Referees/Officials

[mcfc1632]

Sorry but that is a load of nonsense.

The ref only gives the penalty if he is sure an offence has been committed. If it takes a review of all the angles to determine if it's a penalty or not how can you expect him to give it? He cannot guess it's a penalty.

Doh - you ought to read things properly before responding.

You are simply agreeing with me - I was not suggesting that he "...takes a review of all the angles to determine if it's a penalty or not...." - that is not possible in the current system

In real-time it simply has to be given as a penalty - because in real-time and from his angle it simply cannot look like anything other than a clear penalty.

There is not really any room for a different decision - unless he is guessing - or deciding simply that he does not want to give it for other reasons

 

[BlueAnorak]

I've been uber critical of refs this season with respect to non-penalties for City.
But yesterday the ref got the pen right. I'm pretty sure he saw the ball change direction with Fosters finger touch which is obvious from some angles.
This doesn't let the ref off though as it was open season on hacking City players again. For example, the rake on Sergio's Achilles should have been a straight red.

 

[Blue Mooner]

I'm absolutely incredulous that people are buying into the narrative that Forster gets a touch on the ball, he doesn't. The change of direction is from a touch that Sane gets just before Forsters hand clearly takes Sanes foot away. I questioned my own sanity, objectiveness and judgement so watched the clip at least a dozen times in the sky sports app to satisfy myself that my own judgement in real time and subsequently was correct For those that have it look at 26 seconds and you will clearly see Sane nicks the ball away and seconds later Forster cleans him out.

It's proof that group think is a real phenomenon.

It's irrelevant anyway as the nick (whoever you believe caused it) was not enough to stop Sane from reaching the ball were he not taken down and to be honest how the ref saw the incident and thought it wasnt a penalty beggars belief. I challenge anyone as being a liar who didn't think 'penalty' to that incident in real time.

 

[deano ou812]

Poll said on bt it didn't make a difference the very slight touch from the keeper he caught sane which prevented him from getting to the ball which he would have if not clipped,so a pen.

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

Graham Poll is absolutely correct in this instance.

Extract from LAW 12
Direct free kick

A direct free kick is awarded if a player commits any of the following offences against an opponent in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force:

• trips or attempts to trip

If an offence involves contact it is penalised by a direct free kick or penalty kick.

A direct free kick is awarded if a player commits any of the following offences:

• impedes an opponent with contact

Forster may have got the slightest fingertip feather of a touch, but he still impeded Sane - By the book; penalty

These TV pundits simply don't know the rules.

 

[BlueAnorak]

Graham Poll is absolutely correct in this instance.

Extract from LAW 12
Direct free kick

A direct free kick is awarded if a player commits any of the following offences against an opponent in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force:

• trips or attempts to trip

If an offence involves contact it is penalised by a direct free kick or penalty kick.

A direct free kick is awarded if a player commits any of the following offences:

• impedes an opponent with contact

Forster may have got the slightest fingertip feather of a touch, but he still impeded Sane - By the book; penalty

These TV pundits simply don't know the rules.

By referee guidance, the "trip or attempt to trip" goes away with the feather touch that changes the direction of the ball. The only way the "impede with contact" statement subsequently still applies is if Sane was still in control (or could be in control of the) ball after the goalkeeper touched the ball. On Saturday Sané would have had to move to his left two or three steps to regain control.
Hence why, under similar circumstances the Dzeko penalty away at Spurs a few years ago was a penalty even if the ref had detected the goalies feather touch.
Moral of story - if you don't cause the player to lose control of the ball by your touch then it's still a pen - though the heavy sactions for a deliberate foul go away if you touch the ball before the player.
Simples.

 

[Bluearmy]

By referee guidance, the "trip or attempt to trip" goes away with the feather touch that changes the direction of the ball. The only way the "impede" statement subsequently still applies is if Sane was still in control (or could be in ) control of the ball. He would have had to move to his left two or three steps to regain control.
Hence why, under similar circumstances the Dzeko penalty away at Spurs a few years ago was a penalty even if the ref had detected the goalies feather touch.
Moral of story - if you don't cause the player to lose control of the ball by your touch then it's still a pen - though the heavy sactions for a deliberate foul go away if you touch the ball before the player.
Simples.

No it doesn't go away with the slight touch, how many times do people need to have this explained to them...

 

[BlueAnorak]

No it doesn't go away with the slight touch, how many times do people need to have this explained to them...

A goalkeeper attempting to intercept the ball with his hand is NO DIFFERENT than a defensive tackle on an attacking player anywhere else on the pitch:
- If the defender makes contact with the ball first AND as a result the attacking player loses control of the ball there is no foul.
- If the attacking player still would have full control after the touch but is brought down in the process then there is a foul.
- The only other way it could be a foul is if the defender deliberately takes the player out in the follow through (i.e. intent).
Foster's actions meant Sané lost control of the ball and as there was no deliberate intent to bring Sane down then there is no foul!

Continue your interpretation of events by all means but this is the guidance given to referees at every single refereeing conference when rule implementation is discussed. If I could find the FIFA PDF giving examples that match the guidance I could show you definitive proof, but my Google search skills are lacking in the 5 mins I currently have.

 

[Bluearmy]

A goalkeeper attempting to intercept the ball with his hand is NO DIFFERENT than a defensive tackle on an attacking player anywhere else on the pitch:
- If the defender makes contact with the ball first AND as a result the attacking player loses control of the ball there is no foul.
- If the attacking player still would have control after the touch but is brought down in the process then there is a foul.
- The only other way it could be a foul is if the defender deliberately takes the player out in the follow through (i.e. intent).
Foster's actions meant Sané lost control of the ball and as there was no deliberate intent to bring Sane down then there is no foul!

Continue your interpretation of events by all means but this is the guidance given to referees at every single refereeing conference when rule implementation is discussed. If I could find the FIFA PDF giving examples that match the guidance I could show you definitive proof, but my Google search skills are lacking in the 5 mins I currently have.

He didn't lose control of the ball tho, so your wrong. Graham Poll explained why it was a penalty at half time, which it clearly was.

 

[fatbloke]

A goalkeeper attempting to intercept the ball with his hand is NO DIFFERENT than a defensive tackle on an attacking player anywhere else on the pitch:
- If the defender makes contact with the ball first AND as a result the attacking player loses control of the ball there is no foul.
- If the attacking player still would have full control after the touch but is brought down in the process then there is a foul.
- The only other way it could be a foul is if the defender deliberately takes the player out in the follow through (i.e. intent).
Foster's actions meant Sané lost control of the ball and as there was no deliberate intent to bring Sane down then there is no foul!

Continue your interpretation of events by all means but this is the guidance given to referees at every single refereeing conference when rule implementation is discussed. If I could find the FIFA PDF giving examples that match the guidance I could show you definitive proof, but my Google search skills are lacking in the 5 mins I currently have.

Absolute bollocks, how on earth can you say honestly that Sane wouldn't have got to that ball? The keepers touch didn't alter the speed of the ball and only changed the direction less than a few centimetres at most. To say Sane wouldn't reach that without the trip is just absolute bullshit and you know it.