Cancello v Trent

[Therealcjhill]

Everyone seems to agree Cacellos was a definite PK..
Was Trents ? If not why not.

 

[es1]

the force in both is different, one is a proper barge in the back, and the other is a forearm push. I do think it's a pen though (spurs one), it's a clear and intentional push in the back.

interesting to note that England was the ref for one and var for the other too

 

[GraemeS]

I think it's a daft thing to do - gives the referee a decision to make when he really didn't have to.

It falls in the VAR grey area, so I wasn't particularly surprised to see VAR not get involved. Force is minimal and the Spurs player makes a massive meal of it so I think no penalty is the right call, but there is enough there that it would stand if the ref gave it on the field.

 

[one]

Everyone seems to agree Cacellos was a definite PK..
Was Trents ? If not why not.

Speak for yourself.

 

[Therealcjhill]

Speak for yourself.

I thought I was the only one questioning it .. I honestly don’t know what’s a charge or barge these days

 

[Therealcjhill]

I think it's a daft thing to do - gives the referee a decision to make when he really didn't have to.

It falls in the VAR grey area, so I wasn't particularly surprised to see VAR not get involved. Force is minimal and the Spurs player makes a massive meal of it so I think no penalty is the right call, but there is enough there that it would stand if the ref gave it on the field.

Yes that was my feeling. Stupid thing to do because another ref could easily give that, as you could see the arm extend for the push but player goes down easily

 

[bloovee]

I'd refrained from the City v Fulham thread (but will now post link to the incidents), but this does raise a question about what does "attempt to play the ball" mean in the context of a shoulder charge that misses the shoulder? (Or also this weekend, a GK uses his hand to trip an attacker - pen given but only YC...)

 

[es1]

I'd refrained from the City v Fulham thread (but will now post link to the incidents), but this does raise a question about what does "attempt to play the ball" mean in the context of a shoulder charge that misses the shoulder? (Or also this weekend, a GK uses his hand to trip an attacker - pen given but only YC...)

i absolutely agree with this tbh in trying to barge wilson off the ball (unfairly absolutely) his foot is very close to the ball. why should this not be considered as a genuine attempt to win the ball?

 

[JamesL]

I'd refrained from the City v Fulham thread (but will now post link to the incidents), but this does raise a question about what does "attempt to play the ball" mean in the context of a shoulder charge that misses the shoulder? (Or also this weekend, a GK uses his hand to trip an attacker - pen given but only YC...)

I understand your point but the comparison with a GK doesn't quite fit together as a keeper can challenge for the ball with a hand, whereas an outfield player can't so there's a clear distinction (in my mind anyway) between the two.

Charging is a strange concept in law in that it talks about fairly charging, but this isn't really well defined. A charge is defined, but not how this can be done fairly. Its really quite open in terms of what a referee allows in the context of their opinion of CRUEF.

I think there are general unwritten rules we follow such as it has to be shoulder to shoulder and not in the back but that's not really established in the laws.

I have only seen stills of the two incidents so can only say from those they look identical.

They look like, ones you might allow if the games going well or one you might give in a tight game where your profile is raised.

Be interesting to see the actual clips to see where they might differ and why we have had different decisions.

One thing that stands out that I know shouldn't really matter is location on the pitch and impact. The Trent one looks like the ball might run out anyway, where as the city one the Fulham lad is in on goal but for the foul. But again just off stills so don't shoot me down if that's wrong

 

[es1]

I understand your point but the comparison with a GK doesn't quite fit together as a keeper can challenge for the ball with a hand, whereas an outfield player can't so there's a clear distinction (in my mind anyway) between the two.

Charging is a strange concept in law in that it talks about fairly charging, but this isn't really well defined. A charge is defined, but not how this can be done fairly. Its really quite open in terms of what a referee allows in the context of their opinion of CRUEF.

I think there are general unwritten rules we follow such as it has to be shoulder to shoulder and not in the back but that's not really established in the laws.

I have only seen stills of the two incidents so can only say from those they look identical.

They look like, ones you might allow if the games going well or one you might give in a tight game where your profile is raised.

Be interesting to see the actual clips to see where they might differ and why we have had different decisions.

One thing that stands out that I know shouldn't really matter is location on the pitch and impact. The Trent one looks like the ball might run out anyway, where as the city one the Fulham lad is in on goal but for the foul. But again just off stills so don't shoot me down if that's wrong

they're definitely different actions (push vs charge) and the spurs player would have kept the ball in for the spurs one

 

[GraemeS]

they're definitely different actions (push vs charge) and the spurs player would have kept the ball in for the spurs one

Kept it in yes, but not in an actual threatening position. It would have been a case of trying to lay it back for another player, so I think even if you are giving a penalty, DOGSO is off the table.

 

[es1]

Kept it in yes, but not in an actual threatening position. It would have been a case of trying to lay it back for another player, so I think even if you are giving a penalty, DOGSO is off the table.

oh yeah no disagreement there

 

[RustyRef]

It might just be down to angles, for the Cancelo one it would have looked like a very obvious shove from where the referee was stood. I think the TAA would look a lot less obvious real time, Sky showed one angle where it looked very obvious but another where it looked more like a little nudge.

Law doesn't really define what a fair charge is, so it will just be down to referee interpretation. Man City benefited from one where Haaland barged a defender off the ball before going onto score, now they have been on the wrong end of one this weekend. I still think the referees are confused by the guideline to allow more physical challenges, in past weekends little nudges were completely ignored, this weekend we had the Cancelo penalty but also the penalty against Henderson in the Forest game where his hand just brushed the attacker's foot. Howard Webb starts very soon, hopefully he can sort this inconsistency out and get some confidence back into the referees.

 

[socal lurker]

Charging is a strange concept in law in that it talks about fairly charging, but this isn't really well defined. A charge is defined, but not how this can be done fairly. Its really quite open in terms of what a referee allows in the context of their opinion of CRUEF.

I think there are general unwritten rules we follow such as it has to be shoulder to shoulder and not in the back but that's not really established in the laws.

the Laws used to have charging in the back as a separate foul (with a caveat that you could charge from the back if the player was shielding the ball as long as not dangerous), and there was also a penal foul (the old term for DFK offenses) for a charge that was excessive or dangerous. I believe the separate fouls were eliminated as part of the great re-write that removed intentional from fouls and introduced CRE—but I think the concepts remain valid in understanding when a charge stops being a fair charge and becomes an offense.

 

[bloovee]

the Laws used to have charging in the back as a separate foul (with a caveat that you could charge from the back if the player was shielding the ball as long as not dangerous), and there was also a penal foul (the old term for DFK offenses) for a charge that was excessive or dangerous. I believe the separate fouls were eliminated as part of the great re-write that removed intentional from fouls and introduced CRE—but I think the concepts remain valid in understanding when a charge stops being a fair charge and becomes an offense.

I had to get the (old) book out, but charging had to be with the shoulder, not in a violent or dangerous manner, and the ball had to be within playing distance and/or players were trying to play it. You could charge from behind if the opponent was obstructing (not shielding). Shielding was not obstruction (ball in playing distance) - and the player could still be charged with the shoulder. (And still can be now... )

I charge; he barges; you use excessive force...

 

[socal lurker]

In the old Laws re charging, I don’t think “obstructing” was being used in the technical sense of an obstruction offense—it wouldn’t be an obstruction offense if the ball was in playing distance Which is when you could charge. But I also think it is important to note that those old Laws were much, much more subject to ITOOTR than today’s Laws which are more focused on consistency than referee judgment.

 

[Therealcjhill]

It might just be down to angles, for the Cancelo one it would have looked like a very obvious shove from where the referee was stood. I think the TAA would look a lot less obvious real time, Sky showed one angle where it looked very obvious but another where it looked more like a little nudge.

Law doesn't really define what a fair charge is, so it will just be down to referee interpretation. Man City benefited from one where Haaland barged a defender off the ball before going onto score, now they have been on the wrong end of one this weekend. I still think the referees are confused by the guideline to allow more physical challenges, in past weekends little nudges were completely ignored, this weekend we had the Cancelo penalty but also the penalty against Henderson in the Forest game where his hand just brushed the attacker's foot. Howard Webb starts very soon, hopefully he can sort this inconsistency out and get some confidence back into the referees.

What did you make of the Haaland one. As a Fan i thought he was just a beast but as a ref I really questioned how it was allowed

 

[bloovee]

In the old Laws re charging, I don’t think “obstructing” was being used in the technical sense of an obstruction offense—it wouldn’t be an obstruction offense if the ball was in playing distance Which is when you could charge. But I also think it is important to note that those old Laws were much, much more subject to ITOOTR than today’s Laws which are more focused on consistency than referee judgment.

Then they are an abject failure!

Obstruction was defined as (when not playing the ball) "running between the opponent and the ball, or interposing the body so as to form an obstacle to an opponent", but with an IFAB decision that if a player "covers the ball" (within playing distance) so it cannot be played by an opponent "he obstructs but does not infringe law 12" - "in fact, he is actually playing the ball" - so even 60 years ago IFAB could come up with gobbledegook.

 

[RustyRef]

What did you make of the Haaland one. As a Fan i thought he was just a beast but as a ref I really questioned how it was allowed

I thought it was fine in the new system of allowing more contact to go. But it has to be consistent, and it seems they have now reigned back in on that a bit. I honestly think if that Haaland challenge had happened last weekend it would have been penalised, and that is why I say it is difficult for the officials as they are being given ever changing guidelines.

 

[QuaverRef]

The Trent one, that gets given at grassroots level. It’s a push plain and simple. However those sort of forearm nudges are creeping into the game and being allowed at the top level under the ‘higher tolerance level’ caveat