That is the perfect example of why the current interpretations are a crock of shark. By any sensible definition of the term active, Berisha had an active role in that, because by being there, he forced Muscat to lunge at the ball like that and slot it in the near post.
Alternatively, a lack of skill in muscat's attempt to clear the ball lead to the own goal; there had appears to be an onside player on the far side of the goalie, why should play have ceased if Berisha never became active?
That is the perfect example of why the current interpretations are a crock of shark. By any sensible definition of the term active, Berisha had an active role in that, because by being there, he forced Muscat to lunge at the ball like that and slot it in the near post.
Alternatively, a lack of skill in muscat's attempt to clear the ball lead to the own goal; there had appears to be an onside player on the far side of the goalie, why should play have ceased if Berisha never became active?
Who says Berisha being there FORCED Muscat to lunge at the ball? Ball played cross the face of the 6 yard box, I'd be expecting a defender to make some attempt to stop it. Berisha's position didn't force anything, if you say that he did you are then making the (wrong, in my opinion) assumption that Muscat would otherwise have simply allowed that cross to slide across the 6 yard box.
That is the perfect example of why the current interpretations are a crock of shark. By any sensible definition of the term active, Berisha had an active role in that, because by being there, he forced Muscat to lunge at the ball like that and slot it in the near post.
Alternatively, a lack of skill in muscat's attempt to clear the ball lead to the own goal; there had appears to be an onside player on the far side of the goalie, why should play have ceased if Berisha never became active?
Who says Berisha being there FORCED Muscat to lunge at the ball? Ball played cross the face of the 6 yard box, I'd be expecting a defender to make some attempt to stop it. Berisha's position didn't force anything, if you say that he did you are then making the (wrong, in my opinion) assumption that Muscat would otherwise have simply allowed that cross to slide across the 6 yard box.
Yip, but the LOTG don't take that information into account when deciding what a player might or might not have done
Have you seen Manny play?
Interesting Doco by BT Sport on referees in UK across a number of different levels.
After watching a Central League match I have to ask what's the guideline given to refs about bad language? Anyone?
I ask as one player, today, swore incessantly.
So in general, it's not words that matter, but context. Swearing directed at other players or match officials is considered (OFFINABUS) Offensive, insulting or abusive language. Sanction is a red card.
Essentially, the judgement of what words fit into OFFINABUS is at ref discretion.
Thanks zonknz.
I should have asked the assessor whilst I was there but got waylaid.
Yeah our ref was pretty strict on it at the weekend. No cards but almost every player was on a final warning. I can understand if it is directed at people but 90% of these shouts were out of frustration at themselves and shouting to the skies more than anything. I know there may be kids in earshot sometimes etc but it is a hard natural instinct to switch off.
At one point we were breaking with the ball and the ref called us back to have a word with the opposition player who swore after losing the ball. That seemed a bit much.
Pretty sure I swore when apologising to him for swearing! It is how we are raised in Scotland....
Chatting re Trent Alexander Arnold's save this morning and what might have happened had the ref seen it. Could have been deemed deliberate handball which given it would have gone in the goal would also have been a red card? Or perhaps the ref saw it and deemed the distance the ball travelled, pace of shot etc that it was unavoidable and accidental, in which case no sanction was appropriate? We can only speculate on this one.
But talking about this one got us talking about the Milner one the week before where the pen was in fact given.
So given the penalty was awarded, the ref deemed it deliberate. Penalty - check.
The question is, given the shot was on target (and travelling at pace) was this not an example of DOGSO and Milner should also have been sent off? Or, is the position of Karius taken into account and deemed that in all likelihood Karius would have saved it? (though it is Karius!)
What is the give with DOGSO handballs? Does it have to be blatantly going to be a goal (i.e. Suarez) or having conceded the pen, could Milner have counted himself lucky to stay on the pitch given Karius was going to have to make a save?
Here’s a Sevco player protecting his fist from Scott Brown’s face. Never a red card... pic.twitter.com/bDpyecUmAg
— BobSmithWalker 45% (@BobSmithWalker) March 31, 2019
Thoughts on VAR use for Tottenham vs City this morning?
I don't see anything wrong with Tottenham's "hand-ball" goal. The hand doesn't extend the silhouette of the body (as per UEFA rules). If his hand redirected to goal that's a flaw in the rules than anything else, the referee got it right. Beyond that, VAR is for clear and obvious decisions. It clearly wasn't clear and obvious enough to overturn or we wouldn't be having the debate.
In regards to the disallowed offside goal - he seemed to be offside? But I didn't realise the interpretation had changed (has it?) to include deflections off attackers, and not just purposely passes.
Thoughts on VAR use for Tottenham vs City this morning?
I don't see anything wrong with Tottenham's "hand-ball" goal. The hand doesn't extend the silhouette of the body (as per UEFA rules). If his hand redirected to goal that's a flaw in the rules than anything else, the referee got it right. Beyond that, VAR is for clear and obvious decisions. It clearly wasn't clear and obvious enough to overturn or we wouldn't be having the debate.
In regards to the disallowed offside goal - he seemed to be offside? But I didn't realise the interpretation had changed (has it?) to include deflections off attackers, and not just purposely passes.
Both where correct calls by the VAR, the interesting thing is that from next season, the Tottenham goal won't be allow as even if accidental, it is hits the attacking players hand, it will be a handball. But for now it wasn't and was a goal.
The second VAR call was right in that even though Spurs player played the ball back, it came of the City player and IFAB Law 11 states "A player in an offside position at the moment the ball is played or touched by a teammate is only penalised on becoming involved in an active play."
Here is the whole play https://streamja.com/z2RR
The current feeling from fans is that while currently it’s not illegal to score a goal with your hands accidentally, it’s not a good look. This is being changed in the next laws of the game update so that a goal scored with the arm/hand even accidentally, is ruled out. The feeling is that this is a ‘football expects’ cliched line where people do not expect to see goals scored by the arm/hand. They want to see ‘proper’ goals.
The best example is the Sapreet Singh goal in late October ruled out. Accidental but you can’t allow that because in a ‘Spirit of the game’ sense, this is not in the spirit of football.
So from now on it won’t just be defenders running around with their hands clasped behind their backs, strikers will have to do it too.
Ridiculous.
Short of a player picking up a ball and running with it or making a diving stop like a goalkeeper would, just play on.
The current feeling from fans is that while currently it’s not illegal to score a goal with your hands accidentally, it’s not a good look. This is being changed in the next laws of the game update so that a goal scored with the arm/hand even accidentally, is ruled out. The feeling is that this is a ‘football expects’ cliched line where people do not expect to see goals scored by the arm/hand. They want to see ‘proper’ goals.
The best example is the Sapreet Singh goal in late October ruled out. Accidental but you can’t allow that because in a ‘Spirit of the game’ sense, this is not in the spirit of football.
Thoughts on VAR use for Tottenham vs City this morning?
I don't see anything wrong with Tottenham's "hand-ball" goal. The hand doesn't extend the silhouette of the body (as per UEFA rules). If his hand redirected to goal that's a flaw in the rules than anything else, the referee got it right. Beyond that, VAR is for clear and obvious decisions. It clearly wasn't clear and obvious enough to overturn or we wouldn't be having the debate.
In regards to the disallowed offside goal - he seemed to be offside? But I didn't realise the interpretation had changed (has it?) to include deflections off attackers, and not just purposely passes.
Both where correct calls by the VAR, the interesting thing is that from next season, the Tottenham goal won't be allow as even if accidental, it is hits the attacking players hand, it will be a handball. But for now it wasn't and was a goal.
Thoughts on VAR use for Tottenham vs City this morning?
I don't see anything wrong with Tottenham's "hand-ball" goal. The hand doesn't extend the silhouette of the body (as per UEFA rules). If his hand redirected to goal that's a flaw in the rules than anything else, the referee got it right. Beyond that, VAR is for clear and obvious decisions. It clearly wasn't clear and obvious enough to overturn or we wouldn't be having the debate.
In regards to the disallowed offside goal - he seemed to be offside? But I didn't realise the interpretation had changed (has it?) to include deflections off attackers, and not just purposely passes.
Both where correct calls by the VAR, the interesting thing is that from next season, the Tottenham goal won't be allow as even if accidental, it is hits the attacking players hand, it will be a handball. But for now it wasn't and was a goal.
That's the problem with starting to build these subjective "feel good" rules.
We're also in a situation where you could accidentally prevent a goal with a hand and that's fine, but you can't accidentally score a goal with your hand.
Thoughts on VAR use for Tottenham vs City this morning?
I don't see anything wrong with Tottenham's "hand-ball" goal. The hand doesn't extend the silhouette of the body (as per UEFA rules). If his hand redirected to goal that's a flaw in the rules than anything else, the referee got it right. Beyond that, VAR is for clear and obvious decisions. It clearly wasn't clear and obvious enough to overturn or we wouldn't be having the debate.
In regards to the disallowed offside goal - he seemed to be offside? But I didn't realise the interpretation had changed (has it?) to include deflections off attackers, and not just purposely passes.
The second VAR call was right in that even though Spurs player played the ball back, it came of the City player and IFAB Law 11 states "A player in an offside position at the moment the ball is played or touched by a teammate is only penalised on becoming involved in an active play."
Was this a recent change, or has it always been like this?
