| FAO pinnerpaul 22:57 - Feb 2 with 4600 views | loftboy |
During the Manchester United Southampton game Mike Dean awarded a penalty, after a VAR check it was given as a free kick outside the box, when the frame was frozen the man United players foot was on the line, I was always told that the lines are part of the area, ha that changed? |  |
| |  |
| FAO pinnerpaul on 23:35 - Feb 2 with 3555 views | dachiltern |
To award a penalty requires the foul to have occurred on the part of the body which is on the line or inside the penalty area. Therefore despite the foot being on the line if the foul was on part of the body outside the pen area a direct free kick is awarded outside the area.
Similarly if a defender is standing on the edge of the pen area but reaches outside to commit handball the foul is outside and a dfk outside the area is given.
Clear as mud but with what I’ve witnessed tonight I would not have been surprised if a pen was given. |  | | |
| FAO pinnerpaul on 23:42 - Feb 2 with 3537 views | loftboy |
| FAO pinnerpaul on 23:35 - Feb 2 by dachiltern |
To award a penalty requires the foul to have occurred on the part of the body which is on the line or inside the penalty area. Therefore despite the foot being on the line if the foul was on part of the body outside the pen area a direct free kick is awarded outside the area.
Similarly if a defender is standing on the edge of the pen area but reaches outside to commit handball the foul is outside and a dfk outside the area is given.
Clear as mud but with what I’ve witnessed tonight I would not have been surprised if a pen was given. |
It looked to me like the foul was given for the defender kicked the foot that was on the line, that’s what made me wonder. | |
| |
| FAO pinnerpaul on 08:03 - Feb 3 with 3376 views | Dorse |
| FAO pinnerpaul on 23:35 - Feb 2 by dachiltern |
To award a penalty requires the foul to have occurred on the part of the body which is on the line or inside the penalty area. Therefore despite the foot being on the line if the foul was on part of the body outside the pen area a direct free kick is awarded outside the area.
Similarly if a defender is standing on the edge of the pen area but reaches outside to commit handball the foul is outside and a dfk outside the area is given.
Clear as mud but with what I’ve witnessed tonight I would not have been surprised if a pen was given. |
However, these rules may be disregarded in two specific cades:
1. If the player fouled represents QPR.
2. If the player is Lyndon Dykes. |  |
| 'What do we want? We don't know! When do we want it? Now!' |
| |
| FAO pinnerpaul on 08:49 - Feb 3 with 3339 views | Watford_Ranger |
The Luiz red card, while hilarious because it’s him, suggests some change to the wording is needed. |  | | |
| FAO pinnerpaul on 15:49 - Feb 3 with 3193 views | loftboy |
Bumped back to the top incase Paul missed it | |
| |
| FAO pinnerpaul on 15:54 - Feb 3 with 3178 views | PinnerPaul |
| FAO pinnerpaul on 15:49 - Feb 3 by loftboy |
Bumped back to the top incase Paul missed it |
Dachiltern has it right - didn't miss the question, was watching the Watford game!
Luiz and the other one ARE red cards, once you decide its a pen in both cases and not a 'genuine attempt for the ball'
Ignore all that 'not intentional' rubbish on MOTD2 - no foul has to be intentional for the simple reason - its impossible to tell - and I know many of you will say its like this already!, but start to try and penalise what the ref thinks are only 'intentional' fouls and you would have some wildly inconsistent games!
While I'm here, one for another day, don't forget if a foul starts outside the pen area but continues inside, its a pen. | | | |
| FAO pinnerpaul on 16:01 - Feb 3 with 3161 views | loftboy |
| FAO pinnerpaul on 15:54 - Feb 3 by PinnerPaul |
Dachiltern has it right - didn't miss the question, was watching the Watford game!
Luiz and the other one ARE red cards, once you decide its a pen in both cases and not a 'genuine attempt for the ball'
Ignore all that 'not intentional' rubbish on MOTD2 - no foul has to be intentional for the simple reason - its impossible to tell - and I know many of you will say its like this already!, but start to try and penalise what the ref thinks are only 'intentional' fouls and you would have some wildly inconsistent games!
While I'm here, one for another day, don't forget if a foul starts outside the pen area but continues inside, its a pen. |
I was more talking about the Man United players foot was bang on the line, that foot was trod on, ref originally gave a penalty which I thought was the correct decision. VAR then downgraded it to a free kick, left me scratching my head. | |
| |
| FAO pinnerpaul on 16:13 - Feb 3 with 3142 views | PinnerPaul |
| FAO pinnerpaul on 16:01 - Feb 3 by loftboy |
I was more talking about the Man United players foot was bang on the line, that foot was trod on, ref originally gave a penalty which I thought was the correct decision. VAR then downgraded it to a free kick, left me scratching my head. |
Do agree with you - I too thought it was a pen.
If Cameron's foul had been on the line for example, I agree with you, that's a pen.
I don't want to spoil my mood so not discussing VAR aided decisions!  | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| FAO pinnerpaul on 16:15 - Feb 3 with 3132 views | loftboy |
| FAO pinnerpaul on 16:13 - Feb 3 by PinnerPaul |
Do agree with you - I too thought it was a pen.
If Cameron's foul had been on the line for example, I agree with you, that's a pen.
I don't want to spoil my mood so not discussing VAR aided decisions! |
Cheers for all your replies Paul. | |
| |
| FAO pinnerpaul on 16:57 - Feb 3 with 3095 views | terryb |
| FAO pinnerpaul on 15:54 - Feb 3 by PinnerPaul |
Dachiltern has it right - didn't miss the question, was watching the Watford game!
Luiz and the other one ARE red cards, once you decide its a pen in both cases and not a 'genuine attempt for the ball'
Ignore all that 'not intentional' rubbish on MOTD2 - no foul has to be intentional for the simple reason - its impossible to tell - and I know many of you will say its like this already!, but start to try and penalise what the ref thinks are only 'intentional' fouls and you would have some wildly inconsistent games!
While I'm here, one for another day, don't forget if a foul starts outside the pen area but continues inside, its a pen. |
I know that by the laws Luiz had to be sent off. That doesn't make the law right though!
Totally down to the law makers & not the referees, but the "penalty" didn't fit the crime! | | | |
| FAO pinnerpaul on 17:17 - Feb 3 with 3071 views | elnombre |
| FAO pinnerpaul on 15:54 - Feb 3 by PinnerPaul |
Dachiltern has it right - didn't miss the question, was watching the Watford game!
Luiz and the other one ARE red cards, once you decide its a pen in both cases and not a 'genuine attempt for the ball'
Ignore all that 'not intentional' rubbish on MOTD2 - no foul has to be intentional for the simple reason - its impossible to tell - and I know many of you will say its like this already!, but start to try and penalise what the ref thinks are only 'intentional' fouls and you would have some wildly inconsistent games!
While I'm here, one for another day, don't forget if a foul starts outside the pen area but continues inside, its a pen. |
That is what (in my ignorance) I screamed at the telly too, but going back to the Laws, the only reference to that interpretation I could see was:
"If a defender starts holding an attacker outside the penalty area and continues holding inside the penalty area, the referee must award a penalty kick"
I knew I was going to be wrong...! | | | |
| FAO pinnerpaul on 17:50 - Feb 3 with 3038 views | PinnerPaul |
| FAO pinnerpaul on 16:57 - Feb 3 by terryb |
I know that by the laws Luiz had to be sent off. That doesn't make the law right though!
Totally down to the law makers & not the referees, but the "penalty" didn't fit the crime! |
That's correct. Good discussion on 'RefChat' about it - problem is how to 'solve' it - asking refs to decide what is 'deliberate' and what is not though, is not going to work IMHO. | | | |
| FAO pinnerpaul on 10:19 - Feb 4 with 2875 views | terryb |
| FAO pinnerpaul on 17:50 - Feb 3 by PinnerPaul |
That's correct. Good discussion on 'RefChat' about it - problem is how to 'solve' it - asking refs to decide what is 'deliberate' and what is not though, is not going to work IMHO. |
The word intentional was in the laws until the mid '90's & referees had to decide on it being deliberate for over a 100 years. They also still have to make that decision on handballs!
My pet hate is that defenders are sent off for stopping a goal by handling the ball, but a forward who deliberately tries to score by punching the ball into the net only receives a caution. I fail to see that the defenders crime is worse! Again, this is down to the law makers & not the referee.
Without doubt (at least IMO) is that it is far harder to referee a match now than it was in my younger days. I feel this is more to do with the continual tweaking of the laws rather than that players are being dishonest. The latter has ALWAYS been the case!
The more reasons you insist that officials have to caution/dismiss players, the more the players will try to influence decisions. I certainly don't want to return to the days of being able to maim an opponent & not be punished (I was on the receiving end of too many of those "tackles"), but a certain amount of "let the bastards sort it out between them" might let the game flow more & reduce what is known as gamesmanship! If player A knows he won't be punished (apart from a free kick being given) for replying in kind to player B, he won't be moaning at the referee the same.
I do understand, that the current accessing system doesn't allow officials to use this form of game management! | | | |
| FAO pinnerpaul on 15:16 - Feb 4 with 2820 views | PinnerPaul |
| FAO pinnerpaul on 10:19 - Feb 4 by terryb |
The word intentional was in the laws until the mid '90's & referees had to decide on it being deliberate for over a 100 years. They also still have to make that decision on handballs!
My pet hate is that defenders are sent off for stopping a goal by handling the ball, but a forward who deliberately tries to score by punching the ball into the net only receives a caution. I fail to see that the defenders crime is worse! Again, this is down to the law makers & not the referee.
Without doubt (at least IMO) is that it is far harder to referee a match now than it was in my younger days. I feel this is more to do with the continual tweaking of the laws rather than that players are being dishonest. The latter has ALWAYS been the case!
The more reasons you insist that officials have to caution/dismiss players, the more the players will try to influence decisions. I certainly don't want to return to the days of being able to maim an opponent & not be punished (I was on the receiving end of too many of those "tackles"), but a certain amount of "let the bastards sort it out between them" might let the game flow more & reduce what is known as gamesmanship! If player A knows he won't be punished (apart from a free kick being given) for replying in kind to player B, he won't be moaning at the referee the same.
I do understand, that the current accessing system doesn't allow officials to use this form of game management! |
Mostly agree with all that Terry.
Handballs - only have to decide on some being deliberate now of course, think that has made it harder, not easier!
I'll have to check with the laws gurus on RefChat about 'deliberate' once being in the laws, I honestly didn't know that, if true. | | | |
| FAO pinnerpaul on 15:44 - Feb 4 with 2814 views | loftboy |
| FAO pinnerpaul on 15:16 - Feb 4 by PinnerPaul |
Mostly agree with all that Terry.
Handballs - only have to decide on some being deliberate now of course, think that has made it harder, not easier!
I'll have to check with the laws gurus on RefChat about 'deliberate' once being in the laws, I honestly didn't know that, if true. |
It was , the laws did actually have the word deliberately in them, same for free kicks, it would say if a player deliberately trips an opponent. | |
| |
| FAO pinnerpaul on 17:37 - Feb 4 with 2757 views | francisbowles |
| FAO pinnerpaul on 15:44 - Feb 4 by loftboy |
It was , the laws did actually have the word deliberately in them, same for free kicks, it would say if a player deliberately trips an opponent. |
Yes, I remember that loftboy. When I did my level three around 81 or 82, at Hounslow Town's Denbigh Rd, I was taught all fouls had to be deliberate. Remember during my efforts running around shouting 'accidental, play on', on a regular basis. Something, I think I heard refs shout in games that I played in around that time. | | | |
| FAO pinnerpaul on 18:42 - Feb 4 with 2719 views | terryb |
| FAO pinnerpaul on 15:16 - Feb 4 by PinnerPaul |
Mostly agree with all that Terry.
Handballs - only have to decide on some being deliberate now of course, think that has made it harder, not easier!
I'll have to check with the laws gurus on RefChat about 'deliberate' once being in the laws, I honestly didn't know that, if true. |
It is definitely true! Although I can't rember if the word was deliberate or intentional.
I passed the referees exam in 1976 & again in the mid/late '90's & it was still in place. However, it had been removed in the '90's prior to the start of the following season! | | | |
| FAO pinnerpaul on 15:20 - Feb 5 with 2120 views | PinnerPaul |
| FAO pinnerpaul on 18:42 - Feb 4 by terryb |
It is definitely true! Although I can't rember if the word was deliberate or intentional.
I passed the referees exam in 1976 & again in the mid/late '90's & it was still in place. However, it had been removed in the '90's prior to the start of the following season! |
Cheers Terry | | | |
| FAO pinnerpaul on 15:27 - Feb 5 with 2099 views | PinnerPaul |
| FAO pinnerpaul on 18:42 - Feb 4 by terryb |
It is definitely true! Although I can't rember if the word was deliberate or intentional.
I passed the referees exam in 1976 & again in the mid/late '90's & it was still in place. However, it had been removed in the '90's prior to the start of the following season! |
My friends on RefChat have found the actual page!
https://refchat.co.uk/attachments/law-12-circa-1975-jpg.4784/ | | | |
| FAO pinnerpaul on 19:55 - Feb 6 with 1736 views | aston_hoop |
Dont want to keep making new threads for ref stuff, but the Soucek red card today? How after seeing the screen multiple times is that technically a red? |  |
| |
| FAO pinnerpaul on 20:09 - Feb 6 with 1706 views | terryb |
| FAO pinnerpaul on 19:55 - Feb 6 by aston_hoop |
Dont want to keep making new threads for ref stuff, but the Soucek red card today? How after seeing the screen multiple times is that technically a red? |
Interestingly, Walton siad on BT Sport today that VAR is not there to give correct decisions but to determine if there has been a clear & obvious error.
I'm sure that he is correct, but that is a terrible soundbite! Crouch then asked the world in general what is the point of VAR if not to give correct decisions (or words to that effect).
Tonight, as the match referee, Dean watched the replay at least ten times before deciding to send him off. It can't have been clear & obvious if he required that many viewings!
IMO, the officials possibly don't care if the sending off is overturned on appeal (as I believe this one will) as that won't be held against them. They are more scared of the accessor hammering them for not sending the player off if they feel he should have! | | | |
| FAO pinnerpaul on 16:12 - Feb 7 with 1624 views | PinnerPaul |
| FAO pinnerpaul on 19:55 - Feb 6 by aston_hoop |
Dont want to keep making new threads for ref stuff, but the Soucek red card today? How after seeing the screen multiple times is that technically a red? |
Baffled.
But I DID say at the very start of all this, that we all get wound up by 'wrong' decisions, but imagine that 'wrong' decision being made twice, by TWO people and you have the, justified, head scratching, decisions like this produce!
This one made in our league by a ref that maybe only saw it out of the corner of his eye, with the 'help' of one or other of the other 3 officials - all some way away, and you disagree like mad, but can see how its made - player appeals red, wins and we move on.
But here, where TWO referees look at it MULTIPLE times and STILL get it wrong is just silly. | | | |
| FAO pinnerpaul on 16:13 - Feb 7 with 1620 views | PinnerPaul |
| FAO pinnerpaul on 20:09 - Feb 6 by terryb |
Interestingly, Walton siad on BT Sport today that VAR is not there to give correct decisions but to determine if there has been a clear & obvious error.
I'm sure that he is correct, but that is a terrible soundbite! Crouch then asked the world in general what is the point of VAR if not to give correct decisions (or words to that effect).
Tonight, as the match referee, Dean watched the replay at least ten times before deciding to send him off. It can't have been clear & obvious if he required that many viewings!
IMO, the officials possibly don't care if the sending off is overturned on appeal (as I believe this one will) as that won't be held against them. They are more scared of the accessor hammering them for not sending the player off if they feel he should have! |
Yep.
Walton technically correct - there IS only 1 man making the actual final decision.
Dean doesn't have to send him off here. | | | |
| FAO pinnerpaul on 20:54 - Feb 7 with 1538 views | CLAREMAN1995 |
| FAO pinnerpaul on 19:55 - Feb 6 by aston_hoop |
Dont want to keep making new threads for ref stuff, but the Soucek red card today? How after seeing the screen multiple times is that technically a red? |
Did anybody see Mo Salah get his arm pulled back today by a City defender and throw himself to the ground like he got shot.Pretty pathetic and his usual bull chit and of course he was given the penalty.
I know it was hard to argue against seeing as he was through and pulled but I would love to see the Ref brandish a yellow card just for once to MS.
He is a great player just cut out all the b.s | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
