AS Monaco (A) | CL | Post Match Thread

Dax777 said:
Correct. I relied on your numbering. I hadn't actually googled it to confirm your numbering was right.

My understanding comes from actually having been a ref. Reffing games, and reading a Referee's manual. Granted, I haven't done any actual refereeing since before the pandemic. I am quite intuitively familiar with the laws and their interpretations. Which goes above and beyond just the statement of laws that you have up there. to include all other aspects of refereeing including rules, definitions, interpretation, game management, communication etc

But that's neither here nor there. It was wrong of me to trust your writing when a basic Google search to ascertain the right rule # would have sufficed. I' promise to do better next time.
Click to expand...
Any referee should have realised Law 11 refers to offside.

My spheres of active officiating in "soccer" include the FA Cup, Football League, Northern Premier League, and the Central League.

I suspect that your referee instructors might themselves need further instruction.
 
shemnel said:
I went back to look at the footage, and Dier was very much both Gonzalez and Gvardiol's man. Before the kick is taken, Dias looks over his shoulder to Gonzalez and clearly points right at Dier behind him.

Gonzalez looks at Dier and then tracks Dier pretty well into the penalty area, Gvardiol is on the goal side of Dier too but not tightly.

Remarkably, Dier holds of Gvardiol at arms length with one arm and completely puts off Gonzalez with some typical centre half 'craft' with the other (i.e. arms all over everyone). No wonder he demanded to take the penalty, he's done very well there, really strong.

But a combination of weak marking from Gvardiol and a fairly strange decision from Nico to use his foot that high in the area after falling out of position has forced the officials to make a decision one way or the other. I really think it was very poor defending from City.

(Also, word about Dias who completely lost his man and just stopped tracking him completely, a bit worrying in the 90th min)


View attachment 171214
Click to expand...

Can’t argue against it being very poor defending as a unit!
 
noseve said:
Sorry, Sherlock, that's probably just an artifact from transition between two frames.

I took the screenshot myself, from the original TNT Sports video link here: https://www.google.com/search?clien...HfC8D9QQwLAHKAB6BAgjEAE&biw=360&bih=703&dpr=3
Click to expand...
Whatever,

But it proves using stills and freeze frames is a load of bollocks in making decisions!

You say an artifact from transition between frames! wtf

So how many decisions have been ruled out or offside because of an "artifact between frames"

This clinical use of VAR is ruining the game.

I stand by my opinion that was never a penalty. Far too soft and similar things happen at most corners and set pieces played into the box.
 
ysmsa said:
Whatever,

But it proves using stills and freeze frames is a load of bollocks in making decisions!

You say an artifact from transition between frames! wtf

So how many decisions have been ruled out or offside because of an "artifact between frames"

This clinical use of VAR is ruining the game.

I stand by my opinion that was never a penalty. Far too soft and similar things happen at most corners and set pieces played into the box.
Click to expand...
Fair enough (although I don't follow why "
But it proves using stills and freeze frames is a load of bollocks in making decisions!") - I only posted it because somebody was stating that Nico's foot was firmly planted. It wasn't, his foot was effectively 18 inches higher than had that been the case.

The days when I had a clue about actual penalty decisions have long gone - too many laughable decisions under the bridge, so I've left that to everybody else. My posts have been about Nico's decision.
 
noseve said:
? after two matches last season we also had 4 points...
Click to expand...
This season, our performances have improved. We're not back to 2023-24 levels, but the signs of progression are there.

I can't see us winning shit this season, however, I'm not daft enough to rule it out either, because luck also plays a part in winning the CL.

City put themselves in the situation we now find ourselves in, so for your sanity, it's best you view this season as what it is... A transitional rebuilding period that should be properly judged at the end of 2027-28.

It is what it is fella. It's the reality of our situation.
 
noseve said:
Fair enough (although I don't follow why "
But it proves using stills and freeze frames is a load of bollocks in making decisions!") - I only posted it because somebody was stating that Nico's foot was firmly planted. It wasn't, his foot was effectively 18 inches higher than had that been the case.

The days when I had a clue about actual penalty decisions have long gone - too many laughable decisions under the bridge, so I've left that to everybody else. My posts have been about Nico's decision.
Click to expand...
It was an instinctive decision by Nico that didn't really affect the outcome for Dier.

I have a problem with penalties given in these circumstances.

If he had somehow scored they wouldn't have pulled it up and said penalty

Just like they didn't want to review the non foul for the free kick, they say they can't!

It's basically a lottery as to what VAR look at or ignore, may as well let the ref do that.
 
Paladin said:
This from IFAB (the International Football Association Board), which is responsible for determining the Laws of the Game.

Fouls | IFAB

Fouls
www.footballrules.com www.footballrules.com

View attachment 171215

It is unequivocal that a foul involves physical contact, and non-contact offences (notice they aren't referred to as fouls) are punishable by the award of an indirect free kick.
Click to expand...
Did you read one paragraph further?

Paladin said:
Your inclusion of non-contact offences in the category of a foul is unique, misleading to others, and in the eyes of the vast majority wrong. I don't expect you to back down on this, because you have entrenched yourself deeply and humility doesn't seem to be part of your nature.
Click to expand...
The way we know what the rules are is not by what the majority think. But actually by what is states in the laws and the principles that underpin those laws

Paladin said:
So after whatever attempt at proving me wrong you conjure up in response to this, forgive me for not continuing this futile debate. Others who have followed our dispute can make their own minds up about our different opinions:

Yours - A raised boot without making contact with an opponent can be penalised by a direct free kick.
Click to expand...
Awww! Now you've resorted to purposely misquoting me. Is that an admission youve now figured it out? Lets find out.

Paladin said:
Mine - A raised boot without making contact with an opponent can be considered dangerous play, and can only be penalised by an indirect free kick.
.
Click to expand...
Awww! But the question at issue is whether it is a foul.

I wonder if the IFAB link you provided had anything to say about it. Lets check.


""Which fouls are punished with an indirect free kick?

The following fouls are punished with an indirect free kick as long as there is no contact with the opponent (fouls that make contact with the opponent result in a direct free kick):

  • playing dangerously*,g. high foot (no contact)
  • obstructing/impeding an opponent** (no contact)
  • preventing/blocking a goalkeeper from releasing the ball from their hands
  • trying to kick/play the ball when the goalkeeper is holding it
  • committing any other offence not mentioned in the Laws, for which play is stopped to show a player a red or yellow card"
Bummer!!! I guess you didn't read that far down into the laws. Or did you? :)

Anyway, I think we've had more than enough of a lesson on fouls for a lifetime.
 
Last edited:
Something that annoyed me after the game ended, Phil and John Stones standing having a laugh with that cheating jug-headed twat Dier. I'd have kicked the cheating fud in the nuts, tosser cost us 2 points...why the feck were they being civil to him, think of all the City supporters who were raging at that moment and those two are up there giggling away with the wanker.
 
Paladin said:
Any referee should have realised Law 11 refers to offside.

My spheres of active officiating in "soccer" include the FA Cup, Football League, Northern Premier League, and the Central League.

I suspect that your referee instructors might themselves need further instruction.
Click to expand...
Yes! Soccer. Like i said, my bad for trusting your judgment. As you can see from my response to your well curated "meaning of a foul," post, i went and double checked your work and found information you must have missed.


I am sure you are now clear about what constitutes a foul in both soccer and football. :).

Glad to have been of service
 
Last edited:
blue by birth said:
So if an attacking player attempts a diving header and is approximately a foot off the ground and the defender attempts to clear the ball but doesn't make contact with the player but clears the ball then that's also a penalty.. because his foot is raised a foot off the ground..
Click to expand...
I was going to answer than I thought, i bet just chat gpt can explain it better.

Here is how it answered your question:

Not necessarily — let’s break this down using Law 12 (Fouls and Misconduct):


A foul (and thus possibly a penalty, if inside the penalty area) only occurs if:


  • There is careless, reckless, or excessive force in the challenge, and
  • The defender makes contact with the opponent (not just the ball).

In your scenario:


  1. Attacker’s position – The attacker chooses to go low for a diving header. That puts their head in a place where defenders are reasonably entitled to try to clear with their foot.
  2. Defender’s action – If the defender swings and cleanly clears the ball, with no contact made with the attacker, there’s no foul.
  3. Dangerous play? – Law 12 does cover “playing in a dangerous manner”, which is when a player’s action threatens injury to someone (including themselves) without contact. But that usually applies when the action prevents an opponent from playing the ball (for example, a high foot near a head that forces the opponent to pull out).

In your case:


  • If the defender clears the ball cleanly and does not endanger or stop the attacker from fairly challenging, no foul and no penalty.
  • If the defender’s foot was high enough to be considered “dangerous” and caused the attacker to hesitate or miss the chance, the referee might call indirect free kick for dangerous play — not a penalty (since dangerous play without contact is not a direct free kick offense).
  • If the defender made contact with the attacker’s head in that clearance attempt, that could be considered kicking/striking an opponent → foul → penalty inside the box.

  • No contact + ball cleared → Play on.
  • No contact but dangerous (opponent disadvantaged) → Indirect free kick.
  • Contact with opponent’s head/upper body → Foul, potentially penalty.


I added the bold for the relevant sections and the principles that underpinned the decision.


Hopefully that clears up your example and aids Foggy-boring's understanding.
 
Dax777 said:
I was going to answer than I thought, i bet just chat gpt can explain it better.

Here is how it answered your question:

Not necessarily — let’s break this down using Law 12 (Fouls and Misconduct):


A foul (and thus possibly a penalty, if inside the penalty area) only occurs if:


  • There is careless, reckless, or excessive force in the challenge, and
  • The defender makes contact with the opponent (not just the ball).

In your scenario:


  1. Attacker’s position – The attacker chooses to go low for a diving header. That puts their head in a place where defenders are reasonably entitled to try to clear with their foot.
  2. Defender’s action – If the defender swings and cleanly clears the ball, with no contact made with the attacker, there’s no foul.
  3. Dangerous play? – Law 12 does cover “playing in a dangerous manner”, which is when a player’s action threatens injury to someone (including themselves) without contact. But that usually applies when the action prevents an opponent from playing the ball (for example, a high foot near a head that forces the opponent to pull out).

In your case:


  • If the defender clears the ball cleanly and does not endanger or stop the attacker from fairly challenging, no foul and no penalty.
  • If the defender’s foot was high enough to be considered “dangerous” and caused the attacker to hesitate or miss the chance, the referee might call indirect free kick for dangerous play — not a penalty (since dangerous play without contact is not a direct free kick offense).
  • If the defender made contact with the attacker’s head in that clearance attempt, that could be considered kicking/striking an opponent → foul → penalty inside the box.

  • No contact + ball cleared → Play on.
  • No contact but dangerous (opponent disadvantaged) → Indirect free kick.
  • Contact with opponent’s head/upper body → Foul, potentially penalty.


I added the bold for the relevant sections and the principles that underpinned the decision.


Hopefully that clears up your example and aids Foggy-boring's understanding.
Click to expand...
Fuck me you are boring as fuck..
How many actual City games have you been too..
I'm not wasting my time with you..fuck me you quote laws and rules but don't seem to actually know fuck all..
Using AI to argue for you..FFS
It's rare I put anyone on ignore but congratulations you join a short but important list.
 
blue by birth said:
Fuck me you are boring as fuck..
How many actual City games have you been too..
I'm not wasting my time with you..fuck me you quote laws and rules but don't seem to actually know fuck all..
Using AI to argue for you..FFS
It's rare I put anyone on ignore but congratulations you join a short but important list.
Click to expand...

Fantastic.
 
Dax777 said:
Did you read one paragraph further?


The way we know what the rules are is not by what the majority think. But actually by what is states in the laws and the principles that underpin those laws


Awww! Now you've resorted to purposely misquoting me. Is that an admission youve now figured it out? Lets find out.


Awww! But the question at issue is whether it is a foul.

I wonder if the IFAB link you provided had anything to say about it. Lets check.


""Which fouls are punished with an indirect free kick?

The following fouls are punished with an indirect free kick as long as there is no contact with the opponent (fouls that make contact with the opponent result in a direct free kick):

  • playing dangerously*,g. high foot (no contact)
  • obstructing/impeding an opponent** (no contact)
  • preventing/blocking a goalkeeper from releasing the ball from their hands
  • trying to kick/play the ball when the goalkeeper is holding it
  • committing any other offence not mentioned in the Laws, for which play is stopped to show a player a red or yellow card"
Bummer!!! I guess you didn't read that far down into the laws. Or did you? :)

Anyway, I think we've had more than enough of a lesson on fouls for a lifetime.
Click to expand...
No wonder the games fucked
If a ref has to run that lot and more through his mind in a couple of seconds.
 
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