Referees/Officials

  • Thread starter Thread starter blueinsa
  • Start date Start date
Kinkladze 1 said:
So me, you and Sane all agree it wasn't a penalty then! Excellent!
Click to expand...

You are catching up fast pal. Personally I am not 100 percent either way and that is after deliberation, videos from all angles and slow-mos so I can hardly criticise the ref for not being sure and so not giving it. So if the ref, like me, was not sure he was right not to give it.
 
Kinkladze 1 said:
Anyone who says it's a penalty is a deluded fool who are incapable of rational thought.
Click to expand...
Looks like I am a deluded fool who is incapable of rational thought. If the keeper touched it then the touch was so slight that the ref couldn't possibly have seen it to give a corner. He guessed the decision and got it wrong
 
Eds said:
Looks like I am a deluded fool who is incapable of rational thought. If the keeper touched it then the touch was so slight that the ref couldn't possibly have seen it to give a corner. He guessed the decision and got it wrong
Click to expand...
Well in that case you are. Doesn't matter what the ref thought he saw. Fact is video shows keeper took ball and didn't touch man therefore no penalty. Not rocket science.
 
franksinatra said:
You are catching up fast pal. Personally I am not 100 percent either way and that is after deliberation, videos from all angles and slow-mos so I can hardly criticise the ref for not being sure and so not giving it. So if the ref, like me, was not sure he was right not to give it.
Click to expand...
You're very confusing. Perhaps you don't have a great command of English that's why it's not clear what you're saying or why you're saying it. I hope Leroy understands you. You're obviously very close.
 
Kinkladze 1 said:
You're very confusing. Perhaps you don't have a great command of English that's why it's not clear what you're saying or why you're saying it. I hope Leroy understands you. You're obviously very close.
Click to expand...

Quite simply from all the angles, slow-motion replays I cannot say with any certainty it was a pen so therefore in my opinion it's not a pen. If the ref viewed it the same way, he was unsure, he made the correct decision to not award it.
 
B
franksinatra said:
Quite simply from all the angles, slow-motion replays I cannot say with any certainty it was a pen so therefore in my opinion it's not a pen. If the ref viewed it the same way, he was unsure, he made the correct decision to not award it.
Click to expand...
Bizarre ramblings.
 
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...

But Poll says in his opinion Sane moved the ball not the other way round which is why he would have given a pen.
I disagree with that due to the change in direction of the ball that was visible from other angles as Forster dived at the ball - The ref could certainly not be 100% sure either way.
IMO the Forster touch meant that Sané would not have been in full control of the ball after hurdling the keeper (if he had done).

That is not what you have been arguing. You have been arguing that the Forster touch was insufficient to stop Sané getting to the ball. I believe that is irrelevant to it being a foul or not. By touching the ball the Forster save was not a deliberate foul so only the "impeding the opponent" part of rule applies.

Referee guidance example videos clearly state the conditions under which any tackle causes the attacker to no longer be in full control of the ball and for the "impeding the opponent" part of the direct free kick rule to stop being active. It makes no difference where the tackle is - and - a goalkeeper diving at the feet of an opponent to push the ball away is simply an example of an attempt at a legal tackle. The only available examples I can find at the moment are the apps at the Ken Ston Referee society available at http://www.kenaston.org/the-pitch/quizzes-for-referees.htm

Note: If Sané had not been a City player I fully expect that the level of proof would have to have been less for a penalty to be given.
 
Kinkladze 1 said:
Well in that case you are. Doesn't matter what the ref thought he saw. Fact is video shows keeper took ball and didn't touch man therefore no penalty. Not rocket science.
Click to expand...
Incorrect thought process. Does this mean if an outfield player touches the ball before going through the back of someone it isn't a foul. Video I saw shows no touch by the keeper on the ball but flicks Leroy's ankle. And even if he did touch the ball he then prevented Leroy from reaching it by taking him out.
 
Eds said:
Incorrect thought process. Does this mean if an outfield player touches the ball before going through the back of someone it isn't a foul. Video I saw shows no touch by the keeper on the ball but flicks Leroy's ankle. And even if he did touch the ball he then prevented Leroy from reaching it by taking him out.
Click to expand...

Finally, someone who says what he sees rather than an angle from behind the goal that gives no sense of distance between the glove and the ball - the angle used by BT to justify a touch.
 
BlueAnorak said:
But Poll says in his opinion Sane moved the ball not the other way round which is why he would have given a pen.
I disagree with that due to the change in direction of the ball that was visible from other angles as Forster dived at the ball - The ref could certainly not be 100% sure either way.
IMO the Forster touch meant that Sané would not have been in full control of the ball after hurdling the keeper (if he had done).

That is not what you have been arguing. You have been arguing that the Forster touch was insufficient to stop Sané getting to the ball. I believe that is irrelevant to it being a foul or not. By touching the ball the Forster save was not a deliberate foul so only the "impeding the opponent" part of rule applies.

Referee guidance example videos clearly state the conditions under which any tackle causes the attacker to no longer be in full control of the ball and for the "impeding the opponent" part of the direct free kick rule to stop being active. It makes no difference where the tackle is - and - a goalkeeper diving at the feet of an opponent to push the ball away is simply an example of an attempt at a legal tackle. The only available examples I can find at the moment are the apps at the Ken Ston Referee society available at http://www.kenaston.org/the-pitch/quizzes-for-referees.htm

Note: If Sané had not been a City player I fully expect that the level of proof would have to have been less for a penalty to be given.
Click to expand...

How many times, the slightest of touch from the keeper did not divert the ball anywhere or change its speed significantly enough. It brushed the ends of his fingers at most and as you have had explained to you multiple times, this was not enough to stop Sane reaching it, if he hadn't been fouled. Poll is 100% correct and you are wrong.

And what the hell are you going on about not a deliberate foul. If that was the case, 99% of fouls would never be given... the keeper clearly impedes Sane! Who would of finished like he did against Arsenal or at least had a shot, which he couldnt as he was impeded.
 
Blue Mooner said:
Finally, someone who says what he sees rather than an angle from behind the goal that gives no sense of distance between the glove and the ball - the angle used by BT to justify a touch.
Click to expand...
Its one angle that suggests a touch, whilst several others I've seen say there was no touch. The angle from behind the goal gives no perspective at all, the ones from the side show that Sane clearly touched the ball away from the keeper who then made contact with Sane.

Anyway matters not a jot, we won 3-0, and played very well, fully deserving the victory, and margin of it.
 
Kinkladze 1 said:
Well in that case you are. Doesn't matter what the ref thought he saw. Fact is video shows keeper took ball and didn't touch man therefore no penalty. Not rocket science.
Click to expand...

You claim it's fact that the videos show the keeper didn't touch Sane? Any ideas why you're literally the one person on the forum, the only person who viewed the game including fans, commentators, pundits and ex referees who haven't seen it?

Mods - Why is this wum not banned?
 
Bluearmy said:
How many times, the slightest of touch from the keeper did not divert the ball anywhere or change its speed significantly enough. It brushed the ends of his fingers at most and as you have had explained to you multiple times, this was not enough to stop Sane reaching it, if he hadn't been fouled. Poll is 100% correct and you are wrong.

And what the hell are you going on about not a deliberate foul. If that was the case, 99% of fouls would never be given... the keeper clearly impedes Sane! Who would of finished like he did against Arsenal or at least had a shot, which he couldnt as he was impeded.
Click to expand...

Lets just agree to disagree.
You have your opinion I have mine in that the ball was sufficiently deflected by Forster before contact with Sané (so no deliberate trip) for Sané, if he had been able to stay on his feet, to have had to have made 2 or more steps out to his left to regain control of the ball subsequently (and IMO the act of having to regain control means Forster isn't deliberately impeding him either) so no Pen. I also believe that my opinion is backed up be Referee guidance on fouls and giving free kicks/penalties.

That said It is guaranteed that the same level of proof would not be applied to other top teams.

My last post on the subject, as gainsaying is not debate. Feel free to post your opinion again if you want.
 
Last edited:
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