A&H

Euros

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Referee Store
Jacktscallaghan said:
I think it was Gnabry who was offside and he attempted to play the ball and so was active and interfering with play.
Click to expand...

I thought the rule was that their attempt to play the ball had to affect an opponent? Given the ball was ahead of Gnabry who couldn't reach it (and was ahead of all of the defenders), which opponent would have been impacted by his attempt? Surely it could only be given for one of these two bullet points?

  • clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent or
  • making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball
 
Samiad said:
I thought the rule was that their attempt to play the ball had to affect an opponent? Given the ball was ahead of Gnabry who couldn't reach it (and was ahead of all of the defenders), which opponent would have been impacted by his attempt? Surely it could only be given for one of these two bullet points?

  • clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent or
  • making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball
Click to expand...
I know what you mean for sure! I’d have to see it again now but there were a few defenders around, and of course the goalkeeper, who could’ve been impacted by his attempt. And because there were so many players around, i think it’d be hard to argue that he impacted by no one at all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: one
I thought VAR would cancel the 2nd german goal. Looked like a nailed on toenail offside. And now we don’t see the lines it’s well fishy.

Taylor doing good.
 
Samiad said:
I thought the rule was that their attempt to play the ball had to affect an opponent? Given the ball was ahead of Gnabry who couldn't reach it (and was ahead of all of the defenders), which opponent would have been impacted by his attempt? Surely it could only be given for one of these two bullet points?

  • clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent or
  • making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball
Click to expand...

Centre of the penalty area and in front of the keeper, that is always going to be impacting on an opponent.
 
RustyRef said:
I played lots of games at centre half and I copped my fair share of stray arms, just as I accidentally caught attackers. You accept that in those roles there is going to be accidental contact, just as the Czech players accepted it yesterday, no one was calling for a fall (and let's face facts, these days players are very quick to demand fouls). There's been a lot of talk in recent years about what the game expects, and the only people that expected a penalty there are referees. It just doesn't sit comfortably with me.
Click to expand...
Player accidentally trips an opponent while challenging for the ball - still a foul.

Lack of intent is not an excuse for it to not be a foul, nor is the lack of appeals for it.
 
jofusref said:
didnt see if mr oliver issued a manatory yellow for the hungarian goal celebration
Click to expand...
I’m surprised he didn’t issue one for dissent against Sanches when he shouted and absolutely smashed the ball at the advertising boards when a decision went against him. Clearest action of dissent you’ll see on a football pitch
 
socal lurker said:
No doubter--easy call.

On the PK rebound shot, I'm pretty sure the attacker encroached, so it wouldn't have counted if he scored instead of skying it--could have been a massive VAR giveth and VAR taketh away . . .
Click to expand...
Yeah I’m not sure what the argument is to say that it isn’t a penalty to be honest.
 
Easy penalty for me. Although, quality insight from Danny Murphy … ‘I don't think that's a penalty. He's gone down after he’s touched him’

I’d be surprised if he went down before he touched him, Danny.
 
I'm on a fan forum for an English club and there's quite a few people saying it was a soft PK. It was a yellow+ reckless tackle that really wasn't that far from being SFP. Of course it's a PK.
 
cwyeary said:
I'm on a fan forum for an English club and there's quite a few people saying it was a soft PK. It was a yellow+ reckless tackle that really wasn't that far from being SFP. Of course it's a PK.
Click to expand...
For me there's barely enough force in the challenge to make it reckless, let alone SFP.
 
Alex Rush-Fear said:
Player accidentally trips an opponent while challenging for the ball - still a foul.

Lack of intent is not an excuse for it to not be a foul, nor is the lack of appeals for it.
Click to expand...

There's a massive difference though. When challenging for the ball on the ground you almost always know where your opponents are, and therefore have a chance of being careful. When it is in the air you often have absolutely no idea where any opponents are. Don't get me wrong, had he for example kicked him in the head not knowing he was there I would say it is absolutely a foul, but I just think there has to be an acceptance that arms will be up and moving in aerial challenges.
 
RustyRef said:
There's a massive difference though. When challenging for the ball on the ground you almost always know where your opponents are, and therefore have a chance of being careful. When it is in the air you often have absolutely no idea where any opponents are. Don't get me wrong, had he for example kicked him in the head not knowing he was there I would say it is absolutely a foul, but I just think there has to be an acceptance that arms will be up and moving in aerial challenges.
Click to expand...
I just can't see how jumping with the elbow coming out/back like that isn't a foul when it's preventing the opponent from being able to compete for the ball without his nose getting busted. If there was no movement of Lovren's elbow backwards into Schick's face then I could probably get onboard with the argument that it's part and parcel of the game and there was nothing in it, but as it is it just doesn't sit right with me.
 
Alex Rush-Fear said:
I just can't see how jumping with the elbow coming out/back like that isn't a foul when it's preventing the opponent from being able to compete for the ball without his nose getting busted. If there was no movement of Lovren's elbow backwards into Schick's face then I could probably get onboard with the argument that it's part and parcel of the game and there was nothing in it, but as it is it just doesn't sit right with me.
Click to expand...

That's my point, the elbow movement is just part of the natural jumping motion.

Not sure there is a right or wrong answer here though. Interestingly, if you look across this forum, rate the ref, and ref support UK, I'd say around 80% of referees think it isn't a foul. I think this is the most credible site and it is more like 50/50 on here, so just shows how difficult refereeing is.
 
QuaverRef said:
Easy penalty for me. Although, quality insight from Danny Murphy … ‘I don't think that's a penalty. He's gone down after he’s touched him’

I’d be surprised if he went down before he touched him, Danny.
Click to expand...
Danny should get a final warning. Idiotic commentary.

The pitchside monitor feed was odd for me. It showed point if contact and then slo mo. Based on that the ref had to give a yellow. I was surprised it wasn’t normal speed first, as that might have given the ref scope for careless or SFP.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top