Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Mick Dennis

One game ban for Bunn

Recommended Posts

To clear up some confusion: Bunn was sent off for denying a clear goal-scoring opportunity, for which the sanction is a one-game ban (v Wigan). To be guilty of that offence, a player has to commit an offence punishable by a direct free kick (or a penalty) which prevents an opponent from having an obvious chance to score. Foy thought Bunn handled outside his area. All handballs have to be deliberate.

And, in other news, that was a huge point and we are staying up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks Mick there''s been some debate over exactly why he was red carded, not convinced at all that it was the correct decision on a number of levels not least because it''s still not clear that it was handball. Waiting for MOTD2 as I''ve a feeling Foy was unsighted anyway.There''s no debate surrounding the fact that Foy and his linesmen were the confused ones today on a number of occasions, very very poor display from the officials missing a player in a bright red/white shirt coming at Bassong from an offside position was poor, the penalty that wasn''t was right up there with the Leon Barnett penalty against Stoke last year in terms of ineptitude. Guess we won''t appeal as it''s just a one match ban.Massive point in the circumstances just gutted that cr@p refereeing in two separate games this afternoon stopped us from being 12 points above the relegation spots as Newcastle were robbed twice too.[:@]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Although all handballs have to be deliberate, the guidance to refs is that a player who "makes himself big" with his arms up or out is making a deliberate movement. So if the ball then hits his arm, it''s handball. I''m still not sure the ball hit any part of Bunny''s hand and I''m sure he didn''t want the ball to hit his arm. I''m equally sure Seb didn''t want the ball to roll along his arm after hitting his chest. But if both had been Sunderand players, I''d have wanted a red for the keeper and a pen for the second ''handball''. It doesn''t matter now, though. And we''ll win there next year, if they stay up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Half time on SKY they announced the reason why the ref made his decision. To which Andy Cole & Dwight thought it was wrong, because it seemed pretty clear Bunn didn''t deliberately handle the ball.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For the Bassong one, the player in an offside position did not commit the offence of offside.

Since 2005, interfering with play means touching the ball and interfering with an opponent means preventing the opponent from either seeing or playing the ball. The Sunderland player did neither, so the Lino was correct not to flag.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was at Spurs. First City game I''ve missed for yonks. Full marks to the Y''Army for making the trip for such an early start. I was there last year under Lambert when City folded without much resistance. Big, big point today

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Mick Dennis"]For the Bassong one, the player in an offside position did not commit the offence of offside.

Since 2005, interfering with play means touching the ball and interfering with an opponent means preventing the opponent from either seeing or playing the ball. The Sunderland player did neither, so the Lino was correct not to flag.[/quote]

I thought that the recipient of the pass (Sunderland player) does not necessarily have to touch the ball, nor interfere with an opponent. If the pass was intended for him (undoubtedly as no other player within yards of him) and it forced the opponent to take action he wouldn''t have to if the opposition player wasn''t there, (e.g the opposition player, in close proximity, makes a movement towards the ball) then that is interfering, coming back into the game, and offside. The lino admitted he was offside, but wasn''t sure how much he (Sunderland player) was interfering. Bizarre!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Don''t agree with the comment about the sunderland player not interfering. The ball was played to him, he falls over and then as bassong controls the ball he is closing bassong down. Of cause that is interfering with play, if he isn''t closing bassong down then there is no pressure on bassong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The definition of interfering with play is set out on page 104 of the Laws booklet. It says: "interfering with play means playing or touching the ball passed or touched by a team-mate".

That is why linesmen sometimes seem to flag late. They are waiting for a player to touch the ball.

The definition is complicated by the fact that linesmen are told, unofficially, to flag if one player is running forward from a clearly offside position on his own, and is clearly going for the ball. They are told to do this to save time and/or to prevent the striker clattering into the goalkeeper.

But in the incident yesterday at Sunderland, the linesman (assistant) was correct not to flag.

I don''t understand why MotD and other pundits don''t bother to look at the Laws and explain the interpretation which had been in place for all of FIFA since 2005.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The definition of interfering with an opponent is also on page 104. It is too long to cite in full, but the key words are "preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball".

Seb played the ball and so the opponent did not commit this definition of an offside offence.

I know the commonsense definitions lead people (including Chris Hughton) to believe the player was offending because he was actively involved in play, but that is one of the frustrations for refs and others, that arguments and debates go on without pundits explaining the actual law, which has been like this since 2005.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This reminds of a coaching course I did many years ago. We were all playing good level of football (hey we could''ve probably been professional ;-)), and on our first morning they brought in a some chief of refereeing who proceeded to show scenarios of situations and we had to describe if an offence was committed and if so why. I don''t remember any correct answers. His statement still rings loud in my ears "you all play a lot, and expect a referee to get all his decisions right. Some will even argue strongly with him yet none of you even know the rules".

Sadly I think that is reasonably true now even at the highest levels.

I think it would help if they kept it simple. ie, it is always handball in every circumstance whether player can do anything about it or not. Yes, unlucky but that''s just how it would be.

Offside - you are either on or off when the ball is passed forward, matters not if there is any interference or if anyone becomes active.

We do seem to have made quite a simple game difficult.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Mick Dennis"]The definition of interfering with play is set out on page 104 of the Laws booklet. It says: "interfering with play means playing or touching the ball passed or touched by a team-mate".

That is why linesmen sometimes seem to flag late. They are waiting for a player to touch the ball.

The definition is complicated by the fact that linesmen are told, unofficially, to flag if one player is running forward from a clearly offside position on his own, and is clearly going for the ball. They are told to do this to save time and/or to prevent the striker clattering into the goalkeeper.

But in the incident yesterday at Sunderland, the linesman (assistant) was correct not to flag.

I don''t understand why MotD and other pundits don''t bother to look at the Laws and explain the interpretation which had been in place for all of FIFA since 2005.[/quote]It''s still ambiguous though Mick, how do they define ''playing'' the ball.  Surely being the intended target of the ball, and then getting up and causing the defender to control the ball himself is ''playing'' the ball.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The linesman does not wait for a player to touch the ball to wave offside, he''s offside as soon as he makes a movement towards the ball, if the player just stands still (usually with his arms in the air) he will on be offside.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The point about handball is that it must be deliberate, otherwise you''d have strikers blasting the ball at a defender inside the box hoping he can''t get his hand out the way.

 

It''s easy to judge what''s deliberate when a player moves his hand to touch the ball, but anyone who''s player football knows that if you spread your arms in front of where the ball is likely to be struck to block a shot, etc, then that''s just as deliberate.

 

Yesterday we had 3 handballs given, but the key decisions all went against City.  First for Bunn, the ball clearly hits him in the stomach and with his hands being raised to the level of his face, his elbow is down at stomach level so the ball hits him on the elbow too.  Has he handled the ball deliberately ?  Clearly not - his arms were raised to protect himself against the onrushing striker, he doesn''t control the ball in any way that wouldn''t have happened had the ball just hit him on the stomach.  So, one bad call by the ref.

 

Next Bassong''s handball. Under pressure he tries to control the ball with his chest but it spins to the left and trickles along his arm.  Very doubtful he intended to touch it with his arm, mainly because he didn''t need to - having played it with his chest, it was going away from the striker in the same direction that it ended up going anyway. But an understandable decision as it clearly does touch his arm, so one you could see why it was given (by the lino incidentally - the ref couldn''t see as he was on the other side of the player). So IMO a mistake but an understandable one.

 

Finally the Rose decision - no debate it was handball, just whether it was in the box. Both at the time and from the replay I thought it was clearly inside the area, but the ref bottled it by giving a handball right on the edge.

 

The annoying thing is that Sunderland were so poor going forward (partly because we played well) that I felt we could have gone another 90 minutes without them scoring from open play. So if even one of those decisions had been called right - the 2nd penalty would have been a killer for them fairly late on - we''d have 3 points and be almost safe, rather than have to go to the DW knowing that if we lose, we''ll be just 4 points off the drop zone (and also worried about whether we''ll get some key players injured, frankly).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still think Bill Shankly got the offside rule right:

"If a players not interfering with play , what''s he doing on the field"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The size of the ban wont effect the outcome of our season. Ruddy is back for Wigan and Bunn would have reverted back to warming the bench anyway. The ban just makes it easier for Careful Chris to justify to Bunny.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Camp will be in against Wigan at least. Did enough to keep his place and seriously doubt Ruddy will play after being out for so, so long. Wouldn''t be surprised if he didn''t play for a bit yet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a scenario;

Defending player from red team has ball played past him, and now he is facing his own goal, with player from blue team chasing him down, having come form (unbeknown to the defender) an offside position. Feeling the ''heat'' from the attacker, he promptly plays the ball back to his keeper, keeper misses it, og is the result. What does the Lino give?

I would wager any Lino would flag for offside.

I''m not saying you are wrong at all Mick, but if this scenario plays out as I am confident as I state, then what is the difference?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don''t know how the heck Mick D can claim the Sunderland player was not interfering when the ball is played toward his general area. And was only a metre or two away from Bassong when the incident occurred.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It really is too long ago for me to remember, but I''m sure when I was a kid it didn''t matter if handball was deliberate or not.

I would still be keen to see that as the rule - it takes away some confusion.

I''d be quite interested to see some of these strikers who can''t hit the target very often during game suddenly become so accurate they start hitting players hands for fun.

I think both decisions against us were fair enough, I can understand how both were made. Never forget the ref doesn''t get a replay. I struggle to understand how the Danny Rose handball was not clearly seen as being in the box.

It''s funny how people see things differently, I think that it can very difficult at times to judge if handball is deliberate, even with the benefit of several replays.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="swindoncanary"]The linesman does not wait for a player to touch the ball to wave offside, he''s offside as soon as he makes a movement towards the ball, if the player just stands still (usually with his arms in the air) he will on be offside.
[/quote]

 

Agreed. Whilst Mick is a good guy and speaks with an authoritative air, the Sunderland player goes active the second he gets back on his feet , from an offside position, and moves towards the ball. The initial pass is clearly played into the player.

Linesmen do not wait for the player to touch the ball. They wait for the player to become active, which can be in a number of different ways.  Quite different. If a player runs back from an offisde position, the ball is played over the top , the player will become active when he turns and runs the ball, at which point the linesman will flag. He doesn''t have to touch anything.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The instructions, that the players are aware of,   is that if arms are outstretched or raised then the player is making themself larger with the (sub concious) intent of blocking the ball.     As such there is an intent to stop/change the direction the ball is travelling in.  The intent is there - even if its not a concious deliberate action.

 

For bun the ball hit the lower side of his arm (was my initial reaction live) and Seb used his chest but mis-timed it and the ball hit his outstretched arm - as such both decisions had some intent so the decisions are correct.  

 

No excuse on Rose,   simply wrong.   Ditto Grants lunge for the keeper - just glad Mignolet did not make a big thing of it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="ZippersLeftFoot"]

The instructions, that the players are aware of,   is that if arms are outstretched or raised then the player is making themself larger with the (sub concious) intent of blocking the ball.     As such there is an intent to stop/change the direction the ball is travelling in.  The intent is there - even if its not a concious deliberate action.

For bun the ball hit the lower side of his arm (was my initial reaction live) and Seb used his chest but mis-timed it and the ball hit his outstretched arm - as such both decisions had some intent so the decisions are correct.  

No excuse on Rose,   simply wrong.   Ditto Grants lunge for the keeper - just glad Mignolet did not make a big thing of it. 

[/quote]

 

So it was sub-conscious intent?  Best get Dr Freud in as a ref then.  Although I''m still struggling to see how Bunn could have been (consciously or not) intending make himself larger to block the ball with his hands when his arms were right together in front of his chest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"So it was sub-conscious intent? Best get Dr Freud in as a ref then. Although I''m still struggling to see how Bunn could have been (consciously or not) intending make himself larger to block the ball with his hands when his arms were right together in front of his chest."

 

It may of course have been his id, and not his arm, that blocked the ball. The threat of having that Sunderland player "entering his box" triggered long-suppressed childhood memories and an oedipal urge to smash the incoming father figure.

 

Quite how the ref missed that I don''t know. Maybe he and the lino are just in it for their ego?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Lets be aving you"]

"So it was sub-conscious intent? Best get Dr Freud in as a ref then.

It may of course have been his id, and not his arm, that blocked the ball. The threat of having that Sunderland player "entering his box" triggered long-suppressed childhood memories and an oedipal urge to smash the incoming father figure.

 

Quite how the ref missed that I don''t know. Maybe he and the lino are just in it for their ego?

[/quote][:D]

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  

×
×
  • Create New...