A&H

Liv Vs Spurs

OldNavyRef

OldNavyRef

Well-Known Member
Level 5 Referee
Goalkick scenario in the 2nd minute.

VVD plays it Becker. Son immediately presses and ref immediately blows the whistle and chases Son out the box.

Must be the new normal because it was clear and obvious kick of the ball.
 
The Referee Store
Another of those where the kick is legitimately taken.

This needs clarification in the laws asap to make it clear that any kick of a stationary ball from the correct place is considered a restart. That way we won't need refs to 'game manage' the situation.
 
es1 said:
Another of those where the kick is legitimately taken.

This needs clarification in the laws asap to make it clear that any kick of a stationary ball from the correct place is considered a restart. That way we won't need refs to 'game manage' the situation.
Click to expand...
Just seems they've decided from the Arsenal Vs Bayern game that giving the benefit to the team taking the goalkick.

The issue I have is I know for a fact the academies I referee are deliberately messing around on the goalkick in an attempt to trigger the oppositions press, the second the press is triggered they try to reset the goalkick and exploit the press.
 
🤣🤣🤣 No penalty for Spurs with the boot 6 foot off the ground and contact made wth th head.
VAR is a comedy show at this point.
 
es1 said:
Never been a pen
Click to expand...
Direction of travel being the same as the player, playing the ball and force behind it looking absolutely minimum.

I would be surprised if it was given.

Lots of interesting things when you watch the prem. Almost all the restarts when spurs were chasing were a rolling ball.
 
OldNavyRef said:
Direction of travel being the same as the player, playing the ball and force behind it looking absolutely minimum.

I would be surprised if it was given.

Lots of interesting things when you watch the prem. Almost all the restarts when spurs were chasing were a rolling ball.
Click to expand...

Read again what you just typed

Force behind a player's boot and an opponent's (who is standing upright) head being "absolutely minimum" so you're not giving a foul?!?
 
deusex said:
Read again what you just typed

Force behind a player's boot and an opponent's (who is standing upright) head being "absolutely minimum" so you're not giving a foul?!?
Click to expand...
Well that was pretty much the reasoning that was given for the non-penalty in lfc vs City
 
deusex said:
Read again what you just typed

Force behind a player's boot and an opponent's (who is standing upright) head being "absolutely minimum" so you're not giving a foul?!?
Click to expand...
I as a neutral here don't personally believe it is a foul.

VVD played/cleared the ball, and in the follow through made contact (absolutely minimum, as Johnson got the worst of it from crashing into the post) with Johnson. I don't think Johnson was put off of playing the ball as he tried and I personally don't think VVD threatened injury, as he didn't injure him.

I think in that scenario you probably expect VVD to attempt to play the ball and the man is a giant so he is probably going to try and play it with his feet.

So it comes down to if you thought it was careless, reckless or excessive.

I personally don't think it dangerous play or another foul.
 
deusex said:
Read again what you just typed

Force behind a player's boot and an opponent's (who is standing upright) head being "absolutely minimum" so you're not giving a foul?!?
Click to expand...
Also Johnson isn't 'standing upright' he is at full speed towards the Liverpool goal while jumping through the air.
 
OldNavyRef said:
Goalkick scenario in the 2nd minute.

VVD plays it Becker. Son immediately presses and ref immediately blows the whistle and chases Son out the box.

Must be the new normal because it was clear and obvious kick of the ball.
Click to expand...
And it was clear and obvious Son had encroached in to the area when the kick was taken ☺️ for which a kick as to be retaken.
Son had encroached earlier even further in and never got our of the area before the kick. Had play continued and a goal resulted, it would have gone to VAR for a review.
Screenshot_20240506-081728~2.jpg
 
Last edited:
Totally correct to retake the GK as above. No penalty for me for the high boot (and I lean in a Spurs direction!).
One extra to add. Liverpool player cautioned for time wasting within the 7 additional minutes .. no further additional time played for either the time wasting itself or the time taken to caution :wall: . I fully appreciate that time is not typically added for cautions ... but I'd have imagined this was one situation where it would have made sense!!
 
one said:
Had play continued and a goal resulted, it would have gone to VAR for a review.
Click to expand...
Would it? VAR can’t review an improperly taken restart. Can it review an encroachment violation on the other team’s restart? I don’t know the answer on that.
 
socal lurker said:
Would it? VAR can’t review an improperly taken restart. Can it review an encroachment violation on the other team’s restart? I don’t know the answer on that.
Click to expand...
I'd say the restart was taken properly and what Son did was an offence after the goal kick and ball in play. If Son hadn't challenged for the ball play would have continued.

Screenshot_20240506-163034.jpg
 
Is it just me or is the wording of the highlighted section of the law badly written?
 
Mooseybaby said:
Is it just me or is the wording of the highlighted section of the law badly written?
Click to expand...
Yes it is - and we've had this discussion before. They've left the old wording in about touching or challenging for the ball before it's in play that made sense when the ball wasn't in play till it left the penalty area but doesn't when the ball is in play as soon as it is kicked and moves.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top