Referees/Officials

  • Thread starter Thread starter blueinsa
  • Start date Start date
fatbloke said:
Absolute bollocks, how on earth can you say honestly that Sane wouldn't have got to that ball? The keepers touch didn't alter the speed of the ball and only changed the direction less than a few centimetres at most. To say Sane wouldn't reach that without the trip is just absolute bullshit and you know it.
Click to expand...

If the ball had gone backwards or sideways BlueAnorak might have a point under the rules the reality is but for Forster bringing Sane down he would have got to the ball. That aside I still maintain that Forster didn't even touch the ball..

We all know any other team would have been awarded a penalty.
 
fatbloke said:
Absolute bollocks, how on earth can you say honestly that Sane wouldn't have got to that ball? The keepers touch didn't alter the speed of the ball and only changed the direction less than a few centimetres at most. To say Sane wouldn't reach that without the trip is just absolute bullshit and you know it.
Click to expand...
With no intent, being able to get to the ball is irrelevant - Sané would have to have gone 2 or 3 steps out of his way to regain full control first.
 
Bluearmy said:
He didn't lose control of the ball tho, so your wrong. Graham Poll explained why it was a penalty at half time, which it clearly was.
Click to expand...
This is the only point of contention.
The ref and I believe the ball moved sufficiently for the ball to be no longer under full control as Sané would have to make 2 or 3 steps to the right.
You and Poll don't so clearly not a guaranteed penalty by most peoples evaluation.
I should point out that Poll clearly hasn't been to referee rule implementation/guidence conferences for about 3 years either.
 
Bottom line for me is that because it's so ambiguous then I understand the ref not giving the penalty. It looked at normal speed as if Forster got a decent hand to it which took it off course and consequently I think the ref went with the safest call.

Has to be said though, I guarantee the scum would have got the penalty and the argument would have raged in reverse about how it was a definite penalty and the ambiguity would be twisted in their favour.
 
BlueAnorak said:
With no intent, being able to get to the ball is irrelevant - Sané would have to have gone 2 or 3 steps out of his way to regain full control first.
Click to expand...

Whenever a keeper goes to block the ball in those situations there never is intent it's simply that the attacker is quicker to the ball. You see penalties given in those situations every single time. Under your interpretation a penalty would rarely if ever be given. Stop digging.
 
flobo said:
You can go on about rules/lost control etc...If Sane plays for Utd or Lfc he gets a penalty...one rule for City another rule for our top 4 rivals
Click to expand...

Rammy Blue said:
Bottom line for me is that because it's so ambiguous then I understand the ref not giving the penalty. It looked at normal speed as if Forster got a decent hand to it which took it off course and consequently I think the ref went with the safest call.

Has to be said though, I guarantee the scum would have got the penalty and the argument would have raged in reverse about how it was a definite penalty and the ambiguity would be twisted in their favour.
Click to expand...

No disagreement from me on this point. Non at all!
 
We have seen these incidents given as penalties probably eight out of ten times. When they involve us, particularly this season, you can reverse those percentages.
 
Must admit, I was furious at the time and was convinced it was a penalty. Having seen it from another angle, and read what Sane has said, that I accept that it was the right call. Still not convinced that the ref saw Forster's touch though.
 
BlueAnorak said:
With no intent, being able to get to the ball is irrelevant - Sané would have to have gone 2 or 3 steps out of his way to regain full control first.
Click to expand...

I presume you didn't see Sane's goal in near identical circumstances against Arsenal two weeks earlier. He was in full control and the keepers slightest of touches does absolutely nothing to change that at all.
 
Ric said:
Must admit, I was furious at the time and was convinced it was a penalty. Having seen it from another angle, and read what Sane has said, that I accept that it was the right call. Still not convinced that the ref saw Forster's touch though.
Click to expand...

Does he have to though Ric? If the ref is not sure if there is a touch or not, and that is the deciding factor in whether it's a pen or not, arguably he should not give the penalty.

In the ground I thought it was a pen but similar to you I'm satisfied now it isn't a pen. It does show how hard decision-making is for refs.

When you consider all the TVs angles, slow-motion replays and a day of consideration fans on here are still debating whether the ball was touched, did it divert the direction of the ball sufficiently to prevent Sane scoring and the interpretation of law.

Yet the ref is still getting criticised for his decision at full match speed in a pressured environment and having to make a split second decision. It highlights what an almost impossible job it is.
 
BlueAnorak said:
This is the only point of contention.
The ref and I believe the ball moved sufficiently for the ball to be no longer under full control as Sané would have to make 2 or 3 steps to the right.
You and Poll don't so clearly not a guaranteed penalty by most peoples evaluation.
I should point out that Poll clearly hasn't been to referee rule implementation/guidence conferences for about 3 years either.
Click to expand...

It's not though, the slight touch if any by the keepers hand didn't alter the pace or direction of the ball sufficiently after Sane played it around him. He then connects with Sane which impedes him getting to the ball. Graham Poll explained clearly why it was 100% a Penalty at half time according to the current rules.

The balls change of direction was from Sane being so quick footed and playing the ball with his own foot, nothing to do with the faint touch from the keeper. In fairness to the ref at the time I can understand why he possibly thought that the keepers touch was significant, it looked that way to me live. But the replays show Sane plays the ball which alters the direction (the ref must have thought it was the keeper). Although you know it would have been given without a thought for other teams. If you've seen it back and are still of that opinion, then your wrong I'm afraid....

As someone else just pointed out, the result if the keeper hadn't brought him down would of been a carbon copy of the Arsenal goal or at least a shot. The challenge prevented this opportunity and under the current rules it's a penalty.
 
Last edited:
From the referees perspective the ball was moved so that Sané would have to step two yards to his left to regain control. So under current referee guidance it's irrelevant as to whether he would have got there or not.
I do agree that it probably would have been given for other teams though.
 
BlueAnorak said:
From the referees perspective the ball was moved so that Sané would have to step two yards to his left to regain control. So under current referee guidance it's irrelevant as to whether he would have got there or not.
I do agree that it probably would have been given for other teams though.
Click to expand...

From 4 mins 30 seconds on the link below, is the clear explanation as to why it's a penalty. Your wrong I'm afraid, as Graham Poll confirms after the match in more detail than he did at half time. Mark Halsey on an overseas network also agrees with this.

It was you in the first place that said Sane wasn't in control and wouldn't have reached it, which is wrong. There's a picture as 3 mins 40 seconds of Sane falling with the ball a very reachable yard in front of him at most. If he hadn't of been clipped he would have shot/scored exactly as he did against Arsenal.

 
Bluearmy said:
From 4 mins 30 seconds on the link below, is the clear explanation as to why it's a penalty. Your wrong I'm afraid, as Graham Poll confirms after the match in more detail than he did at half time. Mark Halsey on an overseas network also agrees with this.

It was you in the first place that said Sane wasn't in control and wouldn't have reached it, which is wrong. There's a picture as 3 mins 40 seconds of Sane falling with the ball a very reachable yard in front of him at most. If he hadn't of been clipped he would have shot/scored exactly as he did against Arsenal.

Click to expand...


It's a nonsense to suggest Sane wouldn't have got to the ball and irrelevant. Liverpool were awarded a penalty when Clichy got to the ball and the ball fell harmlessly into our keepers arms. I've seen umpteen penalties awarded in similar circumstances even when it's obvious the player won't get to the ball.

For any other game it's a penalty no questions asked, no debate, penalty and no one would have questioned it.

It's only a debate where Manchester City are concerned when people desperately try and justify the nonsense of the referees decision, even creating some mythical touch from Forster which i am yet to see. Thankfully it didn't cost us but there was a time up until our goal that I thought it would.

The ball goes past Forster, Sane had no reason to go down other than the goalkeepers touch. Unbelievable decision from the ref not to give it. Frankly, it just demonstrates their mindset when awarding any decision in our favour.
 
Last edited:
Blue Mooner said:
It's a nonsense to suggest Sane wouldn't have got to the ball and irrelevant. Liverpool were awarded a penalty when Clichy got to the ball and the ball fell harmlessly into our keepers arms. I've seen umpteen penalties awarded in similar circumstances even when it's obvious the player won't get to the ball.

For any other game it's a penalty no questions asked, no debate, penalty and no one would have questioned it.

It's only a debate where Manchester City are concerned when people desperately try and justify the nonsense of the referees decision, even creating some mythical touch from Forster which i am yet to see. Thankfully it didn't cost us but there was a time up until our goal that I thought it would.

The ball goes past Forster, Sane had no reason to go down other than the goalkeepers touch. Unbelievable decision from the ref not to give it. Frankly, it just demonstrates their mindset when awarding any decision in our favour.
Click to expand...

Completely agree
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top