Crystal Palace (H) | Post Match Thread

Vic said:
I'm struggling.

It wasn't delaying the restart of play, and it wasn't a corner or free kick.

And that list of cautionable offences (presumably from an American site) is at least three years out of date. Since 2019 it's been:

CAUTIONABLE OFFENCES

A player is cautioned if guilty of:

delaying the restart of play

dissent by word or action

entering, re-entering or deliberately leaving the field of play without the referee’s permission

failing to respect the required distance when play is restarted with a dropped ball, corner kick, free kick or throw-in

persistent offences (no specific number or pattern of offences constitutes “persistent”)

unsporting behaviour

entering the referee review area (RRA)

excessively using the 'review' (TV screen) signal


There's another list of examples of unsporting behaviour but preventing the keeper from releasing the ball isn't in that list.
Click to expand...
goalkeepingmatters.com

“Possession” – when the goalkeeper has the ball and no one can do anything about it.

The concept of “possession” or “control” of the ball is critical to allowing goalkeepers to perform their job. Once a keeper has possession, they are free to recover to their feet and distribute th…
goalkeepingmatters.com goalkeepingmatters.com

Once the goalkeeper has gained possession (also known as “control”) of the ball, an opponent may not interfere with or block the goalkeeper’s distribution of the ball. For example, players have a right to maintain a position achieved during the normal course of play, but they may not try to block the goalkeeper’s movement while he or she is holding the ball and trying to distribute it.

I assume the critical aspect of this decision was that the Palace player moved to block the distribution of the ball.
 
Vic said:
Good grief.

Absolutely nothing whatsoever in a month of Sundays in the field of human conflict to do with offside
Click to expand...

So what part of:
  • making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball
Doesn’t meet your requirements in a month of Sundays’s
 
Alan Harper's Tash said:
goalkeepingmatters.com

“Possession” – when the goalkeeper has the ball and no one can do anything about it.

The concept of “possession” or “control” of the ball is critical to allowing goalkeepers to perform their job. Once a keeper has possession, they are free to recover to their feet and distribute th…
goalkeepingmatters.com goalkeepingmatters.com

Once the goalkeeper has gained possession (also known as “control”) of the ball, an opponent may not interfere with or block the goalkeeper’s distribution of the ball. For example, players have a right to maintain a position achieved during the normal course of play, but they may not try to block the goalkeeper’s movement while he or she is holding the ball and trying to distribute it.

I assume the critical aspect of this decision was that the Palace player moved to block the distribution of the ball.
Click to expand...
The linked article is four years old, and quoted a second hand source from 2005! And from the USF, whose interpretations were often innovative, and wrong.

That said, as the "not preventing the keeper from releasing the ball" has been the law for over 20 years, the advice is probably still about right.

It seems the more accessible the laws, the less keen people are to read them - though the laws are more than twice the length they were when you had to buy the book, either the official laws of association football (LOAF) or the better-illustrated "Know the Game"). The current law thankfully has now stopped confusingly using "possession" and "control" and settled for "control".

A goalkeeper is considered to be in control of the ball with the hand(s) when:
• the ball is between the hands or between the hand and any surface (e.g. ground, own body) or by touching it with any part of the hands or arms, except if the ball rebounds from the goalkeeper or the goalkeeper has made a save
• holding the ball in the outstretched open hand
• bouncing it on the ground or throwing it in the air

A goalkeeper cannot be challenged by an opponent when in control of the ball with the hand(s).


Anyone can write to IFAB (the branch of FIFA that sets the laws) and suggest changes. For instance, why do you need "the ball is between the hands or between the hand and any surface (e.g. ground, own body)" - isn't that covered by "touching the ball with any part of the hands or arms"? Why (32 years after the Crosby / Dibble goal) do we still need "holding the ball in the outstretched open hand"?

(City, ruining the laws for decades.)

So, simply:

A goalkeeper cannot be challenged by an opponent when:
• touching the ball with any part of the hands or arms
• bouncing it on the ground or throwing it in the air

Coupled with the indirect free kick if an opponent

prevents the goalkeeper from releasing the ball from the hands or kicks or attempts to kick the ball when the goalkeeper is in the process of releasing it.

Of course, this is all in the context of the most-breached, least-enforced law in the game:

An indirect free kick is awarded if a goalkeeper, inside their penalty area...:
  • controls the ball with the hand/arm for more than six seconds before releasing it
 
The_Maverick said:
So what part of:
  • making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball
Doesn’t meet your requirements in a month of Sundays’s
Click to expand...
We're not talking about offside. You can't apply the wording of the offside law to anything other than offside situations.
 
Vic said:
The linked article is four years old, and quoted a second hand source from 2005! And from the USF, whose interpretations were often innovative, and wrong.

That said, as the "not preventing the keeper from releasing the ball" has been the law for over 20 years, the advice is probably still about right.

It seems the more accessible the laws, the less keen people are to read them - though the laws are more than twice the length they were when you had to buy the book, either the official laws of association football (LOAF) or the better-illustrated "Know the Game"). The current law thankfully has now stopped confusingly using "possession" and "control" and settled for "control".

A goalkeeper is considered to be in control of the ball with the hand(s) when:
• the ball is between the hands or between the hand and any surface (e.g. ground, own body) or by touching it with any part of the hands or arms, except if the ball rebounds from the goalkeeper or the goalkeeper has made a save
• holding the ball in the outstretched open hand
• bouncing it on the ground or throwing it in the air

A goalkeeper cannot be challenged by an opponent when in control of the ball with the hand(s).


Anyone can write to IFAB (the branch of FIFA that sets the laws) and suggest changes. For instance, why do you need "the ball is between the hands or between the hand and any surface (e.g. ground, own body)" - isn't that covered by "touching the ball with any part of the hands or arms"? Why (32 years after the Crosby / Dibble goal) do we still need "holding the ball in the outstretched open hand"?

(City, ruining the laws for decades.)

So, simply:

A goalkeeper cannot be challenged by an opponent when:
• touching the ball with any part of the hands or arms
• bouncing it on the ground or throwing it in the air

Coupled with the indirect free kick if an opponent

prevents the goalkeeper from releasing the ball from the hands or kicks or attempts to kick the ball when the goalkeeper is in the process of releasing it.

Of course, this is all in the context of the most-breached, least-enforced law in the game:

An indirect free kick is awarded if a goalkeeper, inside their penalty area...:
  • controls the ball with the hand/arm for more than six seconds before releasing it
Click to expand...
When all said and done id be fuming if we had that disallowed to go 3 up away! I think it should have stood.
 
Psychedelic Casual said:
It surely falls under the end of this sentence in the laws though:

  • prevents the goalkeeper from releasing the ball from the hands or kicks or attempts to kick the ball when the goalkeeper is in the process of releasing it
View attachment 54183

Ederson is in the process of releasing the ball there.
Click to expand...
@Vic

I refer you to my post, from the fourth bullet point down under “2. Indirect Free Kick” within “Law 12: Fouls And Misconduct”.

www.thefa.com

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct

IFAB Laws of the Game
www.thefa.com www.thefa.com
 
This thread be be half the number of pages if only those who understood the LOTG were allowed to post. This 3rd goal that everyone is going on about was quite rightly chalked off and if people listen the ref blew the whistle before the ball went into the net. It was about the only thing the ref got right all game. You can debate the Erling high boot all day long as that is subjective this incident was fact.
 
Eds said:
This thread be be half the number of pages if only those who understood the LOTG were allowed to post. This 3rd goal that everyone is going on about was quite rightly chalked off and if people listen the ref blew the whistle before the ball went into the net. It was about the only thing the ref got right all game. You can debate the Erling high boot all day long as that is subjective this incident was fact.
Click to expand...
It was the same last week with the Trippier incident on de Bruyne.

Across about half a dozen threads there were posters saying “he was off the floor and out of control, it should have been a red card”. When the words “off the floor” and “out of control” aren’t in the LOTG.

I believe in the Sky studio the other day, Dermott Gallagher was explaining why it was an infringement on Ederson, and Warnock and the others in the studio said “oh I didn’t know that was the rule”… Warnock played 555 games in his career over 15 years and is now supposed to be a radio and television pundit on the sport. How the fuck does he not know the LOTG inside out? And even if he doesn’t, how is he going into the studio to talk about the weekend’s incidents and not reading up on that one, knowing it’ll come up, before going into work?… imagine going into a meeting at work not prepared for what is about to be talked about in a normal job? your boss would hammer you!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Psychedelic Casual said:
From your posts I thought you were searching for that specific bit mate.
Click to expand...
Not really. I quoted it on Saturday night!

Vic said:
Depends.

The offence is: "prevents the goalkeeper from releasing the ball from the hands or kicks or attempts to kick the ball when the goalkeeper is in the process of releasing it".

Intercepting the ball when the goalkeeper has released it isn't an offence.

And it's not a mandatory YC.
Click to expand...
 
Psychedelic Casual said:
It was the same last week with the Trippier incident on de Bruyne.

Across about half a dozen threads there were posters saying “he was off the floor and out of control, it should have been a red card”. When the words “off the floor” and “out of control” aren’t in the LOTG.

I believe in the Sky studio the other day, Dermott Gallagher was explaining why it was an infringement on Ederson, and Warnock and the others in the studio said “oh I didn’t know that was the rule”… Warnock played 555 games in his career over 15 years and is now supposed to be a radio and television pundit on the sport. How the fuck does he not know the LOTG inside out? And even if he doesn’t, how is he going into the studio to talk about the weekend’s incidents and not reading up on that one, knowing it’ll come up, before going into work?… imagine going into a meeting at work not prepared for what is about to be talked about in a normal job? your boss would hammer you!
Click to expand...
Whilst I agree about the words “off the floor” and “out of control” aren’t in the LOTG these phrases have been used by everyone for many seasons to justify red cards. Suddenly this didn't apply to the Trippier challenge despite there being no clear and obvious error once the red had been produced and despite the so called high bar for overturning decisions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vic
Psychedelic Casual said:
how is he going into the studio to talk about the weekend’s incidents and not reading up on that one, knowing it’ll come up, before going into work?… imagine going into a meeting at work not prepared for what is about to be talked about in a normal job? your boss would hammer you!
Click to expand...
Absolutely- just emphasises the poor quality of all the pundits as Warnock is one of the better ones. They’re all a joke & when we look back it is even more obvious - eg the Merson; Stelling & Phil Thompson comments when we signed KDB
 
CC1 said:
Absolutely- just emphasises the poor quality of all the pundits as Warnock is one of the better ones. They’re all a joke & when we look back it is even more obvious - eg the Merson; Stelling & Phil Thompson comments when we signed KDB
Click to expand...

It just proves that a person who has a talent for kicking a football about isn't always that intelligent or has any superior knowledge than your average fan watching the game.
 
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