Haaland's disallowed goal

[Corky]

That's my point too, we are not disagreeing on most of it. Where did I say it wasn't a foul? Where did I say it's not the letter of the law? I didn't, I gave an opinion about the law itself.

It isn't always a red card, if you are deemed to be making an attempt to play the ball... Which a shoulder challenge never can be(consider that point properly), even though it's not an attempt to foul, just the same as a sliding challenge isn't. So you are really being punished more for what type of challenge you are making.

An outstretch arms push, a pull of the shirt as described in the DOGSO law are easy examples because the intent there is not a fair challenge from the outset(you've chosen to foul). A shoulder to shoulder attempt is different(I don't think there's any doubt that was what was attempted) but I suppose it's not worth changing the law on, it only seems to make things more complicated. We should tell our players don't bother trying that centrally and tell Cancelo to play things safer in general(overestimates his chances a lot).

It can be. The ball had gone though so not on this occasion.

 

[Paladin]

Not one of these lines is parallel with any other next to it
View attachment 60632

Well actually, all of the horizontal lines are parallel with each other and all of the vertical lines are parallel with each other. The lines that meet at the point in the middle aren't parallel with each other though.

 

[Metalartin]

It can be. The ball had gone though so not on this occasion.

No, because it's not an attempt to play the ball, you're challenging for position with your upper body.

As for the right to challenge. If you believe the ball wasn't wihin playing distance(which would mean it's the same for both players in this instance), I've covered that too in the VAR thread, including what the law actually says. Cancelo barely changed the angle of his path, the Fulham attacker did it twice(before and after he arrived at the ball). Anyway, there's no point going around in circles. Keep your view if you like.

It's safest to assume you're going to get a red card, if you attempt a shoulder barge in that area of the penalty area and take a player out by accident. Full send a sliding tackle instead or just pressure them but let them take the shot(this imo).

 

[Corky]

No, because it's not an attempt to play the ball, you're challenging for position with your upper body.

As for the right to challenge. If you believe the ball wasn't wihin playing distance(which would mean it's the same for both players in this instance), I've covered that too in the VAR thread, including what the law actually says. Cancelo barely changed the angle of his path, the Fulham attacker did it twice(before and after he arrived at the ball). Anyway, there's no point going around in circles. Keep your view if you like.

It's safest to assume you're going to get a red card, if you attempt a shoulder barge in that area of the penalty area and take a player out by accident. Full send a sliding tackle instead or just pressure them but let them take the shot(this imo).

Doesn't matter if it is an attempt to play the ball if it isn't a foul.

You can't make stuff up based on a view which contradicts how football has been refereed for 100 years and claim everyone else is wrong.

 

[Metalartin]

Doesn't matter if it is an attempt to play the ball if it isn't a foul.

You can't make stuff up based on a view which contradicts how football has been refereed for 100 years and claim everyone else is wrong.

What on earth are you talking about, "making stuff up"? I've shown what the actual law says.

And again with the silly strawmen. When did I say it wasn't a foul? When did I say it's not the letter of the law? It's clear some of you don't even read the full posts for context.

We are talking about the red card and the fact that a player can stay on the pitch on the basis that they are making a direct attempt to play the ball(that hasn't always been true btw). You seem to be having a different conversation with yourself.

As for "everyone else is wrong", the irony there is we are talking about subjective opinion on the law itself being harsh(could you be any more pretentious?)... And the post you quoted contains the words "You can keep your view if you like".

As for "100 years" that's not true either, not for red cards, in fact neither for the bar for what a foul is and I don't think they had DOGSO 100s ago either.

I'm confused why some of you are getting so worked up about people(many people have the same view btw) having an opinion that differs from your own. It's not that important and it wont change anything.

 

[Corky]

What on earth are you talking about, "making stuff up"? I've shown what the actual law says.

And again with the silly strawmen. When did I say it wasn't a foul? When did I say it's not the letter of the law? It's clear some of you don't even read the full posts for context.

We are talking about the red card and the fact that a player can stay on the pitch on the basis that they are making a direct attempt to play the ball(that hasn't always been true btw). You seem to be having a different conversation with yourself.

As for "everyone else is wrong", the irony there is we are talking about subjective opinion on the law itself being harsh(could you be any more pretentious?)... And the post you quoted contains the words "You can keep your view if you like".

As for "100 years" that's not true either, not for red cards, in fact neither for the bar for what a foul is and I don't think they had DOGSO 100s ago either.

I'm confused why some of you are getting so worked up about people(many people have the same view btw) having an opinion that differs from your own. It's not that important and it wont change anything.

It is still a contact sport, and shoulder charges are still legal in certain circumstances which you missed. If the ball is there to be won it makes a massive difference. Happens every game, fair challenge, no free kick, no red.

 

[Metalartin]

It is still a contact sport, and shoulder charges are still legal in certain circumstances which you missed. If the ball is there to be won it makes a massive difference. Happens every game, fair challenge, no free kick, no red.

Wow you're keeping this going, after I pointed out you're trying to say an opinion is wrong?

I didn't miss anything, you still seem under the impression that I'm arguing things that I'm clearly not. I said he attempted a fair challenge, he ended up fouling the player.

There's no debate whether it's a foul or not, there was too much force, and he didn't get shoulder on shoulder.

What you are missing is, if you're arguing it's not within playing distance of Cancelo, then it's not within playing distance with either player. So you could argue the attacker just as much blocked off Cancelo's path. Which in turn is more of a coming together.

Cancelo committed to his path and the shoulder to shoulder before the kick-on. This was probably not even 1 second of play(ie don't judge by the slowmo), so there was no backing out of it because of his momentum and the fact that the player bent his run towards the ball(and Cancelo) before he got to it and again towards the direction on his kick-on(further right, towards Cancelo). The ball was certainly not within playing distance before player first got to the ball. If you're saying it's not within playing distance after the kick-on, then Cancelo was under no obligation to slow down or change direction at any point(the Fullham player did that). So there's two arguments, a shoulder to shoulder or a coming together because the player crossed his path.

Here is my post from the VAR thread.

The closest I've come to finding a rule like that is below. If you are arguing Cancelo isn't within playing distance then you can just as easily argue neither of them are which changes things slightly. I'd argue from the replay, it appears that the Fulham player's kick-on was more to his right than he wanted(so he messed that up, unless he wanted the contact), which took him further into Cancelo's path. If he kicked it on towards his left, he's heading into more space and away from Cancelo's path.

Impeding the progress of an opponent without contact
Impeding the progress of an opponent means moving into the opponent’s path to obstruct, block, slow down or force a change of direction when the ball is not within playing distance of either player.

All players have a right to their position on the field of play; being in the way of an opponent is not the same as moving into the way of an opponent.

A player may shield the ball by taking a position between an opponent and the
ball if the ball is within playing distance and the opponent is not held off with
the arms or body. If the ball is within playing distance, the player may be fairly
charged by an opponent.

I don't know why you're mentioning shoulder to shoulder challenges outside the box. If there's too much force it's always a free kick but it's never a red. If you're suggesting a situation where a player is fouled in a DOGSO situation with a shoulder barge and not seen red. We certainly don't see that all the time, in fact I feel like that would always see a red under the current rules. I don't think the distance of the ball was a factor in the red card decision. Even if the ball was at the attackers feet, the player can kick the ball on as the contact comes and people are pointing to him being barged in the back all the same and he walks. It's probably always going to be red if you take a player out with a challenge like that.

I don't know what you want from this conversation(other than to be told you're right and I'm wrong in my opinions), keep your opinion on the matter, I'm not trying to change your mind.

 

[Corky]

Wow you're keeping this going, after I pointed out you're trying to say an opinion is wrong?

I didn't miss anything, you still seem under the impression that I'm arguing things that I'm clearly not. I said he attempted a fair challenge, he ended up fouling the player.

There's no debate whether it's a foul or not, there was too much force, and he didn't get shoulder on shoulder.

What you are missing is, if you're arguing it's not within playing distance of Cancelo, then it's not within playing distance with either player. So you could argue the attacker just as much blocked off Cancelo's path. Which in turn is more of a coming together. Cancelo committed to his path and the shoulder to shoulder before the kick-on. There was no backing out of it because of his momentum and the fact that the player bent his run towards the ball(and Cancelo) before he got to it and again towards the direction on his kick-on(further right, towards Cancelo). The ball was certainly not within playing distance before player first got to the ball, if you're saying it's not within playing distance after the kick-on, then Cancelo was under no obligation to slow down or change direction at any point(the Fullham player did that).

Here is my post from the VAR thread.

I don't know why you're mentioning shoulder to shoulder challenges outside the box. If there's too much force it's always a free kick but it's never a red. If you're suggesting a situation where a player is fouled in a DOGSO situation with a shoulder barge and not seen red. We certainly don't see that all the time, I can't think of a single example. Honestly, I believe even if the ball was closer, he still walks. The player can kick the ball on as the contact comes and people are pointing to him being barged in the back all the same.

I don't know what you want from this conversation(other than to be told you're right and I'm wrong in my opinions), keep your opinion on the matter, I'm not trying to change your mind.

You keep adding stuff after looking it up. This is a shoulder challenge. Who is fouling who? No one the ball is there.

 

[citizen_maine]

Wow you're keeping this going, after I pointed out you're trying to say an opinion is wrong?

I didn't miss anything, you still seem under the impression that I'm arguing things that I'm clearly not. I said he attempted a fair challenge, he ended up fouling the player.

There's no debate whether it's a foul or not, there was too much force, and he didn't get shoulder on shoulder.

What you are missing is, if you're arguing it's not within playing distance of Cancelo, then it's not within playing distance with either player. So you could argue the attacker just as much blocked off Cancelo's path. Which in turn is more of a coming together.

Cancelo committed to his path and the shoulder to shoulder before the kick-on. This was probably not even 1 second of play(ie don't judge by the slowmo), so there was no backing out of it because of his momentum and the fact that the player bent his run towards the ball(and Cancelo) before he got to it and again towards the direction on his kick-on(further right, towards Cancelo). The ball was certainly not within playing distance before player first got to the ball. If you're saying it's not within playing distance after the kick-on, then Cancelo was under no obligation to slow down or change direction at any point(the Fullham player did that). So there's two arguments, a shoulder to shoulder or a coming together.

Here is my post from the VAR thread.

I don't know why you're mentioning shoulder to shoulder challenges outside the box. If there's too much force it's always a free kick but it's never a red. If you're suggesting a situation where a player is fouled in a DOGSO situation with a shoulder barge and not seen red. We certainly don't see that all the time, in fact I feel like that would always see a red under the current rules. I don't think the distance of the ball was a factor in the red card decision. Even if the ball was at the attackers feet, the player can kick the ball on as the contact comes and people are pointing to him being barged in the back all the same and he walks. It's probably always going to be red if you take a player out with a challenge like that.

I don't know what you want from this conversation(other than to be told you're right and I'm wrong in my opinions), keep your opinion on the matter, I'm not trying to change your mind.

Oh, the ironing

 

[Metalartin]

You keep adding stuff after looking it up. This is a shoulder challenge. Who is fouling who? No one the ball is there.View attachment 60709

Again... What is the point in showing me that picture? Where did I say Cancelo's wasn't a foul? Even in that picture, if he doesn't get shoulder on shoulder and uses too much force it's a foul. The playing distance of the ball wont save him, that would be the risk in the penalty area(DOGSO situation) of a red card. Keep tying yourselves in knots and making strawmen all you like.

I add stuff and reword them because nothing seems to be getting through to you no matter how many ways I find to express it. I'm not looking anything up. That quote was from a post I'd made in another thread. You'd know that if you actually read posts before your bitchy replies. I suggest you go an have a cup of tea and calm yourself down.

From the laws of the game(again):

Impeding the progress of an opponent means moving into the opponent’s path to obstruct, block, slow down or force a change of direction when the ball is not within playing distance of either player.

All players have a right to their position on the field of play; being in the way of an opponent is not the same as moving into the way of an opponent.

For the last time. If your argument is that it was not within playing distance of either player. Who is moving into the path of who? I've explained my view on this and I think it's a reasonable one. You don't have to agree with me but I don't really care to discuss it any further with you.

Spoiler: What I see(Screencaps)

I'll give an explanation of what I'm seeing and then below each explanation, will be the corresponding screencap(s).

As the ball is played, both players are heading left. It goes behind the attacker, who then bends his run and changes the angle more towards Cancelo. Cancelo's path barely changes.



Just before the attacker is within playing distance you can see how much the angle of his path has changed, where Cancelo's still hasn't changed much.



As the attacker arrives close enough to touch the ball(below), you can see Cancelo commits to the shoulder to shoulder here and I believe he is justified in doing this. Others may not agree but I've covered both bases, whether it's in playing distance or not because of who is moving into who's path. To me, he's close enough to player and ball and they are both in full sprint. The time to halt his run would have been before this point(but he was under no obligation to do so, because of the relevant highlighted parts of the law quoted above), as his momentum would likely have been too great to avoid contact.


The players first touch(above) was a kick-on but Cancelo had already committed to the challenge before it left his foot. As the contact came(below), it's either in playing distance of neither or both. You can see the kick-on is headed slightly to his right(I'd have liked another frame to show where the ball ended up but hit the BM limit per post), taking his run further into Cancelo's path.Who's path didn't change much at any point. Cancelo's foot looks quite close to the ball to me, in that picture also but I don't think that's as relevant as when he committed to it(before the ball left the players foot) given the speed they were running/momentum of both players. On the reverse angle, you can see the first contact, is Cancelo's left arm briefly came across the player first and then the player leans his shoulder in front of Cancelo's, denying him the shoulder contact. Not that it matters but the attacker's standing foot also looks outside the area in the below image, never noticed that before.