Question for the referees on here


Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Denying a goal scoring opportunity vs denying a certain goal

If it was a slow roller then it possibly wouldn't be denying a clear goalscoring opportunity so possibly not.

Bloody well would be if he just let it go past him and into the net - which is exactly what you expected off him on Saturday.
 
Re: Denying a goal scoring opportunity vs denying a certain goal

Would you say that Larsson intentionally hoofed it a Mignolet in that manner?

He deliberately passed the ball back to the goalkeeper, yes.

It was a god awful pass - but it was a pass.

At that point the goalkeeper has no additional rights or privilleges under the law than a defender. He can not handle it. However, for some reason, the punishment is different. A defender would have been red carded. He wasn't.

Sorry but I can't get away from the basic point that this is an anomoly in the rules. There is no good reason why a goalkeeper should be afforded this luxury!
 
Re: Denying a goal scoring opportunity vs denying a certain goal

He deliberately passed the ball back to the goalkeeper, yes.

It was a god awful pass - but it was a pass.

At that point the goalkeeper has no additional rights or privilleges under the law than a defender. He can not handle it. However, for some reason, the punishment is different. A defender would have been red carded. He wasn't.

Sorry but I can't get away from the basic point that this is an anomoly in the rules. There is no good reason why a goalkeeper should be afforded this luxury!

There's one for a start.
 
Re: Denying a goal scoring opportunity vs denying a certain goal

Bloody well would be if he just let it go past him and into the net - which is exactly what you expected off him on Saturday.

If it was a slow roller I'd expect him to kick the ball away rather than let it go in.

And for the record Mig did the right thing. No doubt. He prevented a goal and correctly interpreted the rules as they stand. However the rules should change to dis-incentivise such behaviour.
 
I fail to see why this seems to be so difficult for some people to get their head around. :confused:

A keeper in his own 18 yard box is not ever covered by the outfield handball rules, backpass or not.

The rule he contravened is specifically to do with backpasses - he handled a backpass which is penalised with an indirect freekick. It's no more complicated than that and covered quite clearly in the rules.

As written the rule covers this situation perfectly - it's not an anomaly because the keeper doesn't become defined as an outfield player when someone passes the ball back to him - he's governed by the laws which determine what a keeper can and cannot do within his penalty area.

Where the ball may or may not have ended up had he not caught it is irrelevant because there isn't a clause which states 'Oh aye, nearly forgot, if he plays for Sunderland and the ball might have gone in the net then it's OK to book him or send him off if you like. In fact, flay the bugger alive as an example to all.'
 
Re: Denying a goal scoring opportunity vs denying a certain goal

He deliberately passed the ball back to the goalkeeper, yes.

It was a god awful pass - but it was a pass.

At that point the goalkeeper has no additional rights or privilleges under the law than a defender. He can not handle it. However, for some reason, the punishment is different. A defender would have been red carded. He wasn't.

Sorry but I can't get away from the basic point that this is an anomoly in the rules. There is no good reason why a goalkeeper should be afforded this luxury!

Oh yes he can. He just gives away a free kick for doing so. In any situation.
 
I fail to see why this seems to be so difficult for some people to get their head around. :confused:

A keeper in his own 18 yard box is not ever covered by the outfield handball rules, backpass or not.

The rule he contravened is specifically to do with backpasses - he handled a backpass which is penalised with an indirect freekick. It's no more complicated than that and covered quite clearly in the rules.

As written the rule covers this situation perfectly - it's not an anomaly because the keeper doesn't become defined as an outfield player when someone passes the ball back to him - he's governed by the laws which determine what a keeper can and cannot do within his penalty area.

Where the ball may or may not have ended up had he not caught it is irrelevant because there isn't a clause which states 'Oh aye, nearly forgot, if he plays for Sunderland and the ball might have gone in the net then it's OK to book him or send him off if you like. In fact, flay the bugger alive as an example to all.'

Nicely put. Technical foul, nee card.
 
Re: Denying a goal scoring opportunity vs denying a certain goal

There's one for a start.

But at the point of the backpass the fact he was a goalkeeper was utterly irrelevant. He wasnt allowed to pick the ball up :lol:

When a goalkeeper steps out of his box he becomes a defender and faces the same rule book as a defender.

Guess what? Same applies when he faces a backpass. His gloves are an irrelevance. He can't do anything that a right back can't do.
 
Re: Denying a goal scoring opportunity vs denying a certain goal

If it was a slow roller I'd expect him to kick the ball away rather than let it go in.

.

Makes no difference. If he picked up the ball in that situation you would argue that he be sent off. It'd be bedlam ah tells thee.
 
I fail to see why this seems to be so difficult for some people to get their head around. :confused:

A keeper in his own 18 yard box is not ever covered by the outfield handball rules, backpass or not.

The rule he contravened is specifically to do with backpasses - he handled a backpass which is penalised with an indirect freekick. It's no more complicated than that and covered quite clearly in the rules.

As written the rule covers this situation perfectly - it's not an anomaly because the keeper doesn't become defined as an outfield player when someone passes the ball back to him - he's governed by the laws which determine what a keeper can and cannot do within his penalty area.

Where the ball may or may not have ended up had he not caught it is irrelevant because there isn't a clause which states 'Oh aye, nearly forgot, if he plays for Sunderland and the ball might have gone in the net then it's OK to book him or send him off if you like. In fact, flay the bugger alive as an example to all.'

Everyone understands the rules.

I certainly do.

I just think the rules should change.
 
Re: Denying a goal scoring opportunity vs denying a certain goal

But at the point of the backpass the fact he was a goalkeeper was utterly irrelevant. He wasnt allowed to pick the ball up :lol:

When a goalkeeper steps out of his box he becomes a defender and faces the same rule book as a defender.

Guess what? Same applies when he faces a backpass. His gloves are an irrelevance. He can't do anything that a right back can't do.

This is where you're falling down over and over again.:lol:
 
I fail to see why this seems to be so difficult for some people to get their head around. :confused:

A keeper in his own 18 yard box is not ever covered by the outfield handball rules, backpass or not.

The rule he contravened is specifically to do with backpasses - he handled a backpass which is penalised with an indirect freekick. It's no more complicated than that and covered quite clearly in the rules.

As written the rule covers this situation perfectly - it's not an anomaly because the keeper doesn't become defined as an outfield player when someone passes the ball back to him - he's governed by the laws which determine what a keeper can and cannot do within his penalty area.

Where the ball may or may not have ended up had he not caught it is irrelevant because there isn't a clause which states 'Oh aye, nearly forgot, if he plays for Sunderland and the ball might have gone in the net then it's OK to book him or send him off if you like. In fact, flay the bugger alive as an example to all.'

Me neither, it's quite bizarre some of the things posted on this thread.

The punishment for handling a backpass is an indirect free kick, the booking is subjective. And I think in this instance it's fair enough.
 
Re: Denying a goal scoring opportunity vs denying a certain goal

This is where you're falling down over and over again.:lol:

OK. List the things that a goalkeeper facing a backpass can do that an outfield player can't do under the rules.

I put it to you that there is nothing. However punishments differ. Thats not right for my money.
 
Re: Denying a goal scoring opportunity vs denying a certain goal

But at the point of the backpass the fact he was a goalkeeper was utterly irrelevant. He wasnt allowed to pick the ball up :lol:

When a goalkeeper steps out of his box he becomes a defender and faces the same rule book as a defender.

Guess what? Same applies when he faces a backpass. His gloves are an irrelevance. He can't do anything that a right back can't do.

The specific rule covering goalkeepers/handball/own area has been quoted numerous time. You are wrong.
 
Re: Denying a goal scoring opportunity vs denying a certain goal

The specific rule covering goalkeepers/handball/own area has been quoted numerous time. You are wrong.

ffs I know the rules! I know Mig should NOT have been sent off under the rules as they stand. ffs I've said so a million times.

I am suggesting the rules should change for consistency.

Its nee good using the rules to prove that the rules are correct. Otherwise we'd still be burning witches!
 
I agree with Jack Blue.

Also Colback should have been sent off for playing right back when he is completely left footed.
I know its not in the rules but they always need changing and I think this should be changed so thereby QED Dowd should have sent him off.


Please don't glass me!
 
Everyone understands the rules.

I certainly do.

I just think the rules should change.

It is an anomaly. You are right - I think a lot are arguing with you on what the basis of the rules are, not what they think they should be. Basic point as I said is that one rule is covering a wide range of possibilities. the slow roller being picked up instead of kicked is a bit silly by the keeper and gets a free-kick in a dangerous position and no card. The best shot of the game against him saved outstretched from certain netting is exactly the same under the rules as I really don't think it was envisaged by the lawmakers. It seems at odds with commonsense. Dowd added a yellow for unsporting behaviour in an attempt to recognise the difference.

What would be easier is to deem that every time a player kicks the ball backwards it has the status of an indirect free kick. That would rule out ridiculous own goals from the game and at least tidy things up. If a player nets through his own goal directly then its a corner. Perhaps its better if goals have to be scored. Just a thought.
 
Last edited:
I agree with Jack Blue.

Also Colback should have been sent off for playing right back when he is completely left footed.
I know its not in the rules but they always need changing and I think this should be changed so thereby QED Dowd should have sent him off.


Please don't glass me!

I'm not listening to you. You never posted when we were doing badly under Bruce and O'Neill and then you come out the woodwork after we beat the Mags and start pulling away from relegation. f***ing pathetic.

Please don't lamp me!
 
Handball is punished by a Direct Free Kick, then covered by the rules for Yellow and Red cards.

Handling a back pass is an Indirect Free Kick, only things you could possibly be cautioned for is unsporting behaviour or persistently infringing the laws of the game, unsporting conduct will be the get out for Phil Dowd.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top