Football nº 10

[Jon AS]

All this talk about yesterday's and tomorrow's games and no comment on the event of the evening? Werder went through to the UEFA Cup final and will face Donezk in Istanbul! It was a close game and it came at a high cost with both Diego and Almeida getting booked for stupid offences and thus being suspended for the final.

Hamburg on the other hand have been knocked out of both the European and domestic cup and their recent stumbles in the league don't leave them much hope there either, looks like at least another season without silverware for them after coming very close indeed.

[Paddy]

It was a close game and it came at a high cost with both Diego and Almeida getting booked for stupid offences and thus being suspended for the final.

This seems to be the theme for European semi-finals this year.

Did Shakhtar Donetsk have someone needlessly booked too?

[Horza]

Didn't catch the 1st half so can't comment on Alves-Malouda but there's no way in the world I'd've given no 2, Drogba goes down way too easily - refs don't blow when it happens to Kevin Davies, so why now? Eto'o was turning away, his arm was up to shield his face and the ball catches him right on the upper trunk. Just too marginal as far as I'm concerned.

Conceeding Alves-Malouda that's two legit penalties and two soft denied vs one sending off. I'd argue that going a man down when you still have to get on the scoreboard is a heavy blow and hence I think the shit refereeing was a wash or near enough.

[H von T]

I still haven't been able to bring myself to watch Arsenal-Man United. Too damn depressing. I do want to see Christiano's free kick. Fast forward and delete asap.

I did watch most of Chelsea-Barcelona. I agree with most everybody that the refereeing was shit. I'm surprised no one is talking about Essien's yellow card. I thought he should have gotten a red card. He made no attempt to play the ball. He just came up from behind and stomped on the guy's calf. He's a first rate cock, but I wish he played for Arsenal.

[Alcibiades]

Essien's goal was sublime. World class. It was off the left foot, his weaker side.

[Jon AS]

Essien's goal was sublime. World class. It was off the left foot, his weaker side.

And he'll never come close to repeating it.

[Paddy]

Didn't catch the 1st half so can't comment on Alves-Malouda but there's no way in the world I'd've given no 2, Drogba goes down way too easily - refs don't blow when it happens to Kevin Davies, so why now?

Why's he pulling on his shirt if it's not an attempt to foul him?

Referees give for tugs on shirts all the time, and while I complain as much about Drogba's diving as anyone, I don't think he went down that easy in this case. Giving one incident where it

That part's subjective though and IMO, the ref bottled it. Just like he bottled the first one (the third one, I just cannot explain).

However, I do think that referees should pretty much be very harsh on shirt pulls. How are they not fouls and intentions to foul? I'm trying to think of a way in which a pull could not be intentional and I'm not coming up with anything.

Eto'o was turning away, his arm was up to shield his face and the ball catches him right on the upper trunk. Just too marginal as far as I'm concerned.

Turning away is not relevant to the discussion and Eto'o went way beyond raising his arms to protect his face. He made himself big, like a goalkeeper.

Had the ball struck him on the trunk like you say, then the position of his arms would be irrelevant.

Instead, a major part of the contact was with the underside of his upper arm, which caused the ball to be deflected.

Conceeding Alves-Malouda that's two legit penalties and two soft denied vs one sending off. I'd argue that going a man down when you still have to get on the scoreboard is a heavy blow and hence I think the shit refereeing was a wash or near enough.

If Chelsea get the two pens you are giving them, the odds are heavily in favour of them being 3-0 up. Even with only one goal from the two, they are in a position which Barcelona gave very little indication they could overcome with 11 men on the pitch.

[Jon AS]

Oh yeah, I forgot one or two funny details concerning the game yesterday. Bremen's 3rd goal was the first goal Hamburg conceded after a corner all season and Bremen only got that corner because Hamburg's Gravgaard missed the ball because it hit a piece of crumbled up paper thrown onto the pitch by a Hamburg supporter. You couldn't make this stuff up.

BTW, does anyone have a link to a video that shows Eto'o blocking Ballack's shot? Because I really don't recall him "making himself big". What I remember was Eto'o jumping into the shot while turning away with his arm close to his body and the ball hitting him in the area around the shoulder, but the only footage of the incident I can find on youtube is too small and grainy to tell, and none of the dozen or so videos I checked featured a replay of that particular moment.

[Paddy]

BTW, does anyone have a link to a video that shows Eto'o blocking Ballack's shot? Because I really don't recall him "making himself big". What I remember was Eto'o jumping into the shot while turning away with his arm close to his body and the ball hitting him in the area around the shoulder, but the only footage of the incident I can find on youtube is too small and grainy to tell, and none of the dozen or so videos I checked featured a replay of that particular moment.

I've been looking for one too, to no avail so far.

[lessthanluke]

And he'll never come close to repeating it.

While none of them are as good as that Essien has scored quite a few crackers in his time at Chelsea.

[mormont]

Really?

1: Alves fouled Malouda at least once before they got to the box, however, Malouda still had the advantage, therefore rightly, play should continue.

Malouda's advantage ended when Alves man-handled him to the ground from behind. This was a foul.

Alves was inside the penalty area and Malouda was inside the penalty area, with the possible exception for one of his feet, but only at the very start of the foul.

Therefore a penalty kick should have been awarded.

Haven't seen the incident, but from your description I am doubtful that this was a penalty.

If the ref was playing advantage, and none accrued, he has to pull play back to the beginning of the incident. That's the guidance they're given.

One could argue that the penalty is an advantage, of course, but this would only hold if the penalty incident was a completely separate passage of play rather than a continuation of the initial incident. Otherwise, whether a foul on the edge of the box is a penalty or not depends on where the incident ends, not where it began. While there are arguments for that, it is, unfortunately, contrary to the existing guidance. Besides, it would create an incentive for a fouled player to more or less drag the person fouling him into the box.

On a lighter note, I entered 'Chelsea' into my satnav. Turns out it's only two minutes from Rome. :P

[Paddy]

One could argue that the penalty is an advantage, of course, but this would only hold if the penalty incident was a completely separate passage of play rather than a continuation of the initial incident. Otherwise, whether a foul on the edge of the box is a penalty or not depends on where the incident ends, not where it began. While there are arguments for that, it is, unfortunately, contrary to the existing guidance. Besides, it would create an incentive for a fouled player to more or less drag the person fouling him into the box.

Hmmm, when does a passage of play end?

Alves fouled Malouda outside the box, but Malouda managed to keep on his feet, got control of the ball again and continued towards the goal.

It was then, once they had entered the box that Alves pulled him down. I thought that this second foul happened inside the box

In a way, it's the one passage of play, but they are two separate fouls, so I think it is a penalty. Apart from that, the referee gave the free kick right on the edge of the penalty area and several yards from where the first foul occurred.

It's interesting to encounter all the different opinions on the various penalty calls.

People in here, like Horza seem to be very convinced that #2 was not a foul, yet in other places people, e.g. former referee Dermot Gallacher, believe that one is almost as obvious as #3, (Pique's handball)

Then there is this clown (who claims to be a professional referee), who says he would not have given #3 as a handball. But then, the same guy thinks that #2 is a definite pen.

This guy seems to be resolute on the hand-to-ball thing which is not part of the rules and is demonstrably absurd as a final decider on handballs. (Think of a shot being stopped by the hand of an outfield player, standing on the goal-line, arms out wide, back to the play as the simple reason why).

I think the only thing that I have yet to see someone disagree with is that Abidal's red card was incorrect. Oh, and that Chelsea players' behaviour towards the referee at the end was a disgrace.

[mormont]

Hmmm, when does a passage of play end?

Well, that's one of those largely subjective questions for which you have a referee. ;)

It's interesting to encounter all the different opinions on the various penalty calls. [...]I think the only thing that I have yet to see someone disagree with is that Abidal's red card was incorrect.

Yeah, I agree. I think that the criticism of the ref has become over the top because of this. Lots of people are convinced Chelsea were 'robbed', but they don't actually agree which particular decision was to blame.

[Padraig]

This guy seems to be resolute on the hand-to-ball thing which is not part of the rules and is demonstrably absurd as a final decider on handballs

Hmmm. From the FIFA rules...

http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/affederati...6/lotg%5fen.pdf

Handling the ball involves a deliberate act of a player making contact with the ball with his hand or arm. The referee must take the following into consideration:

• 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 infringement

• touching the ball with an object held in the hand (clothing, shinguard etc.) counts as an infringement

• hitting the ball with a thrown object (boot, shinguard etc.) counts as an infringement

The rules are good in that they leave discretion to the referee. So while one can come up with some ridculous scenarios, the referee will also probably think those situations ridiculous and act accordingly. :)

[Paddy]

Yeah, I looked them up yesterday.

To me that says that "ball-to-hand" is not part of the rules. Instead, the referee must take into consideration the movement of the player's hand, the position of their hand and how long the player has had to react to the movement of the ball when making a decision.

I think the handling rules are very poorly written though (most of the rest of the Laws of the Game are written alright).

First, they leave a huge amount of room for interpretation.

I mean, reading that, it pretty much doesn't define any action as a handball. Everything is at the referee's discretion.

I don't mean to say that it would have been better for them to be strict about it: if we could always rely on the judgement of the referees to be fair, those rules would be perfect. And stricter rules would mean that situations would occur where the rules are wrong.

Even the wording of the points is confusing. Why have the parenthesised part in the first point? Who does it mean by "opponent" in the second point?

And the third one doesn't scan right to my eyes.

I assume that number 3 means that there are certain positions which a player's hand can be in and make contact with the ball, but be adjudged to not be hand ball, even if the player's hand is moving? (e.g. if he is holding it immediately next to his body, face or groin)?

Surely the rule should say something like:

When deciding what is or is not an infringement, the referee must take the following into consideration:

* the movement of the player's hand relative to the ball

* the distance between the player and the last position where the ball changed direction

* the position of the player's hand relative to their head, torso or legs

Touching the ball with a held or thrown object counts as an infringment.

[john]

So you can't rip off your boot or shinguard and throw it to deflect a goalbound shot? That's good to know. :lol:

What if you kicked off your boot though?

[Mathis]

And he'll never come close to repeating it.

Why not? Its not the first time he's scored with wonder strikes. He did it against Arsenal a few years back and also against Valencia.

[Padraig]

Yeah, I looked them up yesterday.

To me that says that "ball-to-hand" is not part of the rules. Instead, the referee must take into consideration the movement of the player's hand, the position of their hand and how long the player has had to react to the movement of the ball when making a decision.

That's funny. Even when people read the rules, they interpret them differently. I would say the that rule is all about differentiating between "ball to hand" and "hand to ball".

The rule can be summarised by the first line even. "Handling the ball involves a deliberate act of a player making contact with the ball with his hand or arm", since it uses the word deliberate.

At the same time, if I interpret that rule correctly, I think its even harder than I thought to get a handball.

[Paddy]

The rule can be summarised by the first line even. "Handling the ball involves a deliberate act of a player making contact with the ball with his hand or arm", since it uses the word deliberate.

Yeah. I thought this too and then the rest of the section describes what the referee must take into consideration to determine if the contact is deliberate.

At the same time, if I interpret that rule correctly, I think its even harder than I thought to get a handball.

Indeed.

The rules seem to be very clear on the "deliberate" aspect of the foul, but that does not seem to be exactly in line with common sense.

I mean, I can imagine a way in which a player's hand stops a certain goal, but it is clearly not deliberate.

Imagine a defender who has slipped and fallen over onto his front in front of his goal and happens to be facing his own goal. He places his hands on the ground to lift his upper body off the ground, so that he can get back up. Unbeknownst to him, an attacker has taken a shot at the goal, but the path of shot is such that it hits the defender's arm and only his arm and is deflected away.

The referee has had a good view of all that happens. What should he do?

Clearly, the ball has made contact with the ball here, but just as clearly, it was not deliberate. It is my opinion that a penalty should be awarded in this instance to the attacking team, and the defender should not be disciplined.

I don't see any provision for that in the rules though, so do other people agree or disagree with me and if you disagree, is it because of the law as written or do you genuinely think that such an event does not warrant a penalty. Also, if what I describe occurred in a real match, which do you think is more likely: that the penalty is awarded or is not awarded?

[Paddy]

What if you kicked off your boot though?

Hmm, "Interpretation of the Laws of the Game and Guidelines for Referees" uses the verb "thrown".

I don't think you can really interpreted a kicked off boot as being thrown.

If we're being literal, that is.