Jump to content
Note to existing users - password reset is required Read more... ×
Sign in to follow this  
Harry53

Ref was unsighted for #penalty#

Recommended Posts

So this means he thought it was a penalty as a Wigan player told him it was. Looking at this shot it is clear to see he didn't and couldn't have seen where the ball struck Ben. 

He just guessed. Atrocious refereeing. He should be punished. 

D4HLqxgWkAAukKI.jpeg

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Wigan player is blocking his view as I see it. The ref was about to continue play when he suddenly changed his mind, which seemed to be due to their request. 

Maybe I am wrong but that's how I saw it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The  ref was unsighted (see below)

You can pause the playback by clicking on the white bar at 13 secs, might take a couple of goes at it, works if you keep your finger down on left click of mouse

https://www.reddit.com/r/chelseafc/comments/bd20y6/wigan_10_norwich_reece_james_penalty_45/?ref=readnext

or watch how the ref looks to where the ball has gone then blows for a penalty on the sound of an appeal

https://www.skysports.com/football/wigan-vs-norwich/393046

Check the mistakes the ref made in relation to the law (12)

HANDLING THE BALL
Handling the ball involves a
deliberate act of a player making contact with the ball with the hand or arm.
The following must be considered:

  • the movement of the hand towards the ball (not the ball towards the hand)
  • the distance between the opponent and the ball (unexpected ball)
  • the position of the hand does not necessarily mean that there is an offence

Godfrey did not move his hand from where it was before the shot

Two yards away would hardly allow any conscious movement, and certainly not 18 inches in distance after the ball hit his leg

No attempt to check with the linesman either

Odd how you can appeal a red card, but not something as blatant as this - 3 match ban for the incompetent cretin should follow

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Makes the decision even more of a joke. He’s given it based on their appeal and not what he’s seen 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ref was poor yesterday made so many mistakes mostly in Wigans favour, at least thats how I saw it at the game, James should have had got a yellow way before he eventually did

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Yeah the ref yesterday was a complete ****house. James should have had a yellow in first half when he belted the ball into one of our players long after the whistle had gone. They were constantly kicking the ball away without recourse. Even their manager hoofed it up the line after it had gone for a throw in near the dugout to waste a few more seconds. Krul was somehow quicker to retrieve the ball from the sideline after running from his goal to the stands, than the ball boy who was a few metres away but made no attempt to get it.

I get they're fighting for their lives, but I have to say, I wouldn't be sorry to see them go down just on the basis of being cretins.

Ref should not officiate in the Championship again this season after yesterday. The standard of reffing has been monumentally **** this season, but he went above and beyond to prove how inept and useless he was.

Edited by kick it off

Share this post


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

@westcoastcanary I thought he had a perfect view? 🤔

That image does indeed suggest the referee's view was not as perfect as I thought. But you cannot judge from it exactly what he did or didn't see. I don't for the moment believe he would have given a penalty if he had not seen the ball strike Godfrey's outstretched arm. Nor can you say from that image that he couldn't have seen it. He may not have seen it ricochet off Godfrey's leg, but in my understanding of the rule, that is irrelevant. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, westcoastcanary said:

He may not have seen it ricochet off Godfrey's leg, but in my understanding of the rule, that is irrelevant. 

The rule is it has to be deliberate. Unless you're claiming Godfrey placed his arm perfectly to stop the ricochet off his leg, on purpose, then it is entirely relevant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ref initially started to play on and then changed his mind.

It was fortunate that the **** had gone off injured when the offside goal happened as i am sure he would have changed his mind on that one too.

Worst ref i have seen in a long time. Wigan's time wasting and play acting was atrocious and i don't think he ever pulled them up on it once.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, kick it off said:

The rule is it has to be deliberate. Unless you're claiming Godfrey placed his arm perfectly to stop the ricochet off his leg, on purpose, then it is entirely relevant.

See my earlier posts on the thread about how "intentional" is to be interpreted under this rule. The intention clause is satisfied if the handball occurs in the course of an action intended to block the ball, irrespective of whether there was a specific intention to use the hand/arm to block it. There is no question about the fact that Godfrey dived in intending to block the strike.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, westcoastcanary said:

See my earlier posts on the thread about how "intentional" is to be interpreted under this rule. The intention clause is satisfied if the handball occurs in the course of an action intended to block the ball, irrespective of whether there was a specific intention to use the hand/arm to block it. There is no question about the fact that Godfrey dived in intending to block the strike.

The champions league interpretation that only applies to champions league you mean? Thanks for playing, better luck next time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Just to make a general point: we should all start with a presumption that referees know what they are doing, are not dishonest or deliberately biased!

16 minutes ago, kick it off said:

The champions league interpretation that only applies to champions league you mean? Thanks for playing, better luck next time.

See my earlier post about the UEFA statement which gave rise to the -- I believe mistaken -- impression that the clarification of the rule only applied to the Champions League. UEFA do not have the power to interpret the rules of the game. That power lies solely with IFAB, whose decisions and recommendations are then adopted (or not) by FIFA. The UEFA statement following the PSG/Man U game was a response to questions about the application of VAR in the game, not a clarification of the handball rule itself. 

PS My opening sentence was the start of a post I was writing before kickitoff's appeared. Don't know how the two got combined!

Edited by westcoastcanary
Added the postscript

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, westcoastcanary said:

See my earlier posts on the thread about how "intentional" is to be interpreted under this rule. The intention clause is satisfied if the handball occurs in the course of an action intended to block the ball, irrespective of whether there was a specific intention to use the hand/arm to block it. There is no question about the fact that Godfrey dived in intending to block the strike.

So you have moved from it being one of interpretation on your part ie 'my understanding'

To one of it being a accepted fact ie 'is to be'

Whereas my understanding is that you are full of sh it

And the known fact is that the rule change is this case does not come into effect until next season

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/47429316

Even then it is still subjective, not absolute, as in

" Another change to the laws of the game means that if the player's arms extend beyond a "natural silhouette", handball will be given, even if it is perceived as accidental. "

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I stand by my 2-pints-of-cider-fuelled accusation yesterday, he was a w@nker.  Even the (very few) decisions he gave to us were wrong more than half the time.  Worst refereeing performance I've seen live for over a decade.

Plus, anyone who awards penalities in such an extravagant and self-important posing manner clearly has ego issues.  Conference for you pls, ref.  Don't drop your cards on the way down.

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

I would only ask that the law is applied on a consistent basis, sometimes a penalty is given, sometimes it is not.........

To apply the law on a consistent basis would require that every game is managed by the same referee. He or she would be exhausted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Godfrey didn't help though by poorly feigning a head injury - poor acting and will never win a BAFTA with that quality.  Needs to scream loud as well and shout "head injury"!:classic_tongue:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For West Coast - taken from the An Arm Away from Losing thread which you somehow sidestepped during your defense of the decision.

 

From the Sky half time analysis of our game. Andy Hinchcliff compared a penalty decision at Burnley this weekend which was reversed after the Ref realized the ball had deflected off Ben Mee's head onto his hand. Hinchcliff then made the point that our penalty wouldn't have been given if the Ref had VAR available.

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

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A real injustice and it's time to move on yet there's plenty of days left to go after Todd.

At least Krul is getting a week off...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

A real injustice and it's time to move on yet there's plenty of days left to go after Todd.

At least Krul is getting a week off...

Are people going after Todd or simply saying that in their opinion we have better options?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, kick it off said:

Are people going after Todd or simply saying that in their opinion we have better options?

 

15 hours ago, Harry53 said:

So this means he thought it was a penalty as a Wigan player told him it was. Looking at this shot it is clear to see he didn't and couldn't have seen where the ball struck Ben. 

He just guessed. Atrocious refereeing. He should be punished. 

D4HLqxgWkAAukKI.jpeg

In a weird way this picture really pleases me. Nothing to do with the ref's positioning/whether he could see the "handball" etc. Take a look at Reading's second goal on Wednesday night - their player scores from a position pretty similar to this and there isn't one of our players within five yards of him as he takes the shot - contrast that to here where 3 or our players are diving in - straining every sinew - to block the shot. We were very unlucky that it ended up being a penalty, but I'll take this level of effort and commitment every time! 

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, kick it off said:

Are people going after Todd or simply saying that in their opinion we have better options?

Well now, the thread that dedicated to how utterly poor Todd was has 3,787 views and 89 replies. This thread about the injustice of the penalty has 770 views and 23 replies of which it was time to move on after 4. (It will probably pick up now Todd's in the mix 🙃)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

Well now, the thread that dedicated to how utterly poor Todd was has 3,787 views and 89 replies. This thread about the injustice of the penalty has 770 views and 23 replies of which it was time to move on after 4. (It will probably pick up now Todd's in the mix 🙃)

That's probably because the penalty is something that we (as a club) can't control, but team selection and formation is something that's in our remit to change. It's just a shame that the conversation starter had to be Waveney's predictable and childish attempt at attention seeking. Shame to see it still works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not just Waveney's though. Cantwells been part of a wonderfully successful season covering for Hernandez, Stiepermann and Buendia. His points/starts ratio is right up there. Yet with just four games to play he's getting hammered on here and sent out on loan next season.

With just four left to play we need Todd, and all the squad, to carry on as they have been and get us over the line.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

It's not just Waveney's though. Cantwells been part of a wonderfully successful season covering for Hernandez, Stiepermann and Buendia. His points/starts ratio is right up there. Yet with just four games to play he's getting hammered on here and sent out on loan next season.

With just four left to play we need Todd, and all the squad, to carry on as they have been and get us over the line.

Nobody is suggesting him be banished on loan as a punishment. Think the suggestion was it would be beneficial to his development, certainly more so than sitting on the bench every week. Are you suggesting he is ready to start every week in the Prem or that sitting on the bench is more beneficial than playing every week on loan? If neither of the above then you’re just trying to point score over things that you know to be correct by taking them out of context.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

It's not just Waveney's though. Cantwells been part of a wonderfully successful season covering for Hernandez, Stiepermann and Buendia. His points/starts ratio is right up there. Yet with just four games to play he's getting hammered on here and sent out on loan next season.

With just four left to play we need Todd, and all the squad, to carry on as they have been and get us over the line.

No, but Waveney was the only one making a ridiculous overblown statement just to try to wind people up. Supporting the team and the players on the pitch is not mutually exclusive with believing changes can or should be made. Just as we need to try to see positives and progress when things are going badly (as was the case last season), that doesn't mean we should be blinded by the overall brilliance of this team into thinking we can't or shouldn't find fault with anyone or anything.

There are a lot of perfectly reasonable posts from perfectly reasonable posters questioning Todd's place in the side currently. Personally I would also drop him for the next game to accommodate Vrancic deeper, and move McLean further forward. That doesn't mean I'm going to slate Cantwell on the pitch or get my pitchfork out and ring Canary Call to ask what the bloody hell Farke is duuuuurn down Colney. Should I be honest with my opinion, or just suck it up and pretend I'm happy with Cantwell's contribution in the last two games?

  • Like 1

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  

×