A&H

Leeds v WHU

L

ladbroke8745

RefChat Addict
Can see why, just, that the penalty was retaken as Fabianski was off his line (by mm)....
But why was it not retaken, by letter of law, for a third time after a Leeds player was in the area following the scoring of the penalty?
If they're going to be pedantic over mm with keeper off the line, then they should be with this too. Are they only interested in the keepers misgivings?

FB_IMG_1607720897167.jpg

And I realise there is GLT but it was very clear the ball was over the line for the equaliser. Why can't the assistant flag and make it look more professional that its over? Just imagine if the watch didn't work? Its sold with a clear flag from assistant too.
 
The Referee Store
Just as GK infractions are not called if they don't matter, this encroachment was not called because the player had no effect on the PK scoring. There is no expectation it would be called (though by letter of Law it could be)--it would be called if the encroaching attacker challenged for a rebound.

As to the AR raising the flag, even without GLT, an AR would only raise a flag if it was not clear that the ball was over the goal line and the referee needs to be informed that it is. All goal related signals by ARs are for the referee, who is the one who will signal a goal has scored. With GLT, there is no reason for the AR to raise his flag unless GLT fails and the R needs to be told the goal scored.
 
Same as if the keeper is off his line and the striker skies it, not likely to be retaken as the keeper's actions didn't influence the miss.
 
The players other than the kicker and goalkeeper must be
at least 9.15m (10yds) from the penalty mark

The PGMOL are making it up by declaring an alternative approach

Now this wouldn't bother me so much, but when a GK is penalised for an inch, it is utterly absurd to ignore another player breaching the Laws by 2m
Referees will steadfastly argue about what's right in Law, like it's some privileged wisdom, yet the book is evidently a rough guide only.
I've argued this before, but write the rules in the book and then apply them. Simple as that
Refereeing standards are pretty dreadful overall and VAR is exposing that. Is it any surprise when we're all making it up?
 
Big Cat said:
The players other than the kicker and goalkeeper must be
at least 9.15m (10yds) from the penalty mark

The PGMOL are making it up by declaring an alternative approach

Now this wouldn't bother me so much, but when a GK is penalised for an inch, it is utterly absurd to ignore another player breaching the Laws by 2m
Referees will steadfastly argue about what's right in Law, like it's some privileged wisdom, yet the book is evidently a rough guide only.
I've argued this before, but write the rules in the book and then apply them. Simple as that
Refereeing standards are pretty dreadful overall and VAR is exposing that. Is it any surprise when we're all making it up?
Click to expand...

The point here is that with technology we now have the ability to check these factual decisions more accurately than ever before.

The two options are to either penalise every single infringement on penalties and eventually the players will learn. Attacker encroaches by 1mm and the goal is scored, tough luck chaps.

The other option which is more sensible is the approach that is being taken which is making it akin to offside, namely the concept of the player becoming “active”

If the GK infringes and the goal is scored or the player misses and is not influenced by the GK’s actions, then the GK is not penalised. Likewise if the attacker encroaches and it has no impact on the outcome of the penalty kick then why penalise it? However if the keeper saves it and the attacker that has encroached reacts and pops the rebound in the back of the net, then absolutely penalise it.
 
Does anyone really think the goalkeeper encroaching by less than an inch impacted the save?

I don't really know what the solution is but this is not it. We have gone from ignoring over a yard of encroachment to punishing less than an inch.
 
one said:
Does anyone really think the goalkeeper encroaching by less than an inch impacted the save?

I don't really know what the solution is but this is not it. We have gone from ignoring over a yard of encroachment to punishing less than an inch.
Click to expand...

The fact is that a player who was influential in the outcome committed an offence. However tight, there is technology which shows this clearly.
 
Justylove said:
The point here is that with technology we now have the ability to check these factual decisions more accurately than ever before.

The two options are to either penalise every single infringement on penalties and eventually the players will learn. Attacker encroaches by 1mm and the goal is scored, tough luck chaps.

The other option which is more sensible is the approach that is being taken which is making it akin to offside, namely the concept of the player becoming “active”

If the GK infringes and the goal is scored or the player misses and is not influenced by the GK’s actions, then the GK is not penalised. Likewise if the attacker encroaches and it has no impact on the outcome of the penalty kick then why penalise it? However if the keeper saves it and the attacker that has encroached reacts and pops the rebound in the back of the net, then absolutely penalise it.
Click to expand...
A game cannot be officiating well when some rules are routinely ignored. The Match Officials are left exposed to criticism, particularly when another rule is applied so zealously even when the judgement is borderline indeterminable
Overall refereeing standards are always going to be compromised when rules are ignored
Perhaps in the absence of VAR, it was not practicable for the Match Officials to judge these things precisely, so a degree of common sense has always been apt. But with VAR, both of these Laws can be judged precisely, so they must be. The book says absolutely nothing about only penalising only encroachment that leads to advantage. Therefore, with VAR, it must be policed
Match Officials are being slaughtered at the moment; and rightly so IMO. It's not their individual fault. They are pawns in an overall shambles
 
Big Cat said:
A game cannot be officiating well when some rules are routinely ignored. The Match Officials are left exposed to criticism, particularly when another rule is applied so zealously even when the judgement is borderline indeterminable
Overall refereeing standards are always going to be compromised when rules are ignored
Perhaps in the absence of VAR, it was not practicable for the Match Officials to judge these things precisely, so a degree of common sense has always been apt. But with VAR, both of these Laws can be judged precisely, so they must be. The book says absolutely nothing about only penalising only encroachment that leads to advantage. Therefore, with VAR, it must be policed
Match Officials are being slaughtered at the moment; and rightly so IMO. It's not their individual fault. They are pawns in an overall shambles
Click to expand...

Yes, I'm sure the public response we've had to VAR to date tells us that'll go well.
 
Big Cat said:
I agree
Which just illustrates that VAR has to go. A complete reset and get back to accepting grey areas and human error
Click to expand...

You're in a dreamland (or one without TV and social media) if you think that the public and MOTD would 'accept human error.' Year after year broadcasters were drawing millimetre offside lines to provoke fans - as soon as a VAR does it it's 'ruining football.'
 
  • Like
Reactions: ARF
All VAR does it take laws that are written with the basic principal of "Here is a rough framework for referees to make decisions within" and try to apply it as if it's an actual precise legal document. The problem isn't VAR, it's the fact that the laws aren't written well enough that they can actually be applied with the kind of consistency an accurate replay system requires.

The terrible, inconsistent and unclear writing of the law has been gotten away with for years because referees are there to take the blame for when they fill the gaps in a way one team or the other doesn't like. VAR takes away that flexibility, and it turns out that fans and pundits don't actually like the gane they watch when the laws are applied without a referee to paper over the gaps.
 
Jtpetherick1 said:
You're in a dreamland (or one without TV and social media) if you think that the public and MOTD would 'accept human error.' Year after year broadcasters were drawing millimetre offside lines to provoke fans - as soon as a VAR does it it's 'ruining football.'
Click to expand...
Maybe I am in dreamland cos it's a 'never ending nightmare'. And I'm fully aware that I'm not gonna wake up 😱
 
Big Cat said:
The PGMOL are making it up by declaring an alternative approach
Click to expand...
Absolutely not. They are instructing referees how to apply the long-established concept of trifling to encroachment by field players on PKs. And as best I can tell, it’s pretty much the same way it is applied in all professional leagues. Raise your hand if you’ve seen a professional PK taken in any country in which there was not encroachment.
 
one said:
Does anyone really think the goalkeeper encroaching by less than an inch impacted the save?

I don't really know what the solution is but this is not it. We have gone from ignoring over a yard of encroachment to punishing less than an inch.
Click to expand...

The problem is that on things like this where do you draw the line?

If you say we’ll allow leeway of 1 foot, then that’s fine, right up until you get a decision where it’s 1 foot and 1 inch, then it becomes marginal again.

If you leave it to the referee and don’t involve technology, then we’re back to complaints on inconsistency and subjectivity.
 
socal lurker said:
Absolutely not. They are instructing referees how to apply the long-established concept of trifling to encroachment by field players on PKs. And as best I can tell, it’s pretty much the same way it is applied in all professional leagues. Raise your hand if you’ve seen a professional PK taken in any country in which there was not encroachment.
Click to expand...
I sense a patronising tone of late Mr Lurker. I do hope me senses are misleading...
I'm merely saying, 'write it in the book'. Especially when you've got VAR in town. My view of the world is not based in historical knowledge of the book; rather observation of what a mess the game has become since I started refereeing. That bothers me, although I'm ignoring the cause & effect 😏
Edit: it has always been badly officiated, its just got a whole lot worse
 
Last edited:
Not calling encroachment on field players unless it matters has been around for decades (we can’t blame it on you starting reffing ;)).The magic book used to actually say specifically that the game benefits from not calling trifling or doubtful infractions. Of course, the question is what is trifling. If there is no rebound, a field player encroaching is a good example of trifling—unless a player gets far enough in to distract the kicker or GK, it really doesn’t matter. I think the line is well drawn right now on field players and encroaching. (And it’s really foolish to encroach; you get away with it if it doesn’t matter, but if you get to the ball, it gets called.)

The problem with PKs was that trifling got stretched way, way too far with GKs who were coming off 3 or 4 yards but weren’t getting called because no one knew where to draw the line. That led to the micro-enforcement against GK because at some point they clearly gain an advantage, and if you’re going to use VR, the only place to really draw the line is where the the Laws say. That implementation abandons, to a limited degree, the concept of trifling-but it is still kept with respect to not calling GKs for moving too soon unless they make a save (or, akin to field players, it’s so blatant and awful that the kicker skying the ball can be blamed on that distraction).
 
Big Cat said:
The players other than the kicker and goalkeeper must be
at least 9.15m (10yds) from the penalty mark
Click to expand...
Given the image in the OP and using the pitch markings, could you say that Leeds #9 is nearer than 9.15m (10yds)?
Secondly, if a goalkeeper is not permitted to move forward from the goal line, how can he/she ever be that close to the penalty mark to warrant inclusion with the kicker?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top