RefSix

Leeds Burnley

es1

RefChat Addict
Level 4 Referee
Is Mee close enough to the ball to be making contact with the keeper?

I don't see anything remotely resembling a foul from mee. He's facing the ball and in the process of jumping to challenge for it. Keeper comes over the top, initiates the contact and drops the ball. I don't think it's a foul either way tbh but definitely not one on the keeper by mee
 

bester

RefChat Addict
Level 7 Referee
I'm struggling to see why it's not a penalty kick; he runs at pace with a raised knee into a players back.

Very different to raising a knee to protect himself from a standing jump.
 

JamesL

RefChat Addict
Level 4 Referee
It is important to consider when the keeper is in control of the ball. Which is the reason it is perceived keepers get so much protection.
The law says the keeper is in control of the ball if he touches it with any part of the hands Or arms (except if rebounding or a save). I think pretty much as soon as the keeper attempts to catch this and he he is touching the ball any contact thereafter the referee is going to call a foul.
Obviously not withstanding any claims for a penalty once the keeper has a hand on that ball any challenges upon him become a foul as he is, in law, in control of the ball.
 

es1

RefChat Addict
Level 4 Referee
It is important to consider when the keeper is in control of the ball. Which is the reason it is perceived keepers get so much protection.
The law says the keeper is in control of the ball if he touches it with any part of the hands Or arms (except if rebounding or a save). I think pretty much as soon as the keeper attempts to catch this and he he is touching the ball any contact thereafter the referee is going to call a foul.
Obviously not withstanding any claims for a penalty once the keeper has a hand on that ball any challenges upon him become a foul as he is, in law, in control of the ball.

He attempts to catch it and drops it! There's no way I'm giving him a foul due to his own incompetence. Especially as there's no foul committed by the Burnley player.
 

PinnerPaul

RefChat Addict
Level 7 Referee
It is important to consider when the keeper is in control of the ball. Which is the reason it is perceived keepers get so much protection.
The law says the keeper is in control of the ball if he touches it with any part of the hands Or arms (except if rebounding or a save). I think pretty much as soon as the keeper attempts to catch this and he he is touching the ball any contact thereafter the referee is going to call a foul.
Obviously not withstanding any claims for a penalty once the keeper has a hand on that ball any challenges upon him become a foul as he is, in law, in control of the ball.

Interesting James - thought he made contact with Mee before claiming the ball.

Goal for me, if not then a pen.
 

Big Cat

RefChat Addict
Level 6 Referee
It is important to consider when the keeper is in control of the ball. Which is the reason it is perceived keepers get so much protection.
The law says the keeper is in control of the ball if he touches it with any part of the hands Or arms (except if rebounding or a save). I think pretty much as soon as the keeper attempts to catch this and he he is touching the ball any contact thereafter the referee is going to call a foul.
Obviously not withstanding any claims for a penalty once the keeper has a hand on that ball any challenges upon him become a foul as he is, in law, in control of the ball.
It does indeed say all that, but I'm not sure IFAB intended it to; because its nonesense

Mark Halsey was on TalkSport this morning talking about VAR and this incident and how he'd like to be involved. He talked utter tosh

Anyway, this was a clear PK
Another bad day for VAR
 

JamesL

RefChat Addict
Level 4 Referee
It does indeed say all that, but I'm not sure IFAB intended it to; because its nonesense

Mark Halsey was on TalkSport this morning talking about VAR and this incident and how he'd like to be involved. He talked utter tosh

Anyway, this was a clear PK
Another bad day for VAR
Who knows what ifab intended it to mean...
I was just offering an opinion on why the ref called it a foul.
Tbh 99% of us would do as well on our own pitches. Detecting any knee into a back from this situation/position is unlikely .
 

Pembroke

New Member
Level 7 Referee
It is important to consider when the keeper is in control of the ball. Which is the reason it is perceived keepers get so much protection.
The law says the keeper is in control of the ball if he touches it with any part of the hands Or arms (except if rebounding or a save). I think pretty much as soon as the keeper attempts to catch this and he he is touching the ball any contact thereafter the referee is going to call a foul.
Obviously not withstanding any claims for a penalty once the keeper has a hand on that ball any challenges upon him become a foul as he is, in law, in control of the ball.

1609174816813.png

If this is the refs view I can see why the referee feels its a foul.
 

ChasTutorObserver

Regular Contributor
Law 12 states:

A goalkeeper is considered to be in control of the ball with the hand(s) when:

  • the ball is between the hands or between the hand and any surface (e.g. ground, own body) or by touching it with any part of the hands or arms, except if the ball rebounds from the goalkeeper or the goalkeeper has made a save
  • holding the ball in the outstretched open hand
  • bouncing it on the ground or throwing it in the air
A goalkeeper cannot be challenged by an opponent when in control of the ball with the hand(s).

So in this case it could be said that he has control at the moment he touches it briefly . . . but play restarted with a direct free kick, so which of the dfk offences did the attacker commit?
 

JamesL

RefChat Addict
Level 4 Referee
Law 12 states:

A goalkeeper is considered to be in control of the ball with the hand(s) when:

  • the ball is between the hands or between the hand and any surface (e.g. ground, own body) or by touching it with any part of the hands or arms, except if the ball rebounds from the goalkeeper or the goalkeeper has made a save
  • holding the ball in the outstretched open hand
  • bouncing it on the ground or throwing it in the air
A goalkeeper cannot be challenged by an opponent when in control of the ball with the hand(s).

So in this case it could be said that he has control at the moment he touches it briefly . . . but play restarted with a direct free kick, so which of the dfk offences did the attacker commit?
"If an offence involves contact, it is penalised by a direct free kick."
 

ChasTutorObserver

Regular Contributor
"If an offence involves contact, it is penalised by a direct free kick."
Your statement is accurate, of course . . . but did the attacker commit any of the direct free kick offences? Did he initiate any contact with the goalkeeper? As his eyes were on the ball throughout, my view is "No" . . . contact came from the goalkeeper's leap.
 

socal lurker

RefChat Addict
Your statement is accurate, of course . . . but did the attacker commit any of the direct free kick offences? Did he initiate any contact with the goalkeeper? As his eyes were on the ball throughout, my view is "No" . . . contact came from the goalkeeper's leap.
I can’t access the video, so just going f I’m the discussion and the still shot. If he moves into the path of the GK without any opportunity to play the ball (which is what it looks like from just the still), he is impeding the GK. And impeding with contact is a DFK. (I also think refs are often sloppy with worrying about whether it is IFK or DFK when it is a foul against the GK, as it is t going to matter.)
 

es1

RefChat Addict
Level 4 Referee
I can’t access the video, so just going f I’m the discussion and the still shot. If he moves into the path of the GK without any opportunity to play the ball (which is what it looks like from just the still), he is impeding the GK. And impeding with contact is a DFK. (I also think refs are often sloppy with worrying about whether it is IFK or DFK when it is a foul against the GK, as it is t going to matter.)

Think you need to see it then. Mee is back to goal with eyes on the ball the whole way and if the keeper isn't there he likely heads the ball
 

Tealeaf

Lighting the darkest hour
Staff member
Level 5 Referee
Hello! Left field here, I know you’ve missed me! (Literally my thought process)

There’s been a bit of talk recently about attackers walking under/backing under an opponent in the air to win a free kick; Harry Kane being a prime example. The argument runs that this ought to be a free kick the other way.

I’m wondering if this is why the free kick was given; it looked like one of these scenarios and who knows perhaps guidance has been issued in PGMO training to look out for this?

This is of course not me trying to defend the indefensible but offering a plausible explanation.

in truth, 9 times out of 10 in this sort of scenario there is a foul on the goalkeeper. This is the 1 where there wasn’t, and unfortunately the referee here has been caught out.
 

RustyRef

Administrator
Staff member
I wouldn't try to find reasons to suggest it was the correct decision as it clearly wasn't and if there was a foul it could only be the other way. I can see how he got it wrong though, he's looking at it straight on and it could easily look from that angle like Mee has backed into Meslier. The assistant would have the best view, but I suspect he blew the whistle so quickly the AR didn't even get time to shout "no foul" down the comms.

It's a big mistake, but I can see why it has happened. I'm not actually sure it will go down as an incorrect KMD, as play was stopped well before the goal was scored, unless the observer panel decide it should have been a penalty.
 

bester

RefChat Addict
Level 7 Referee
Standard problem of EPL refs taking a position at a set piece and not moving. Looking how they lined up and knowing Burnley are never going short he should've been on the other side anyway.
 

Brian Hamilton

RefChat Addict
Observer/Tutor
Mee decision - poor position and viewing angle by official. Bamford penalty - even if he did play the ball, what were the goalkeeper's hands doing grabbing at Bamford's torso?

Played worse and lost. 3 points, thank you.
 
Top