Crystal Palace (H) | Post Match Thread

[Alan Harper's Tash]

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And that list of cautionable offences (presumably from an American site) is at least three years out of date.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.

“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

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.

 

[lasereyes]

Ref Watch: Should Man City's Erling Haaland and Newcastle's Fabian Schar have been sent off?

Plus: Why did Crystal Palaces apparent third goal at Man City not count? Steve Cooks handball penalty analysed, plus Conor Gallaghers red card for Chelsea; Jamie Sands also escaped an red card for Rangers in the Scottish Premiership

www.skysports.com

 

[citytill1die84]

Ref Watch: Should Man City's Erling Haaland and Newcastle's Fabian Schar have been sent off?

Plus: Why did Crystal Palaces apparent third goal at Man City not count? Steve Cooks handball penalty analysed, plus Conor Gallaghers red card for Chelsea; Jamie Sands also escaped an red card for Rangers in the Scottish Premiership

www.skysports.com

Warnock the cock.

 

[m7mcfc]

‘How Liverpool Inspired Manchester City is Good for Liverpool.’

Paywall

 

[The_Maverick]

Wrong law...

OK, so which is the correct law then?

 

[The_Maverick]

Good grief.

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

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

 

[Vic]

“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

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.

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

 

[Vic]

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

We're not talking about offside. You can't apply the wording of the offside law to anything other than offside situations.

 

[Tolmie scores]

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

When all said and done id be fuming if we had that disallowed to go 3 up away! I think it should have stood.

 

[AirbagsOptionalTheReturn]

Ref Watch: Should Man City's Erling Haaland and Newcastle's Fabian Schar have been sent off?

Plus: Why did Crystal Palaces apparent third goal at Man City not count? Steve Cooks handball penalty analysed, plus Conor Gallaghers red card for Chelsea; Jamie Sands also escaped an red card for Rangers in the Scottish Premiership

www.skysports.com

Noticed that there is no mention of the juggling by the rags