Jump to content
Note to existing users - password reset is required Read more... ×
Sign in to follow this  
CANARYKING

An arm away from losing

Recommended Posts

At the Burnley game yesterday they were awarded a penalty which was reversed after VAR showed that the ball hit Ben Mee's head before deflecting onto his arm. As Andy Hinchcliff said during our half time analysis on Sky, "if the Ref had the benefit of VAR he would have reversed his decision as it was exactly the same as the incident in the Burnley game"

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Hairy Canary said:

At the Burnley game yesterday they were awarded a penalty which was reversed after VAR showed that the ball hit Ben Mee's head before deflecting onto his arm. As Andy Hinchcliff said during our half time analysis on Sky, "if the Ref had the benefit of VAR he would have reversed his decision as it was exactly the same as the incident in the Burnley game"

 

 

Var didn’t as that is not in the PL till next season. The ref had a talk with the linesman and reversed the decision 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ian said:

I know you could start an argument with a paper bag.... 

Westcoast says it's a plastic bag. 

  • Haha 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, JF said:

Var didn’t as that is not in the PL till next season. The ref had a talk with the linesman and reversed the decision 

Fair enough JF. Just played it back and Hinchcliff says the Burnley  decision was reversed after the Ref realised the ball deflected off Mee's head. He then made the point about VAR and that the penalty wouldn't have been given if the Ref had it available.

Point they were making is that it was about distance between Godfrey's knee and his arm at that speed it was impossible for him to avoid and therefore not a penalty.

Edited by Hairy Canary
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Branston Pickle said:

It is interesting that I’ve not seen any reports today that haven’t said it was a “controversial” or “very harsh” decision,

Have you ever read a match report in the media which doesn't find something to describe as "controversial"? They can invent a controversy even if none exists. Furthermore, branding something controversial doesn't make it so. As for "harsh", firstly, there's nothing harsh about correctly applying a rule, and secondly, not to apply it correctly is to be harsh on those who have been denied "justice according to the rules". There is no dispute in this case as to what actually happened; it's simply a question of what the rule is and whether it was correctly applied. As I understand the rule, the answer to both is Yes!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Fuzzar said:

Westcoast says it's a plastic bag. 

Can you tell the difference between a bag (plastic or paper) and a fence panel? I'm told I would argue with both. As far as I'm concerned I would get more sense out them a lot of the time ............... :classic_biggrin:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's be fair to the ref.  I watched it in real time and thought it was a penalty until I got home and watched it on the tele.

The free kick that was given off-side -- There were 4 Wigan players standing in a off-side position just before the kick was taken, why the hell did we drop back to put most of them on-side ?  If a player is stood in an off-side position before a free kick leave them off-side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Faded Jaded Semi Plastic SOB said:

Well the neutral BBC did not think it was a penalty............

I'm not convinced the BBC is at all neutral.

Yours sincerely

J Corbyn

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Champions League interpetation is irrelevant.

Once the ball hit Godfreys thigh, did he diliberatley move his hand/arm to the ball?

 

Theres your answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Hairy Canary said:

At the Burnley game yesterday they were awarded a penalty which was reversed after VAR showed that the ball hit Ben Mee's head before deflecting onto his arm. As Andy Hinchcliff said during our half time analysis on Sky, "if the Ref had the benefit of VAR he would have reversed his decision as it was exactly the same as the incident in the Burnley game"

 

 

Absolutely. It was a very poor decision, that nobody other than westcoast (with his superiority complex) believes was a deliberate handball.

That said, I think we have more than enough for it not to be a decision we look back on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So according to you @westcoastcanary any attempt to go in and block a shot will result in a deliberate handball if it happens to strike the defenders arm? 

Blow me down there have been many many pens missed then. Surprised this is the first one you've mentioned this season...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, westcoastcanary said:

Have you ever read a match report in the media which doesn't find something to describe as "controversial"? They can invent a controversy even if none exists. Furthermore, branding something controversial doesn't make it so. As for "harsh", firstly, there's nothing harsh about correctly applying a rule, and secondly, not to apply it correctly is to be harsh on those who have been denied "justice according to the rules". There is no dispute in this case as to what actually happened; it's simply a question of what the rule is and whether it was correctly applied. As I understand the rule, the answer to both is Yes!

Wigan extended their advantage over third-bottom Rotherham to two points, although Paul Cook felt it could and should have been four. “I thought we did enough to win the game,” he said. “As far as the big moments go in the game … from my observations, penalties are not normally given in those circumstances, so that goes in our favour.

Go on then Westcoast - explain why the opposition manager was 'wrong' as well. 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, westcoastcanary said:

Ian, it's not me "thinking" there was deliberate intent, it's about the meaning of "intentional" as applied in the rule. As I understand it, a player who deliberately sets out to block the shot is deemed to intend to do so with whatever part of his body actually intercepts the ball. If his body, head or legs intercept the ball, that's fine, but if his hand or arm intercepts the ball then it depends on the position of the arm, specifically whether, irrespective of any specific further intention on the player's part to use his hand or arm, his arm actually enlarges the area blocked off by the player beyond the area of his body. The rule recognises that players have arms, but they must be either behind the back or tucked in by the player's sides. What the arms can't be is outstretched to any degree, because then they serve to enlarge the player's body in the act of attempting to block the shot.

This is daft - all players deliberately set out to block the shot, or at least should be. It's a reminder of Brian Clough's famous remark 'If one of my players is not interfering with play, I'd like to know why not.'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a picture of the referee's "perfect view"...he's guessing, full stop. 

(BTW, there are no rules, there are the Laws of Association Football)

IMG_20190415_130455.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this argument is very clear. It was an extremely questionable decision. Very unfortunate to get the one unsighted referee in ten who gives it.

We have had two other calls in the recent Reading game not given and I guess we are experiencing the 'rub of the green'. It tends to equal out. Let's hope we get a decision in our favour in each of our next 4 matches.

Who knows, we may get awarded a penalty and score with one!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, westcoastcanary said:

It amazes me that so many people think they know better than the best qualified person on the pitch, not only best qualified but also ideally positioned.

How about you guys asking yourselves why the referee gave it without hesitation. Could there actually be a completely rational explanation other than your knee jerk "it was a mistake"?

If it was "deliberate" why wasn't Godfrey shown a yellow/red card? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, sonyc said:

I think this argument is very clear. It was an extremely questionable decision. Very unfortunate to get the one unsighted referee in ten who gives it.

We have had two other calls in the recent Reading game not given and I guess we are experiencing the 'rub of the green'. It tends to equal out. Let's hope we get a decision in our favour in each of our next 4 matches.

Who knows, we may get awarded a penalty and score with one!

I know this season is a gift that just keeps on giving, but that's bloody ridiculous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The interpretation of handball has become ludicrous. Apparently it differs from the game or competition you are playing in,  at least that is what Mike Riley has said .

Unnatural arm positions, movement towards the ball , proximity, all get a mention  as well as some made up suggestions by one of the more silly posters on this board  who still maintains that Association Football is governed by "Rules" . Those of us that have taken the Referees exam have just failed question 1.

Paul Cook was spot on. It was an unusual (i.e. incorrect) interpretation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 14/04/2019 at 17:00, westcoastcanary said:

I've seen countless replays of it Purple, and IMO it did glance off his thigh.

I have looked at it again and I still cannot see any kind of contact with the PSG's player's thigh, but if it did make contact  it was - and I notice the word you use now is "glance" - the merest glance that did not alter the course of the ball significantly. It was still heading where it had been from the time it left the Man Utd player's boot - towards the outstretched arm of the PSG defender.

It was nothing like the significant deflection from Godfrey's leg to his arm. Another clear difference is that the Man Utd player was five or more yards away from the PSG player, who had time to jump up but also potentially get his arm out of the way, given that it was in the way of the ball.

While with Godfrey the ball is hit from a much shorter distance and he instinctively dives to block, and can have no idea that the one arm of his that is outstretched will end up being where the ball goes after the deflection. It comes back to the point I made on the match thread about a new interpretation that it is a penalty, irrespective of intentionality:

The new interpretation is that if the arm is in an "unnatural position" - generally sticking out - then it is a penalty, intentional or not. The logic being that the arm should not be where it is and has stopped the ball from going where it was intended  to go. But in this case it wasn't Godfrey's arm that stopped the ball from reaching its intended destination - it was his leg.

Since I wrote that it appears the law was in any event going to be "clarified" again, so that the kind of accidental deflection on to the arm we saw with Godfrey willl not be penalised, on that basis, that it was a legitimate part of his body that stopped the shot reaching its intended destination.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

This penalty decision and the Man U one are completely incomparable There was no deflection for the Man U one, it’s ludicrous to suggest there is. 

Edited by JF

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 14/04/2019 at 16:00, westcoastcanary said:

I've seen countless replays of it Purple, and IMO it did glance off his thigh.

Then you are seeing things to suit your argument as there isn’t even the remotest suggestion of a deflection

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, JF said:

Then you are seeing things to suit your argument as there isn’t even the remotest suggestion of a deflection

Quite agree, as can hopefully be seen below.

 

vuulp.gif

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Purple Canary

First of all, thank you for taking my view of the penalty issue seriously enough to reply in kind. Makes a nice change :classic_biggrin:

"I have looked at it again and I still cannot see any kind of contact with the PSG's player's thigh, but if it did make contact  it was - and I notice the word you use now is "glance" - the merest glance that did not alter the course of the ball significantly. It was still heading where it had been from the time it left the Man Utd player's boot - towards the outstretched arm of the PSG defender." 

I was watching the match and was convinced from what I saw in real time that the ball struck the leg and then the arm. Having looked at it again, in real time replay and slow motion, that remains my opinion. It was commented on at the time that no Man U player appealed for a penalty. Dalot, whose shot it was, and who was well placed to see what happened, did not appeal. Why not? There was no question that the ball hit Kimpembe, the referee awarded a corner. The lack of any Man U appeal suggests to me that Man U players, including Dalot, believed it had stuck Kimpembe somewhere other than his arm. The images of the incident show that, given the trajectory of the shot, the only part of Kimpembe's body that the ball could have struck other than his arm was his thigh. Dalot in particular was well placed to see that. His failure to appeal for a penalty supports my view that the ball first struck Kimpembe's leg and then his arm. 

"It was nothing like the significant deflection from Godfrey's leg to his arm."

The degree of deflection is not crucial. What's crucial is simply whether the deflected ball strikes the arm in the course of an attempted block.  

"Another clear difference is that the Man Utd player was five or more yards away from the PSG player, who had time to jump up but also potentially get his arm out of the way, given that it was in the way of the ball.

While with Godfrey the ball is hit from a much shorter distance and he instinctively dives to block"

This, while true, does not mean that Godfrey wasn't guilty of handball simply because Morsey was closer when he shot. The point is not that Godfrey didn't have time to get his arm out of the way, but that he deliberately dived into a close-quarters block, with his arm extended. 

" .......... and can have no idea that the one arm of his that is outstretched will end up being where the ball goes after the deflection."

No, I agree, Godfrey could not know that the ball would hit his arm after hitting his leg. However, Godfrey could be expected to know that to dive into the block as he did, with his arm extended as it was, laid him open to having the ball strike his arm. This is the point I made previously about the meaning of "deliberate". People seem to think that, for the handball to be "deliberate", it has to be like Egan's handball which got him sent off in Sheffield United's game against Millwall, where the player specifically resorts to using his hand to block the ball. That narrow interpretation of "deliberate" is simply incorrect, and its being so is not "new"; in the operative sense of "deliberate", Godfrey's handball was deliberate simply because of the manner in which he, quite deliberately, dived in, i.e. with his arm extended in the manner it was.

"It comes back to the point I made on the match thread about a new interpretation that it is a penalty, irrespective of intentionality"

Exactly; what IS new, in David Ellery's words, is changing the rule so as to make handball depend solely "on outcome rather than intent". But that says nothing about how exactly "intent" has been interpreted hitherto, including currently, prior to this new change coming into effect. My point is that "intentional" or "deliberate", as currently applied, is not restricted to cases like Egan's. The fact that Godfrey did not specifically intend to use his arm to block the ball ("narrow" interpretation) does not mean that his handball was "unintentional" ("wider" interpretation); hence as currently applied, the decision against Godfrey was correct.

"The new interpretation is that if the arm is in an "unnatural position" - generally sticking out - then it is a penalty, intentional or not. The logic being that the arm should not be where it is and has stopped the ball from going where it was intended  to go. 

But in this case it wasn't Godfrey's arm that stopped the ball from reaching its intended destination - it was his leg."

Not so; it was Godfrey's leg and arm "that stopped the ball from reaching its destination".

Since I wrote that it appears the law was in any event going to be "clarified" again, so that the kind of accidental deflection on to the arm we saw with Godfrey will not be penalised, on that basis, that it was a legitimate part of his body that stopped the shot reaching its intended destination.

It remains to be seen exactly what this second change involves, and the specific type of incident it is designed to cover. As far as Godfrey's handball goes, it is irrelevant, precisely because it hasn't yet come into effect. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That’s great. But the footage above clearly shows there is no deflection...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And even if there were a deflection ( which there isn’t! ) that ball has travelled at least three times further than our one

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, ron obvious said:

I'm afraid WCC seems to be suffering from the same disease as City 1st - Iamneverwrongia.

The argument between city 1st and Westlife Canary fooled no one . They are one and the same. I love the “glanced” deflection argument . When in a hole and all that ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, ron obvious said:

I'm afraid WCC seems to be suffering from the same disease as City 1st - Iamneverwrongia.

Ron, I'm perfectly happy to admit I'm wrong if somebody actually produces a reasoned argument that shows I'm wrong. Ill-informed opinion, however many times repeated, by however many different posters, doesn't meet that requirement. 

Incidentally, there are two quite different issues. One is whether I am right in thinking that Dalot's shot struck Kimpembe's thigh before hitting his arm in the PSG/Man Utd match. Whether it did or didn't is irrelevant to the correctness or otherwise of the penalty awarded against Godfrey, which is the second issue. 

I really don't see any point in contributing to a forum like this if people are so convinced about the truth of their own opinions that anyone who suggests reasons for thinking otherwise is simply shouted down. Those (like Purple in this instance) who are prepared to engage seriously with me in trying to mutually improve our understanding of what happens on the pitch, will find me happy to engage with them. Those who simply keep repeating what I've suggested they need to think again about, are welcome to continue in the comfort of their own certainty. As for those who descend to making things personal, I simply feel sorry for them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

It is never, ever a penalty in my opinion. If by the letter of the law it should be a penalty is not something I am qualified to judge, however, if that is the case, then the law is an a$$ and should be changed.

 

Edit, really a$$ is filtered?

Edited by All the Germans

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×