Idah and the one on one . Good refereeing?

[Graham Paddons Beard 2,424]

GK tries to take out Idah. Adam stays on his feet and blasts the ball over . 
 

Adam sticks the ball in the net. Ref gets plaudits for playing advantage . 
 

Or did he play advantage ? 
 

Did  the ref not give it because Idah doesn’t go down? Did he simply miss a blindingly obvious foul? 
 

Or should the ref allow play to develop and bring the play back when Idah misses?  
 

 

[cambridgeshire canary 6,675]

If Idah had gone down no doubt goalie would have got a red. It's a tough one. Does he go down knowing the keeper has a high chance of being sent off or does he try and get past and get an easy tap it? Idah of course chose the second.

[lake district canary 4,531]

It was a foul. Pure and simple.  When are refs going to collectively sort these kinds of things out so we get some consistency and good decisions? 

[dylanisabaddog 4,867]

4 minutes ago, lake district canary said:

It was a foul. Pure and simple.  When are refs going to collectively sort these kinds of things out so we get some consistency and good decisions? 

Spot on. If players hit the floor they're accused of diving. When they try to stay on their feet they don't get the decision. I think we both know what he'll do next time 

[Greavsy 2,412]

10 minutes ago, lake district canary said:

It was a foul. Pure and simple.  When are refs going to collectively sort these kinds of things out so we get some consistency and good decisions? 

Isn't that what VAR is meant to do?

[lake district canary 4,531]

4 minutes ago, dylanisabaddog said:

Spot on. If players hit the floor they're accused of diving. When they try to stay on their feet they don't get the decision. I think we both know what he'll do next time 

And that is the sad thing about it. The policy encourages players to cheat. The refs could do something about it though.

[Graham Paddons Beard 2,424]

10 minutes ago, lake district canary said:

And that is the sad thing about it. The policy encourages players to cheat. The refs could do something about it though.

As I’ve droned on about before it was referees who created “contact” . Years  ago a  foul was awarded for a trip , or reckless or careless challenges,  or over due force. This subtley changed to “contact” , which the media developed by stating that a player had the right to go down . Of course this is complete nonsense . 

Keith Stroud was the perfect example of awarding free kicks when a player dropped. 
 

Personally I thought the decision was hopeless but I was interested in opinion. 

[Trevor Hockey's Beard 526]

If it had been Grealish he'd have flown through the air, rolled over about 10 times and ended up prone on the ground, looking like an extra for the Beach scene in Shaving Ryan's Privates.

[cambridgeshire canary 6,675]

5 minutes ago, Trevor Hockey's Beard said:

If it had been Grealish he'd have flown through the air, rolled over about 10 times and ended up prone on the ground, looking like an extra for the Beach scene in Shaving Ryan's Privates.

Never forget the invisible sniper!

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,219]

20 hours ago, Graham Paddons Beard said:

GK tries to take out Idah. Adam stays on his feet and blasts the ball over . 
 

Adam sticks the ball in the net. Ref gets plaudits for playing advantage . 
 

Or did he play advantage ? 
 

Did  the ref not give it because Idah doesn’t go down? Did he simply miss a blindingly obvious foul? 
 

Or should the ref allow play to develop and bring the play back when Idah misses?  
 

 

Very very good GPB 👍🏽👍🏽

..this is where ‘diving’ came from….….…in Italy defenders became absolute masters at the 3/4 foul.

It was considered an art to do enough to spoil a forward chance, put them off balance, block runs and spaces - all with no intention or ability to get to the ball fairly - much of course outside of the referee’s eyeline. 

You may all laugh, though what it created was a ‘communication battle’ with referees to ‘show them what was really going on’.

Because referees never blow for fouls in the Idah situation, what value-gain benefit is there for the forward?

Thus ‘diving’ is a very loaded term. 

I abhor blatant cheating and ‘diving’ when no * foul exists.

However. 

If you are a fast, clever forward even a smallish nudge can prevent you from reaching a chance, scoring a goal or staying on your feet. 

Staying on your feet, only to be out of body position, unbalanced and thus miss an ‘easy’ chance is therefore totally pointless. 

Parma 

Edited February 27, 2023 by Parma Ham's gone mouldy
*I removed ‘contact or’. There does not need to be contact for something to be a foul or a prevention of a chance or a cute way of putting off the forward without attempting to play the ball

[It's Character Forming 1,160]

The ref was pretty random in what he gave, if Idah went down there was a high risk IMO he would not have given it.  So I think Idah did the right thing.
 

With some more starts and a couple of goals he’ll get more composure and slot that sort of chance away.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

Why does a player have to go down for it to be a foul? There is nothing in the rule book. The ref could play advantage. But what constitutes a foul? An action that illegally prevents a player from running, passing or shooting? 

[Disco Dales Jockstrap 1,891]

2 hours ago, Graham Paddons Beard said:

GK tries to take out Idah. Adam stays on his feet and blasts the ball over . 
 

Adam sticks the ball in the net. Ref gets plaudits for playing advantage . 
 

Or did he play advantage ? 
 

Did  the ref not give it because Idah doesn’t go down? Did he simply miss a blindingly obvious foul? 
 

Or should the ref allow play to develop and bring the play back when Idah misses?  
 

I would assume he played the advantage which, in my opinion, was the correct decision as we had a very good goal scoring opportunity. There was no reason to then bring the play back as he gave the advantage only for our player to blaze the shot over the bar - not the refs fault.

If he had blown up for the foul and sent the goalie off, I have no doubt we'd have a thread grumbling about the ref not giving Idah the chance to get the goal he so desperately needs. He gave Idah an excellent chance to score which he didn't take. Credit to him for staying on his feet - he wanted the goal so badly. Was it the wisest move? Possibly not. But in a game overrun with fraudsters it was refreshing to see someone with a soul.

OK, rant time (not aimed at you personally GPB).

I have nothing but sympathy for modern refs; they play in a game that is full to the brim with cheats and hypocrites. EVERY aspect of the game is dirty - every throw, corner, tackle - you name it, players will attempt to cheat over it. How the refs expected to get every decision correct when he's dealing with 22 complete b*stards I'm not really sure.

And then there's the completely unrealistic expectations of fans. Unless the ref goes along with your reading of the game for 99% of the decisions, he's f*cked. Unless he gets every decision correct, he's f*cked. And let's not hear any sh*te about consistency because fans change their own interpretation of the rules whenever it suits their own purposes.

Constantly griping about refs is what led to VAR - and look how that has turned out for everyone. Who could have imaged that using a system that still relies on the opinion of humans would still lead to arguments over decisions! Well bugg3r me backwards with a length of piping! I mean. FFS. It was never going to sort out the problem it was designed for because every fan and pundit is an expert in their own mind. I keep hearing that all we need to do is replace all the VAR peeps with ex players because they 'know the game'. What b*llocks. Besides, they wouldn't get out of bed for the wages refs receive - how many ex players go on to be refs?

1 hour ago, Graham Paddons Beard said:

As I’ve droned on about before it was referees who created “contact” .  

No it wasn't. Referees simply in-force rules. If you want to have a go at anyone for the way decisions are made on a football pitch, address your strongly worded letter to the FA, UEFA or FIFA. Football is fundamentally a simple game but they have tinkered with it to add further confusion and ambiguity where none should be. Leave the bl**dy offside rule alone. ANY descent, yellow card. And what actually is classified as 'handball' these days?!!

Like I said earlier GPB, nothing personal, and thanks for giving me the chance to get that off my chest. 👍

OTBC

Edited February 26, 2023 by Disco Dales Jockstrap

[cornish sam 944]

But, if the ref did play advantage he should have still gone back and sent the goalie off for a foul as the last man that ultimately prevented a goal as it.put idah off balance and pushed him wider than he would otherwise have gone. Just because the foul isn't given doesn't mean that the card shouldn't 

[chicken 2,604]

There was a sort of weird in-between moment in the Real Vs Atletico last night. Atletico player got obstructed by Modric, tried to keep going but realised he wasn't going to get to the ball, so went down into a knee slide. The ref didn't give it straight away but did after the player had gone down, a bit.

But yes, it was a foul, prevented a goal scoring opportunity without doubt. Much harder for Idah after he'd recovered his balance, was held up long enough for defenders to get back and the ball had gone wider. Without that touch from the keeper he was more central and just had to pull the trigger. 

Luckily for us, it didn't mean anything in the grand scheme of the game. 

[Petriix 2,834]

There's a common belief that there is a rule which says you can't give a foul if the player has already taken, or goes on to take a shot. There is no such rule. The correct thing to do is simply give nothing for a couple of seconds, see if an advantage materialises and bring it back if not.

If Idah had scored it should still be a yellow card for the keeper. The fact he was then off balance means there's a strong case for a red card and bringing it back. If advantage is signalled, the ref then cannot bring it back, but at least a yellow card should have been issued regardless. 

In this case the ref didn't signal advantage and took no action whatsoever. Idah should know that a red card is generally far more valuable than a goal and should know to go down. Regardless, the ref has not done his job. 

[Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man 3,777]

12 minutes ago, Petriix said:

There's a common belief that there is a rule which says you can't give a foul if the player has already taken, or goes on to take a shot. There is no such rule. The correct thing to do is simply give nothing for a couple of seconds, see if an advantage materialises and bring it back if not.

I completely agree with you here. A good example was in the first half of the Spurs-Chelsea which is happening now: Richarlison was fouled on the edge of the D, it fell to Hojbjerg under pressure, who had a shot, which was deflected, hit the post, and went out for a corner. The free kick was clearly more advantageous than a shot under pressure whilst being closed down, so the ref should've brought that back for the free kick, but as you say, they never do.

However, in the situation Idah was in yesterday, I'd argue the open goal, whilst admittedly off balance, was more advantageous and far more likely to lead to a goal than the free kick. As a result, I have no problem with the ref letting that one go. 

Idah should've gone down though. A red card for Cardiff at that point would've completely killed the game, although saying that, so would a third goal which he still should've scored.

[Creedence Clearwater Couto 1,251]

43 minutes ago, cornish sam said:

But, if the ref did play advantage he should have still gone back and sent the goalie off for a foul as the last man that ultimately prevented a goal as it.put idah off balance and pushed him wider than he would otherwise have gone. Just because the foul isn't given doesn't mean that the card shouldn't 

The Gk is only sent off for denying a clear goal scoring opportunity, by playing advantage, the ref decides a the goal scoring opportunity was not denied, and still present. So he can’t go back and send him off. 

The whole advantage thing is a murky really. I guess there must be a definition in the rule book?

[Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man 3,777]

12 minutes ago, Creedence Clearwater Couto said:

The Gk is only sent off for denying a clear goal scoring opportunity, by playing advantage, the ref decides a the goal scoring opportunity was not denied, and still present. So he can’t go back and send him off. 

Correct, but I believe the directive is that the player receives a yellow card in this scenario. 

[hogesar 9,618]

There was no signal from the ref he was playing advantage though, was there? Maybe the highlights will determine but in real-time I saw nothing, and remember looking as thought it was definite foul (lower barclay so in front of me).

IF we want to take 'diving' or 'simulation' out of the game, whilst we're all blaming players, the standard and quality of refereeing has to improve dramatically, or we'll be unfairly disadvantaged as we were yesterday.

[Well b back 3,190]

3 hours ago, Trevor Hockey's Beard said:

If it had been Grealish he'd have flown through the air, rolled over about 10 times and ended up prone on the ground, looking like an extra for the Beach scene in Shaving Ryan's Privates.

And looking at it the other way, if Grealish had been touched by the goalkeeper and gone to ground, he would quite rightly have been given a penalty. Aarons, Hanley and Pukki would definitely have gone. It’s a hard one to call really, who is the best ‘ professional ‘ at that level, the one that goes to ground or the one that tries to stay on their feet ?. Maybe the difference is Grealish plays with VAR and Championship players don’t.

[Nuff Said 5,089]

Having watched Wales v England at rugby union immediately afterwards, why can’t advantage work the same way in football? That is, the ref signals advantage is being played but if the team in possession do not benefit, play is stopped and brought back to the place the foul occurred for a free kick? Currently, it’s like making a player who’s had on-pitch treatment leave the field before they can rejoin the game, the victim gets penalised (granted in the second case, it seems it’s often is the “fouled” player who is at fault as they’re just playing for time or trying to avoid being penalised for an offence). Like respect for the referee, it’s one of the things that rugby does better.

[Graham Paddons Beard 2,424]

47 minutes ago, hogesar said:

There was no signal from the ref he was playing advantage though, was there? Maybe the highlights will determine but in real-time I saw nothing, and remember looking as thought it was definite foul (lower barclay so in front of me).

IF we want to take 'diving' or 'simulation' out of the game, whilst we're all blaming players, the standard and quality of refereeing has to improve dramatically, or we'll be unfairly disadvantaged as we were yesterday.

This was my take. No advantage decision so didn’t give the foul. It looked as clear as day. 
 

Considering how much football people watch they don’t seem to completely understand how football referees interpret laws rather than apply rules. And it is in this interpretation along with direction from tournament authorities (like PGMOL)  that ends up with giving decisions BECAUSE Of contact rather than applying properly Law 12 which states that an opponent must be impeded because of the contact.

My guess is that Idah gets that decision if he goes down. Which as far as interpretation of Law 12 is concerned is cobblers . Falling on the floor should not be a measure of the player being impeded. Idah clearly was. 

[Graham Paddons Beard 2,424]

15 minutes ago, Well b back said:

if Grealish had been touched by the goalkeeper and gone to ground, he would quite rightly have been given a penalty. 

You see…. This isn’t correct but it has become part of football. 
 

Being touched and going down is not a correct interpretation of Law 12. 
 

Law 12 states a direct free kick is given in the opposing player IMPEDES the player with contact. It’s quite obvious in most cases where a player is not impeded but instead moves his body/ foot to gain contact. VAR spends time looking for contact not impeding 
 

Let’s be honest Hanley does it all the time with that “stop in front of the opposing player, feel contact and fall over” routine that the refs give without question. 
 

Mike Dean didn’t give a free kick against Ayala . Excellent decision 

[chicken 2,604]

10 minutes ago, Graham Paddons Beard said:

This was my take. No advantage decision so didn’t give the foul. It looked as clear as day. 
 

Considering how much football people watch they don’t seem to completely understand how football referees interpret laws rather than apply rules. And it is in this interpretation along with direction from tournament authorities (like PGMOL)  that ends up with giving decisions BECAUSE Of contact rather than applying properly Law 12 which states that an opponent must be impeded because of the contact.

My guess is that Idah gets that decision if he goes down. Which as far as interpretation of Law 12 is concerned is cobblers . Falling on the floor should not be a measure of the player being impeded. Idah clearly was. 

Exactly. I feel refs would be much better served if they played advantage if they were "3/4" decisions as Parma calls them. That way they get more time to consider them and also to give players a chance to make use of any possible advantage. For example, it's possible that despite being impeded, the angle getting worse and defenders getting back, that Idah scores that chance.

At that point, as ref, you can go over, have a strong word with the keeper and give them a yellow card. I honestly think people would take that. After all, a red card isn't guarantee of a goal and 10 men can often be harder to break down than 11.

If the chance was taken away altogether and the opportunity to score after being impeded diminishes, you can bring it back and give a red, as clearly the keeper has prevented a scoring opportunity unfairly.

It's a no brainer to me.

Edited February 26, 2023 by chicken

[Nexus_Canary 1,016]

It was a foul and should have been a peno.

When idah took the shot he was off balance and he lent back.

I tried explaining that to the casual behind me who claimed that E-Darh was crap and should have hit the target.

[chicken 2,604]

1 minute ago, Nexus_Canary said:

It was a foul and should have been a peno.

When idah took the shot he was off balance and he lent back.

I tried explaining that to the casual behind me who claimed that E-Darh was crap and should have hit the target.

Red card is one thing, a penalty? Wasn't in the area... not even in the D!

[shefcanary 2,385]

2 minutes ago, Nexus_Canary said:

It was a foul and should have been a peno.

When idah took the shot he was off balance and he lent back.

I tried explaining that to the casual behind me who claimed that E-Darh was crap and should have hit the target.

It was a good ten yards outside the penalty area! How could it have been a penalty?

[Nexus_Canary 1,016]

Sorry yeh your right I meant free kick!

[nutty nigel 7,509]

I think the ref was Welsh.