Ben Foster caught on the ball
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
 Eaglecoops  CR3 03 Dec 17 11.06am |
  |
|---|---|
|
Just to confirm, the correct ruling should have been indirect free kick and yellow card for the keeper.
|
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
chateauferret  03 Dec 17 11.23am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Eaglecoops
Ferret, whilst I understand the sentiment of your point, nowhere in the rules of the game does it say that the ref has the right to ignore an infringement in the circumstances that occurred. The ball was a back pass, which the keeper could have cleared, but didn't. Instead he chose to try and dribble out and only when he got in trouble did he go to ground and handle it. All 3 criteria for awarding the indirect free kick were met and he simply chose to ignore it which is wrong. If we were to follow your line of thinking to every scenario when a keeper gets in trouble then there would be no indirect free kicks for keepers who pick the ball up, which would make the law an arse. Sorry, but this is just another case of a ref making a poor decision in a dangerous area of the field and he shouldn't be vilified for making up his own interpretation of the laws. Unless of course it was just straightforward incompetence and he actually missed what was going on! I think I said technically it should have been an IFK and I dixn't comment on right or wrong. Did you read my post? As someone pointed out these are seldom given and I merely speculated as to why. I will leave judgement in the hands of God. I don't think we appealed for it, did we?
============ |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Eaglecoops CR3 03 Dec 17 11.34am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by chateauferret
I think I said technically it should have been an IFK and I dixn't comment on right or wrong. Did you read my post? As someone pointed out these are seldom given and I merely speculated as to why. I will leave judgement in the hands of God. I don't think we appealed for it, did we? Yes, I did read your post, what I am saying is that refs do not have the right to ignore infringements under such circumstances whereas your inference is that they do. Zaha went crazy at the ref who just brushed him away. My guess is the ref had completely forgotten it was a back pass that started the situation.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| chateauferret 03 Dec 17 11.53am |
|
|---|---|
|
Zaha went crazy at the ref because he thought he should have had a penalty. He may well have been right. I suppose the ref was probably more interested in that than the handling issue or as you say had forgotten that there had been a back pass as it was sonetime earlier. Easy for him to miss and not something he'd be looming out for, like a trip or a shove. And if he isn't sure he won't give it. He might also have thought Wilf touched the ball. If it were a penalty and not an IFK for handling I'd be a lot more animated about it. But then it would fall under the gaze of a VAR, when and if we get those, and refs would be better primed to spot it. Seems a bit silly to me that a keeper can't hadle when an opponent is interfering with play, though, given that the spirit is to prevent timewasting. It's not as if timewasting itself isn't a bookable offence. As for the refs they have been so poor lately and they have been getting wrong much, much easier decisions than this on a regular basis.
============ |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| LeBoeuf Bermondsey 03 Dec 17 1.17pm |
|
|---|---|
|
this is just how i saw it...foster lost control of the ball, wilf was about to nip in, and to prevent him doing this, foster put his body in front of him. not a body check as such, but certainly impeded him, playing the man, not the ball, before then handling it. is it a pen or free kick?
a rich man is only a poor man with an obscene amount of money |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 03 Dec 17 1.58pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Eaglecoops
Ferret, whilst I understand the sentiment of your point, nowhere in the rules of the game does it say that the ref has the right to ignore an infringement in the circumstances that occurred. The ball was a back pass, which the keeper could have cleared, but didn't. Instead he chose to try and dribble out and only when he got in trouble did he go to ground and handle it. All 3 criteria for awarding the indirect free kick were met and he simply chose to ignore it which is wrong. If we were to follow your line of thinking to every scenario when a keeper gets in trouble then there would be no indirect free kicks for keepers who pick the ball up, which would make the law an arse. Sorry, but this is just another case of a ref making a poor decision in a dangerous area of the field and he shouldn't be vilified for making up his own interpretation of the laws. Unless of course it was just straightforward incompetence and he actually missed what was going on! This - The keeper handled it after playing the ball into trouble with his feet, and that looks like a clear infringement of the rules - same really as if an outfield player under pressure handles the ball surely? My guess is the referee wasn't sure if he handled the ball.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
berlinpalace  berlin 03 Dec 17 2.01pm |
|
|---|---|
|
What should've given the ref a clue was the lengths Foster was going to to not put a hand on the ball before deciding that the risk of Wilf scoring was too great.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| peterg Anerley 03 Dec 17 2.08pm |
|
|---|---|
|
I suspect the ref was so preoccupied with not giving Wilf a penalty that he forgot about the back-pass. If he had been more clever, he could have given the indirect free-kick for handling the back-pass as a way of evening up for not giving Wilf the pen. Still, since Wilf never gets pens (apart from the blatant one in the Watford play-off) and is usually booked for diving instead, the ref probably thought - well I won't book Wilf this time and we'll just leave things there, so he evened up that way.
The right place at the right time |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| chateauferret 03 Dec 17 2.31pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by peterg
I suspect the ref was so preoccupied with not giving Wilf a penalty that he forgot about the back-pass. If he had been more clever, he could have given the indirect free-kick for handling the back-pass as a way of evening up for not giving Wilf the pen. Still, since Wilf never gets pens (apart from the blatant one in the Watford play-off) and is usually booked for diving instead, the ref probably thought - well I won't book Wilf this time and we'll just leave things there, so he evened up that way. Maybe, but there's another of the unwritten laws of football: players don't fall over. Either it's a foul or a dive. Which, of course, is nonsense. Edited by chateauferret (04 Dec 2017 9.48am)
============ |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| hastingseagle67 03 Dec 17 3.01pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by chateauferret
Zaha went crazy at the ref because he thought he should have had a penalty. He may well have been right. I suppose the ref was probably more interested in that than the handling issue or as you say had forgotten that there had been a back pass as it was sonetime earlier. Easy for him to miss and not something he'd be looming out for, like a trip or a shove. And if he isn't sure he won't give it. He might also have thought Wilf touched the ball. If it were a penalty and not an IFK for handling I'd be a lot more animated about it. But then it would fall under the gaze of a VAR, when and if we get those, and refs would be better primed to spot it. Seems a bit silly to me that a keeper can't hadle when an opponent is interfering with play, though, given that the spirit is to prevent timewasting. It's not as if timewasting itself isn't a bookable offence. As for the refs they have been so poor lately and they have been getting wrong much, much easier decisions than this on a regular basis.
I have to disagree with you here. Although not a hundred per cent certain, I think that wilf was going crazy because he knew that he hadn’t touched it before Foster handled it. The commentators on the stream I was watching, made the same assumption as you that wilf was shouting for a penalty, and I remember thinking at the time that sometimes these pundits don’t have a clue about some things they are watching.
has resisted writing a single post on the Ross McCormack thread !!! |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| the silurian The garden of England.(not really) 03 Dec 17 6.50pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by ta11berg
I was sitting immediately behind that goal with the baggies fans, and had no doubt it was a penalty, and nor did they. It went very quiet and the abuse of Zaha paused significantly. He was fouled by Foster with an open goal in front of him,was my impression,I have not seen the replays. It seems the ref was equally unpopular at my end of the ground. Incidentally sitting with the home support gave you a very good feel about how well we played and our possession was a delight yeah but it was Zaha, and as you know, any fouls on Zaha in the box dont count as fouls, at least with any referee we've had this season
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Booted Eagle Bristol 03 Dec 17 7.07pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Every game yesterday seemed to produce an incident similar to this, where a video referee would be in a far better position to make a better decision than an on field referee.
“ [T]here are known knowns; there are things we know that we know.There are known unknowns; that is to say there are things that, we now know we don't know.But there are also unknown unknowns – there are things we do not know we don't know. ” |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / Register
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2023 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.