it’s exaggerated.
“We look at it in real time. That’s how we referee games, that’s how we look at incidents with VAR.
“The arm was round the top of the body, yet Rodri fell forward. He didn’t fall backwards, as if he was pulled, he fell forward.
“He’s felt some contact. Can he win the header? No he can’t. It was ‘I’ve gone down looking for a penalty’.
“That’s how the referee read the incident.
“What Michael said to the VAR was exactly that. The VAR looked at the incident and it was ‘check complete’. It was left alone for the referee to make the decision.”
Speaking to Radio Five Live Swarbrick, who retired in 2013 after eight seasons as a top flight referee, dismissed moans from City fans about the incident.
He said: “It’s been pretty consistent over the last couple of seasons, we’ve operated with contact in penalty areas between attackers and defenders."
That just shows the perils of hearing what VAR and R Comms. Contrary to the Salah dive, I think the Rodri incident looks like a PK (just based on that YouTube clip). I could live with whatever the Referee decided, but once we hear that spoken word, it all gets a bit sticky
I'm with you 100%, really struggling to see what others are seeing. Yes, Salah milked it, but there is no doubt Dias pulled his arm. If he didn't do that Salah couldn't have gone down, or at least it would have been much harder for him.
Like it or not, the expectation these days is that a penalty is given for that, hence why there weren't any significant complaints. Footballers have been trained to down down under contact since they were kids, and I do agree to an extent with @one that referees really only given fouls when players go to ground has contributed to it flourishing. Can't see it going away though as it is well and truly ingrained in players, even defenders do it these days.
Only because the spoken explanation was so bad.
Dirty Harry
New Member
Jeeez! Can we stick to the original post instead of diverting off with all this irrelevant PL sh#te?! Clearly a dive IMHO and the offside goal to make it 3-0.... 
The referee admits he was fooled. So the answer is definitely not a penalty:
www.kentonline.co.uk
Gills boss accepts apology after referee got it wrong against Lincoln City
Steve Evans says he’s received an indirect apology from referee Samuel Barrott after awarding opponents Lincoln City a controversial penalty.
Jtpetherick1
Well-Known Member
Can I just say two things about the OP. Number one - I'm happy not to have had to referee that one. And number two: of those protesting, 2 (the fouler!) isn't one of them.